Court practice on enforcing a foreign arbitral award in Georgia for US creditors: key takeaways

When a US creditor obtains an arbitral award against a Georgian counterparty and turns to Georgian courts for enforcement, it enters a legal environment that is formally aligned with international arbitration standards but operationally more demanding than the treaty framework alone might suggest. Georgia acceded to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and has adopted arbitration legislation modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet developing court practice reveals a series of procedural and substantive chokepoints that US creditors frequently underestimate, often at the cost of delay, added expense, or, in the most adverse cases, a refused recognition petition.

Georgia's Common Courts hear recognition and enforcement petitions for foreign arbitral awards through a procedure that requires the petitioner to demonstrate compliance with the formal requirements of the New York Convention and the domestic arbitration framework. In practice, Georgian courts have applied these requirements with increasing scrutiny over the review period examined in this comment.

The procedural sequence begins with the filing of a recognition petition before the court of first instance of the respondent's domicile or, where the respondent lacks Georgian domicile, the court with territorial jurisdiction over the assets to be seized. The petitioner must submit the original or certified copy of the award and the arbitration agreement, accompanied by certified Georgian translations. Courts have, in some reviewed matters, insisted on notarisation standards for the translation that exceed what the New York Convention strictly requires, a point of friction for US creditors whose arbitral institutions may certify translations differently.

The procedural timeline from filing to first-instance decision has in practice extended to approximately six to twelve months in more complex matters, with appellate review adding further delay. Creditors who assume that a clean New York Convention award will convert rapidly into executable title frequently revise that expectation after first-instance proceedings.

Reviewing a series of enforcement matters from Georgian courts involving foreign creditors, two recurring patterns emerge that carry direct consequences for US claimants.

The first concerns the public policy ground for refusal. Georgian courts have interpreted the public policy exception more expansively than tribunals in many comparable jurisdictions. In several matters, courts applied this ground to scrutinise the substantive merits of the underlying award to a degree that approaches, without formally constituting, a merits review. Awards involving punitive or exemplary damages components – a feature more common in US-seated arbitrations than in institutional proceedings governed by English or continental rules – have attracted particular judicial attention. Courts have in some instances declined to recognise the full quantum of an award where the damages component was characterised as punitive, on the basis that such a measure is incompatible with principles of Georgian civil liability. US creditors whose awards include any element of punitive or multiplied damages should treat this as a live enforcement risk rather than a theoretical concern.

The second pattern concerns service and notice defences. Georgian courts have in practice been receptive to respondent challenges based on alleged deficiency of notice in the underlying arbitration – even where the arbitral tribunal had itself determined that notice was proper. Courts have on occasion treated notice compliance as a matter requiring independent judicial assessment rather than one finally determined by the tribunal's own findings. For US creditors enforcing ICC, AAA, or JAMS awards, this means that the procedural record from the arbitration itself – notices, service confirmations, procedural orders – must be compiled with Georgian enforcement in mind from the outset.

"The Georgian enforcement environment rewards preparation before the award is issued, not after. Creditors who enter enforcement proceedings without a complete procedural record and a clear answer on the damages characterisation question are taking an avoidable risk." — Giorgi Kavtaradze, Contributing Regional Analyst — Georgia, Vetrov & Partners

[CTA: If you hold a US-seated or ICC arbitral award against a Georgian counterparty and are assessing enforcement prospects, the evidentiary and procedural choices made at the pre-enforcement stage are material. Make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76]

The case practice surveyed points to three practical adjustments for US creditors.

First, awards should be reviewed for damages characterisation before enforcement proceedings commence. Where an award includes a component that could be characterised as punitive or non-compensatory under Georgian civil law concepts, experienced local counsel should assess whether that component is severable from the remainder, and whether a partial recognition petition preserving the compensatory quantum is the more reliable route.

Second, the procedural record from the arbitration must be treated as an enforcement document. Every notice, every service confirmation, every procedural order establishing that the respondent had proper opportunity to participate should be preserved and organised into a formal bundle at the close of the arbitral proceedings. Georgian courts' receptiveness to notice-based defences means that gaps in this record – even where the tribunal found no procedural deficiency – can prolong enforcement proceedings materially.

