Hotline2 405 505

News

Thursday, 31 July, 2025
Share

Khazaradze and Japaridze Suffer Another Defeat in the Anaklia Port Dispute at Washington Arbitration

Mamuka Khazaradze and Badri Japaridze have once again lost a legal battle over the Anaklia Port project—this time at the Washington-based International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), an arbitration institution affiliated with the World Bank.

The tribunal fully upheld the Georgian government’s position and ruled that the failure to realize the Anaklia Deep Sea Port project was entirely the responsibility of Khazaradze, Japaridze, and their partners. The ruling stated there was no evidence of interference by the Georgian government.

The ICSID tribunal accepted the legal arguments presented by the Ministry of Justice of Georgia and found that:

  • The responsibility for financing the project rested solely with the investor, who failed to secure the necessary funds for reasons of their own.
  • All commercial risks related to the project were borne exclusively by the investor.
  • The Georgian government acted lawfully in terminating the contract, as the investor repeatedly failed to meet extended deadlines for raising capital. It was proven that the state provided consistent support for the Anaklia project throughout the contract period.
  • The criminal proceedings against Khazaradze and Japaridze for alleged money laundering were not challenged in the arbitration process.
  • The state did not obstruct any efforts to attract foreign investment, including from a U.S.-based fund, for the Anaklia Development Consortium.

In this arbitration, Bob Meyer—a Dutch partner of Khazaradze and Japaridze—had demanded $64 million in damages. The tribunal not only rejected his claim but also ordered him to pay $6.5 million to the Georgian government.

This decision follows a similar outcome one year ago, when the Anaklia Development Consortium lost its case in Paris arbitration. In that instance, the consortium had sought $1.5 billion in damages from the Georgian state. The Paris tribunal fully dismissed their claims and instead ordered them to pay $650,000 to the government. The claimants did not appeal and subsequently paid the awarded sum—effectively acknowledging their failure in executing the Anaklia Port project.

Other News

Share
Print

Strasbourg Court Declares Complaints on Independence and Impartiality of Supreme Court Judges of Georgia Inadmissible

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld the legal position presented by Georgia’s Ministry of Justice and, based on the submitted evidence, declared the complaints in Pirtskhalava and Y v. Georgia and Goginashvili v. Georgia inadmissible.

In these applications, the complainants alleged that one of the judges of the Supreme Court who examined their cases was biased. Additionally, the applicants in Pirtskhalava and Y claimed that Judge Sh.T. had not been appointed in accordance with the law.

The ECHR accepted the arguments of the Ministry of Justice and declared all three complaints regarding judicial impartiality inadmissible. In its decision, the Strasbourg Court reviewed the reforms undertaken by the Georgian authorities since 2012 to improve the justice system. In particular, it highlighted reforms such as: lifetime judicial appointments, improvements in the procedures for the appointment and promotion of judges, strengthening the role and functional independence of the High Council of Justice, and constitutional amendments that further refined the selection and appointment procedures for Supreme Court judges.

It is worth noting that the ongoing legal proceedings against Irakli Pirtskhalava concern the criminal case related to the murder of Buta Robakidze. Pirtskhalava additionally alleged that his criminal trial had been unfair, arguing that he had not been given the opportunity to question his former co-defendants and other witnesses or effectively challenge the evidence. The Strasbourg Court found no indication of a violation of his right to a fair trial and therefore declared his additional complaints inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.