Condictio claims and the general clause

Equalization and not punishment — the purpose of a condictio claim is the restitution of what was received without legal grounds.

When one person is enriched at the expense of another without a legal basis, the law provides an instrument to correct this imbalance — the condictio claim. Articles 976-991 of the Civil Code organize this institution into four types of condictio and one general reservation. In practice, however, the main question is different: when can one rely on these norms at all.

System: four types of condictio and one reservation

The norms governing unjust enrichment are in Chapter 3 of Book 2 of the Special Part of the Civil Code. According to doctrine and judicial practice, they are grouped as follows:

• Condictio of performance — Articles 976-981;
• Condictio of interference — Articles 982-985;
• Condictio of expenses — Articles 986-987;
• Complex condictio (relationships between three persons) — Articles 988-990;
• General reservation — Article 991.

General reservation — why the system is open

Article 991 exists so that the list in the Code does not become exhaustive. It covers all cases of unjust enrichment that are not directly regulated by the preceding articles. Enrichment can be expressed both in the receipt of a benefit and in the saving of an expense — the latter often goes unnoticed in practice, although it is precisely what creates a claim when the defendant's property has not formally increased.

Three prerequisites common to all condictions

To give rise to a condictional obligation, the following must be established: (a) the enrichment of one person — the acquisition of a legal benefit or the saving of property; (b) enrichment at the expense of another person; (c) the absence of a legal basis, which either did not exist from the beginning or subsequently ceased to exist.

According to the practice of the Supreme Court, the culpability, good faith, or lawfulness of the actions of the participants is of no importance — only the objective result is important. In this, a condiction differs fundamentally from a delict: a delict provides for full compensation for damages, while a condiction provides only for the equalization of the advantage that was unjustly obtained.

Subsidiarity — the main barrier

This is the place where lawsuits are most often dismissed. According to the formulation of the Cassation Chamber, condictio provisions appear as norms establishing a claim only when the court concludes that the application of another, more specific norm is excluded — be it a contractual, possessory, vindicatory, or delictual basis.

The practical conclusion is simple: condictio is checked last in a lawsuit. If there is a valid contract between the parties and the claim arises from it, a reference to unjust enrichment will not save the claim.

Three details that often decide the case

Article 361.1 — Every performance implies the existence of an obligation. This is a legal presumption and distributes the burden of proof: the absence of an obligation must be proven by the claimant.

Article 981 — The respondent can defend themselves by the absence of enrichment. This defense does not apply if they knew about the defect in the legal basis, i.e., acted in bad faith.

Article 128.3 — The general ten-year statute of limitations applies to a claim arising from unjust enrichment. It is precisely for this reason that condictio often remains the only way when a contractual or delictual claim is already time-barred.

Where it manifests in practice

Restitution of payments made based on a void transaction; refund of commissions unjustifiably charged by a bank or microfinance organization; settlement of another person's debt; reimbursement of expenses incurred on another person's property. In all these cases, the correct qualification of the claim — which condictio and which article — directly affects the outcome.

Nikoloz Pkhaladze

Attorney · Founder, Managing Partner

24g Al. Kazbegi Ave., AXIS, 10th floor, Tbilisi · +995 597 117 795 · www.pkhaladze-law.ge