Court Jurisdiction in Georgia: How to Choose the Proper Court

Choosing the correct court is one of the essential prerequisites of civil proceedings in Georgia. Before filing a claim, a claimant must work out which right they seek to protect and against whom. They must also establish whether the dispute falls within the court’s authority at all, and which court should hear it. Getting this wrong may lead to the case being transferred to another court, delays and procedural complications.

Choosing the proper court involves two steps. The first is to understand the key concepts of competence, cognizability and jurisdiction. The second is to apply the statutory rules that identify the specific court, including in disputes with a foreign element.

Three Key Concepts

Choosing a court under Georgian law involves three related but distinct concepts: (i) the competence of the court; (ii) cognizability (jurisdictional competence); and (iii) jurisdiction (venue).

Competence of the Court

In the broad sense, competence means the full set of powers, defined by law, within which a court administers justice. When assessing competence, the relevant questions are:

• whether the dispute is subject to consideration by a court at all;
• whether it falls within the system of common courts;
• which instance is authorised to hear the case;
• which court and, where the law provides, which specialised chamber (panel) should hear it;
• within which territorial limits the court may act.

Competence is a general umbrella concept rather than a precisely defined procedural term. For any specific issue, it is necessary to identify the exact statutory concept that applies: cognizability, jurisdiction or instance-level authority.

Cognizability: Is This a Matter for the Court?

Cognizability answers a basic question: should the dispute be heard by a court, or does the law assign it to another body or mechanism? Article 11 of the Civil Procedure Code covers, among others, civil, family and labour disputes and other disputes provided for by law. Courts hear these cases unless the law assigns them to another body. Article 12 also allows parties to refer a private-law property dispute to arbitration by agreement, subject to statutory conditions.

What decides cognizability is the legal nature of the dispute, not the label the parties have given the claim. For example, a claim for performance of a contract or for compensation for damage requires an assessment of whether it arises from a private-law relationship. A challenge to a decision of an administrative body, by contrast, will as a rule be examined under the rules of administrative proceedings.

Jurisdiction: Which Court Exactly?

Jurisdiction, in the narrow procedural sense, asks which specific court should hear a dispute that is cognizable by the courts. In practice, it has four dimensions:

This classification is a practical tool for analysis. The Civil Procedure Code does not define each of these terms separately.

Choosing the Specific Court

Once it is clear that a dispute is a matter for the common courts, the next step is to identify the specific court that should hear it. This requires looking at the category of the case, the content of the claim, the status of the parties and the facts of the dispute.

Court of First Instance and Magistrate Judges

Under Article 13 of the Code, district (city) courts hear civil cases at first instance unless the law provides otherwise. Under Article 14, magistrate judges hear: (i) property disputes with a claim value not exceeding GEL 5,000; (ii) uncontested and simplified proceedings defined by law, subject to exceptions; and (iii) certain family-law disputes, subject to exceptions. Both the type of claim and its value must therefore be checked.

General Rule: The Defendant’s Place of Residence

Under Article 15(1) of the Code:

• claims against a natural person are, as a rule, filed at the defendant’s place of residence;
• claims against a legal entity are filed at its location (seat);
• in non-contentious proceedings, the place of residence of the person against whom the application is directed applies.

If the defendant has no place of residence, the claim may be heard at their place of stay in Georgia. If that is unknown, it may be filed at their last place of residence. For example, a debt claim against an individual living in Kutaisi would start from that rule, but the claimant must first check whether a special rule applies.

Special and Exclusive Jurisdiction

Articles 16–19 of the Code set out cases where the place of hearing is determined differently:

The Supreme Court has held that special rules may exclude the general rule and take precedence over it. However, not every special rule removes the claimant’s choice. Some offer an alternative court, while others are exclusive, so the wording of each provision is decisive.

The Claimant’s Choice and Agreements on Jurisdiction

Under Article 20, where several courts have jurisdiction, the claimant chooses between them. This applies only where the law genuinely allows alternative courts; it does not allow filing anywhere. Under Article 21, where the competent court is not unambiguously determined, the parties may agree on jurisdiction in writing. A court lacking jurisdiction may also hear a case if the defendant consents and the statutory safeguards are met. An agreement, however, cannot override a mandatory rule that conclusively fixes the competent court.

Change of Jurisdiction and Transfer of the Case

A court that properly accepts a case must decide it on the merits, even if the case later falls within another court’s jurisdiction (Article 22). Article 23 lists the grounds for transfer, including, where the law provides, a request by the defendant, and cases where judges cannot be replaced following recusal. Under Article 24, the receiving court must accept a transferred case, and disputes over jurisdiction between courts are not permitted.

The Supreme Court has also held that accepting a claim does not prevent a later review of jurisdiction and a transfer to the competent court. Any transfer must, however, rest on a specific legal ground, not merely on another court being more convenient.

Disputes with a Foreign Element

Where a party is foreign, the contract is performed abroad or the property is located in a foreign country, the Georgian courts’ international competence must be established first. International competence takes three forms:

Outside exclusive competence, the parties may agree in writing on a Georgian or foreign court. Competence may also arise if the defendant takes part in the hearing on the merits without contesting it. If there is a valid arbitration agreement, the court must, on the defendant’s motion, leave the claim without consideration. If the same dispute is already pending abroad and the foreign judgment is expected to be recognised in Georgia, the Georgian court may suspend or terminate the proceedings (lis pendens).

According to the Supreme Court, courts must examine international competence on their own initiative when accepting a claim. A breach of the Georgian courts’ exclusive competence is an independent ground for refusing recognition of a foreign judgment.

Choosing the proper court is not merely a technical matter; it is part of the constitutional right to a lawful court. It requires a step-by-step assessment:

The defendant’s place of residence or seat is only a starting point. Special and exclusive rules, the claimant’s choice and the parties’ agreement all operate within limits set by law. A clear distinction between competence, cognizability and jurisdiction, together with a timely analysis when preparing a claim, reduces the risk of transfer and delay and, in international disputes, of refusal to recognise the judgment abroad.