Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Georgia

A Ukrainian commercial court entered a monetary judgment against a Georgian company. The creditor applied in Georgia for recognition and enforcement, while the debtor raised objections about foreign procedural fairness and evidence evaluation.

In case A-3679-Sh-102-2017 of 8 January 2018, the Court allowed the application. It examined notice, the foreign decision’s finality and enforceability, and statutory refusal grounds; it did not reassess the original contract dispute on its merits.

The judgment cited international arrangements in force in 2018, including provisions of the Minsk Convention. Current treaty relations and Georgian private-international-law rules must be verified separately. Do not assume a cited 2018 treaty still governs a present application.

The 2018 proceedings help distinguish the review of recognition conditions from the original commercial controversy about defective goods. The debtor had an opportunity to participate in the foreign process, but sought to reopen concerns about evidence and procedure in the Georgian recognition proceedings. The Court focused on the legally relevant grounds for recognition and enforceability. For a present-day application, determine the applicable treaty or domestic rules as of today, not simply those cited in 2018. After recognition, actual collection remains a separate commercial risk dependent on reachable assets and enforcement measures.

Check the authenticated decision, proof of service, finality and enforceability, translations, the applicable treaty and information on assets in Georgia.

In the reported matter the Georgian debtor objected to aspects of the foreign court process and the treatment of underlying evidence. A recognition proceeding is not generally a new hearing of the commercial merits. A useful objection must be tied to a legally relevant recognition ground, such as applicable service or public-order requirements, and supported by documents. A creditor should prepare proof of enforceability and participation or notification in the foreign proceedings before filing. For a new matter, the treaty landscape and domestic rules may differ from the historical judgment. Both sides should also identify assets, because a favourable recognition ruling is not equivalent to a successful collection campaign.