Journal of Law
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Faculty of Law Journal of Law #2, 2012 UDC(uak) 34(051.2) s-216 Editor-in-Chief Besarion Zoidze (Prof., TSU) Editorial Board: Levan Alexidze (Prof.,TSU) Giorgi Davitashivili (Prof., TSU) Avtandil Demetrashvili (Prof.,TSU) Mzia Lekveishvili (Prof., TSU) Guram Nachkebia (Prof., TSU) Tevdore Ninidze (Prof., TSU) Nugzar Surguladze (Prof.,TSU) Lado Chanturia (Prof., TSU) Giorgi Khubua (Prof.) Lasha Bregvadze (T. Tsereteli Institute of State and Law, Director) Irakli Burduli (Prof.,TSU) Paata Turava (Prof.) Gunther Teubner (Prof., Frankfurt University) Lawrence Friedman (Prof., Stanford University) Bernd Schünemann (Prof., Munich University) Peter Häberle (Prof., Bayreuth University) © Tbilisi University Press, 2013 ISSN 2233-3746 Table of Contents Elza Chachanidze Accusation of a Crime against Property…………………………………..…………………………….5 Lela Janashvili The State of Autonomies and the Nation of Nations (Historical Preconditions and Perspectives ……………………………………………………...…….15 Lana Tsanava Regionalism as the Form of Territorial Organization of the State ……………………………………31 Tamar Gvaramadze Sanctions for Tax Code Violations …………………………………..………………………………..48 Sergi Jorbenadze Order of the President of Georgia as the Data Containing Privacy …………………………………...67 Jaba Usenashvili Problem of Realisation of Right for Privacy In the Process of Implementation of Operative-search Measures Controlled by the Court ……….…77 Koba Kalichava Strategic Aspects of Improving Ecological Legislation ……………………………………………..102 Giorgi Makharoblishvili M & A’s Constructive Effect on Joint Stock Companies ….……………………………………..…112 Ana Kharaishvili Partnerships’ Legal Status in Systemic-Comparative Context …………………………….………..147 Ana Ramishvili Corporativeness as the Element Determining the Corporate Legal System ………………...……….163 Davit Maisuradze Systemic-Comparative Analysis of Hybrid-Type Companies (Comparative-Legal Study Predominantly on the Example of Delaware and Georgian Corporate Law) ………………………………………………………………………………………182 Kakha Palavandishvili Transformation of Origination of Property on Immovable Objects (Real Estate) in Georgian Legislation ………………………………………………………………197 Zakaria Shvelidze Prohibition of Employment Discrimination in Accordance with the Georgian Legislation ………...220 Guram Nachkebia The Problem of Objective Imputation in Criminal Law ……………………………………………..250 Ketevan Mchedlishvili - Hedrikh For a Problem of a Crime Committing Place in Criminal Law of Media …………………………...260 Irine Kherkheulidze Juvenile Delinquency and the Causes of Delinquency within the Institute of Juvenile Justice ……………………………………………………………………………………267 Besarion Zoidze Contribution by Professor Lado Chanturia into Development of Civilized Opinion ……………..…293 4 Elza Chachanidze* Accusation of a Crime against Property 1 Introduction Theft has been of the most common crimes. According to Vakhtang Batonishvili there can be different varieties of crimes: "theft can be of different sorts and kind, and it would take long to list all of them. Not all thefts are equal." (Vakhtang Batonishvili’s Law Book, Article 150).1 Since the Law Book is based on the casuistrical system the legislator deems it impossible, as we can see, to list every case. Due to this diversity, not every type of theft is "equal".2 The reference to the non-uniformity of theft makes us think that responsibility for different types of theft should have been different as well. Vakhtang Batonishvili distinguishes three types of theft (Article 151, burglary, while the spouses were at home, Article 152 – theft committed on the way to the war battle, and Article 153 – robbing a lady by removing jewelry3 while prescribes the payment of seven times the value/amount for other types of theft than the above-mentioned ones. Further, the breaking in the church, destruction of a cross and an icon, breaking in the ruler’s cashier’s box should be regarded to be other types of theft as well, about which Vakhtang Batonishvili mentions that he does not address such types of thefts: "We have not prescribed anything with regard to breaking in the church, destruction of a cross and an icon, breaking in a ruler’s cashier box; ruler and Catholicos can impose the amount of payment charge as they wish."4 The referenced provision indicates that the legislator sets forth different responsibility and distinguishes the theft of state and church property from the theft of an individual’s property. This means that the majority of thefts committed against private individuals falls under the category of delict, and all cases of theft of state and church property should be regarded as public delict. In this case, too, the type of delict is determined not by an action per se, but according to the affected party. Piracy5 is * Assistant Professor, Doctoral Student of the TSU Law Faculty. 