Logo

The Path of Development of Legislation on the Protection of Ownership Rights over Immovable Property and Certain Intangible Property Benefits

ბარამიძე.jpg
Giorgi Baramidze

Doctoral Candidate of David Aghmashenebeli University of Georgia, Lawyer

Abstract

The studies conducted in the process of creating the present paper confirmed that, after the regaining of independence by Georgia, at the very initial stage, a number of important steps were taken in order to ensure the protection of the right to property, to which the legislative activities carried out during that period made their contribution.

However, instead of continuing the positive tendency of protecting property rights, especially the rights to immovable property and certain intangible property benefits, a whole series of legislative acts adopted later, in a number of cases, resulted in the infringement of the rights of owners, which gave rise to the problem of exercising the right of ownership over immovable property as well as certain intangible property benefits.

For this very reason, the issue of the necessity for the further improvement and development of the existing legislation in relation to immovable property and certain intangible benefits still remains on the agenda..

Keywords: immovable, movable, intangible, property, right, protection.

References

  1. Chanturia L., Ownership of Immovable Property (on the Example of German Law). Tbilisi, 1994, p. 182. (in Georgian);
  2. Shengelia R., Issues of Georgian Financial Law. No. 1, Tbilisi, 1992, p. 23. (in Georgian);
  3. Zoidze B., Property Law. Tbilisi, 1999, pp. 63–64. (in Georgian);
  4. Liluashvili T., Khrustali V., Commentary on the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia. Second Edition. Publishing House “Samartali”, Tbilisi, 2007, p. 45. (in Georgian);
  5. Winter G., Adeishvili Z., Kitoshvili D., Commentary on the General Administrative Code of Georgia. Tbilisi, 2002, p. 13. (in Georgian);
  6. Veshapidze, Sh., “Ilia Chavchavadze’s Concept of Universal Welfare Oriented toward European Values,” Journal: “New Economist” #47, 2017, p. 35.
  7. Decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia of 2 July 2007, Case N1/2/384. (in Georgian);
  8. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 21 February 1986, in the case of James and Others v. the United Kingdom, paragraph 54.
  9. Tbilisi City Court, Civil Cases Panel, Case #2.2466-14 (3/433-14), Ruling of 14 February 2014. (in Georgian);
  10. The Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report, Georgia, September 2007, “Controversy over Property Rights Continues,” p. 14.
  11. Annual Report of the Public Defender of Georgia, 2006, p. 383. (in Georgian);
  12. Annual Report 2007 of the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (Rule of Law for Justice), pp. 35–36. (in Georgian);
  13. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 23 September 1982, in the case of Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden.
  14. Decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia #2/1-370, 382, 390, 402, 404 of 18 May 2007 (Citizens of Georgia Zaur Elashvili, Suliko Mashia, Rusudan Gogia and others v. the Parliament of Georgia). (in Georgian);
  15. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 7 July 1989, in the case of Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag v. Sweden.
  16. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 26 June 1986, in the case of Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands.

Share on social media:

The New Economist, N2, 2026, Vol. 21, Issue 2.

გარეკანი-11.jpg
pdf
Published Date:

07/07/2026

Copyright (c) 2026 Giorgi Baramidze

Creative Commons

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Article Views: 5