A Mareva injunction — the common-law freezing order that bars a respondent from dissipating assets before judgment — does not exist under that name in Georgian law. Georgia's Civil Procedure Code performs the same function through security-of-claim measures, above all seizure of the respondent's property, securities and monetary funds wherever they are held, including with third persons. This page explains how that mechanism works under Articles 191, 192, 198 and 199 of the Code.
Grounds for applying the measure
Under the first part of Article 191, the claimant applies to the court with a statement indicating the circumstances by which the failure to apply a security measure will impede or make impossible the enforcement of the judgment or the exercise of the violated or disputed right, or will cause irreparable and direct damage, or damage that cannot be compensated by imposing compensation on the respondent. The application must also justify which specific measure the claimant considers necessary.
The application of the measure rests on the court's presumption that the claim may be satisfied — a presumption that does not pre-decide the merits and has no effect on the final decision. Where seizure of immovable property is requested, the application must be accompanied by a public-registry extract or a document confirming the respondent's ownership; if it is missing, or the state fee unpaid, the court grants a cure deadline and otherwise leaves the application unexamined.
The catalogue of freezing measures
Under the second part of Article 198, the court chooses the measure according to the claimant's request: seizure of the respondent's property, securities or monetary funds, wherever held — with the respondent or with third persons; prohibition of defined acts by the respondent; sequestration — compulsory administration of property; a prohibition addressed to third persons to transfer property to the respondent or perform obligations towards him; suspension of realisation where a claim for release from seizure has been brought; and suspension of the operation of a disputed act of a state or municipal organ.
For sequestration, the Constitutional Court's decision of 30 September 2016 declared unconstitutional the normative content that allowed the measure where the protected good did not exceed the damage inflicted on the opposing party. Where necessary, the court may apply other measures too and allow several types of security simultaneously. There are statutory boundaries: the measures do not extend to financial collateral, to certain prize funds and to other protected assets, and, on the basis of a National Bank directive, they are not applied against a bank in a resolution regime and applied measures are suspended for a period not exceeding 90 days.