1 Georgian Legal Monuments, Volume 1, Vakhtang VI Law Books Collection, Text published, Study and Vocabulary provided by Professor Dolidze I., Tbilisi, 1963, 519. 2 Means equal. Chubinashvili D., Georgian-Russian Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Prepared for Printing and Foreword by Shanidze A., Tbilisi, 1984, 1204. 3 Georgian Legal Monuments, Volume 1, Vakhtang VI Law Books Collection, Text published, Study and Vocabulary provided by Professor Dolidze I., Tbilisi, 1963, 519. 4 Ib., 520. 5 Piracy – plundering, robbing. Chubinashvili D., Georgian-Russian Dictionary, 2nd Edition, prepared for Printing and Foreword by Shanidze A., Tbilisi, 1984, 699; Pirate – Extortioner. Orbeliani S.S., Georgian Dictionary, Volume I, prepared according to Autographic Lists, Study and the Index Part included by Abuladze I., Tbilisi, 1991, 461. Elza Chachanidze, Accusation of a Crime against Property distinguished separately under the crimes against property, which fell under one of the grave crimes according to the prescribed punishment. In this case we are interested in the defamation of crimes against property as a delict; whether there are the provisions in the old Georgian law that set responsibility for the accusation of theft, or piracy and if existent, what sanctions were envisaged and which types of delict can they be attributed to. Further, based on the variety of thefts can different responsibility be observed in relation to the accusation of theft? 2 Accusation of Crimes against Property as a Delict David Batonishvili considers accusation of theft as grave "case", along with state crimes. "The definition 3 – it is regarded to be a grave crime6 if someone accuses another person wrongfully of disloyalty towards the king, or the law, or accuses of theft, or assistance with breaking in a fortress, or for keeping correspondence etc. with the enemy."7 If the legislator treats accusation of theft as a grave "case", this makes us think that such action was subject to punishment. We have mentioned the variety of theft above. It is interesting what type of accusation of theft David Batonishvili mean, does this apply only to the accusation of theft from state and church, or any type of theft is implied. In the referenced provision along with theft only the accusation of theft of state property is indicated, that makes us think that when legislator talks about the accusation of theft in this case he may have in mind accusation of theft of state and church property. This justification is reinforced by another circumstance; Article 1558 of Vakhtang Batonishvili’s Law Book sets forth special responsibility for the theft of state and church property that indicates that such types of theft are declared as state crimes. If we follow this idea then it should not be a surprise why David Batonishvili considers accusation of theft to be a grave crime. But this is just an assumption which could be proven in case the provisions or court rulings can be identified that set forth different responsibility for the theft of state and church property. Agbuga Law Article 86(1) is a banning provision, where sanction is not indicated. At a glance, we may get an impression that accusation of theft was not punishable. Agbuga law – [in case of accusation of theft] - 86. "If a man accuses another person of theft, without being sure, he is doing a wrongful action."9 Being sure means whether the person is convinced.10 When this 6 Action – activity, act. Chubinashvili D., Georgian-Russian Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Prepared for Printing and Foreword by Shanidze A., Tbilisi, 1984, 1131. 7 David Batonishvili Law, Text published and Research added by Purtseladze D., Tbilisi, 1964, 154. 8 Georgian Legal Monuments, Volume 1, Vakhtang VI Law Books Collection, Text published, Study and Vocabulary provided by Professor Dolidze I., Tbilisi, 1963, 520. 9 Ib.,459. 10 Orbeliani S.S., Georgian Dictionary, Volume I, prepared according to Autographic Lists, Study and the Index Part included by Abuladze I., Tbilisi, 1991, 212. 6 Journal of Law, #2, 2012 Article is considered in entirety the following conclusion can be made, in the first part the legislator talks about making charges, when a person does not have sufficient grounds for this, it may mean such case when a person conscientiously is wrong about the culpability of another person, and in such case accusation of theft was not punishable. The reason for such assumption is the lack of a sanction in a provision and an indication that such action is "improper"11 and a person should not commit it. And in case an individual does not believe the accused person’s oath or the words of witnesses and continues with accusation his action would then be subject to punishment.