Third, asset intelligence should precede the recognition petition. Georgian courts with jurisdiction over assets are more predictable in their procedural handling than those with purely domicile-based jurisdiction over a respondent with limited local presence. Identifying and confirming the location of attachable assets before choosing the court of filing is a strategic step that local enforcement counsel should address before the petition is drafted.

For US creditors managing cross-border recovery across multiple jurisdictions in the region, the Georgia enforcement track should be assessed alongside related proceedings in [Enforcement of Foreign Awards in Kazakhstan](/jurisdictions/kazakhstan/enforcement/), [Enforcement in Armenia](/jurisdictions/armenia/enforcement/), and [Enforcement in Uzbekistan](/jurisdictions/uzbekistan/enforcement/), where procedural frameworks and judicial practice differ in material respects.

The firm's [Georgia practice page](/jurisdictions/georgia/) provides an overview of the full range of services available to foreign creditors and investors operating in Georgia, including [asset tracing and recovery](/jurisdictions/georgia/asset-recovery/), [cross-border disputes](/jurisdictions/georgia/disputes/), and [enforcement of foreign judgments and awards](/jurisdictions/georgia/enforcement/).

[CTA: To discuss enforcement strategy for a Georgian counterparty or to review the strength of an existing award for Georgian recognition proceedings, contact us at info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76]

• [Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Awards in Georgia](/jurisdictions/georgia/enforcement/)
• [Asset Tracing and Recovery in Georgia](/jurisdictions/georgia/asset-recovery/)
• [Enforcing Foreign Awards in Kazakhstan: Procedure and Practice](/jurisdictions/kazakhstan/enforcement/)

Q: What does this ruling change?

A: The pattern emerging from Georgian court practice clarifies that US creditors cannot treat a New York Convention award as automatically convertible into executable title on presentation. Georgian courts have in practice applied the public policy exception to scrutinise punitive or non-compensatory damages components, and have treated notice adequacy in the underlying arbitration as a question open to independent judicial assessment. These positions do not contradict Georgian treaty obligations in a formal sense, but they add procedural and substantive layers that are not always anticipated by creditors whose prior enforcement experience is in other common law or civil law jurisdictions. The practical change is that pre-enforcement preparation – including damages characterisation analysis and assembly of a complete procedural record – has become a functional prerequisite rather than an optional precaution.

Q: What should foreign companies do in light of this decision?

A: US creditors with live enforcement prospects in Georgia should take three steps before filing a recognition petition. First, instruct local Georgian enforcement counsel to review the award for any damages component that could be characterised as punitive under Georgian civil law, and to advise whether partial recognition is a preferable strategy. Second, compile the full procedural record from the arbitration – all notices, service confirmations, and procedural orders – into a formal enforcement bundle. Third, conduct an asset intelligence exercise to identify attachable assets and determine the most favourable court of filing. These steps are most effective when taken immediately after the award is issued, before the respondent has had opportunity to transfer or dissipate assets. Creditors who delay initiating enforcement proceedings after an award is issued risk losing priority over assets that may be subject to competing claims or voluntary dissipation.

Vetrov & Partners is a boutique law firm established in 2009, recognised by Pravo-300 for eight consecutive years and listed as a trusted adviser by the German Consulate General in Novosibirsk. The firm advises foreign creditors, institutional investors, and foreign companies on enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards across Russia and the former Soviet region, including Georgia.

The firm's [enforcement practice](/jurisdictions/georgia/enforcement/) covers recognition proceedings, asset tracing, and cross-border recovery strategy for creditors with counterparties in Georgia, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Uzbekistan. With over 1,000 matters handled since inception, the team provides partner-direct involvement on every engagement, with English-language communication throughout.

Enquiries: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp / Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76 | t.me/vitvetcom

We are a Russian-qualified law firm. For matters governed by Georgian law or requiring local admission in Georgia, we collaborate with trusted counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice under Russian or any other applicable law. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Vetrov & Partners is a Russian-qualified law firm. For matters governed by foreign law or requiring local admission in another jurisdiction, we collaborate with trusted counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@vetrovpartners.com.

— Giorgi Kavtaradze Contributing Regional Analyst — Georgia, Vetrov & Partners vetrovpartners.com/contributions/