Issues of Perfecting the Ranks of Legal Heirs in Georgian Legislation

Abstract

The article concerns the issue of the perfection of the ranks of legal heirs, the importance of marriage registration, and the prerequisites for its validity when receiving an inheritance. In Georgian reality, the law is often ignored, and spouses do not apply for official marriage registration in accordance with the procedure established by law when getting married. Marriage registration falls within the scope of state competence. For years, spouses have been living together in actual cohabitation, have children together, and are engaged in joint farming, but since they are not in a registered marriage, in the event of the death of one of the spouses, the other spouse cannot become his or her heir. The inheritance is received by the children of the deceased person or other relatives of the next order, while the surviving spouse remains without property, which, naturally, causes a great sense of injustice among people. This issue is one of the important and widespread problems in practice when talking about the improvement of the ranks of inheritance. It should be said how important the registration of marriage is for the emergence of rights and obligations between spouses, as well as for that particularly important right called the right to be an heir. The article discusses ways to equalize the actual cohabitation of spouses and registered marriage to improve the ranks of legal heirs.

Keywords: Inheritance, legal, marriage, registration, spouses, cohabitation.

Introduction

Roman jurists were already discussing issues related to marriage, arguing that matters related to marriage should be regulated with precision.[1] The development of Roman law underlies much of European law. Ancient Georgian law was influenced by religion, defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman to create a family and procreation.[2] According to modern Georgian law, legal rights and obligations arise for individuals after marriage registration.[3] An unregistered family can be created through the actual cohabitation of individuals, but the term marriage obliges individuals to register. Here the question arises as to what importance is attached to marriage registration. The state has established that civil registration is necessary for the legal validity of marriage. Based on the analysis of Georgian judicial and notarial practice, it should be said that problems with marriage registration particularly often arise during the conduct of inheritance cases after the death of one of the spouses. If a couple is not in a registered marriage, they are not considered each other’s heirs under the law, which creates certain contradictions regarding the issues of completing the ranks of legal heirs.

1. Issues of Perfecting the Ranks of Legal Heirs

Based on Article 48 of the Law on Civil Acts, marriage registration is carried out in accordance with the rules established by the relevant authority.[4] According to Article 312, Subparagraph “c”, Part Two of the Code of Civil Procedure of Georgia, the court is authorized to confirm the fact of marriage registration.[5] It should be noted that in the uncontested procedure, the court only establishes the fact of marriage registration. The court is not authorized to equate cohabitation with a registered marriage.[6] The Supreme Court of Georgia explained that the fact of marriage is determined by a combination of evidence.[7] According to Article 1107 of the Civil Code, marriage contains two conditions: marriageable age and the consent of the persons to be married.[8] The Supreme Court explained that before the official registration of marriage, various rights and obligations do not arise between spouses, including joint property.[9] When discussing the legal status of spouses in an unregistered (de facto) marriage, it should be noted that according to Georgian law, de facto cohabitation is not a prerequisite for the emergence of civil rights.[10] Often, couples limit themselves to a religious marriage (by baptism) and do not consider it necessary to register the marriage. In Georgian reality, there are frequent cases where a couple lives together for years, runs a common household, and has children, but in the event of the death of one spouse, the other spouse cannot become his or her heir.[11] Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Georgia states that for this law, a person in an unregistered marriage is also considered a family member if they are engaged in household activities together. This entry further obscures the legal nature of de facto marriage, as for criminal law purposes, a person in an unregistered marriage has other legal rights.[12] But in civil law, he has no rights. The question arises - if registered and unregistered marriages can be equated in criminal law, why can’t a similar approach be taken in civil law? If this one reason (common household) is a sufficient basis for criminalizing de facto and registered marriage, it would be fair if civil law also could equate registered and de facto marriages in special circumstances. Based on practice, it should also be regulated what kind of evidence will be required to make such a decision. There have been several decisions to equalize registered and de facto marriages, but none have been finalized.[13] One such case concerned the receipt of an inheritance, where the plaintiff requested the establishment of the fact of marriage, and accordingly the opening and receipt of the inheritance. The court of first instance satisfied the claim, guided by and explained that it was possible to equate registered and actual life under the decree of the Supreme Presidium of the Georgian SSR that existed before 1944. The second instance court explained that the court could have established a de facto marriage before 1944, but for this, the second spouse had to apply, not the interested party. Also noteworthy is the court decision regarding the division of property acquired in an unregistered marriage.[14] Despite the unregistered marriage, the Tbilisi Court of Appeals considered that the couple’s union went beyond the scope of de facto cohabitation and equated their relationship with a registered marriage. It made an interesting decision, based on which the spouse acquired the right to co-ownership of the property acquired during de facto cohabitation.[15] This ruling was motivated by a 1994 decision of the European Court of Human Rights, which stated that in the presence of relationships such as family and other types of relationships, an unregistered family may, in exceptional cases, be equated with a registered marriage, in which case state-established regulations are not necessary for the origin of the family.[16] The Supreme Court did not share this opinion and explained that the origin of property rights depends on the registration of marriage, which is unambiguously established by Article 1151 of the Civil Code.[17] It would be better, to protect the interests of couples, if the Georgian court goes beyond the norm's framework and chooses a fair decision. As early as 1994, the European Court of Human Rights explained that the registration of a marriage should not be decisive for a de facto marriage to be considered a family. The main thing is that the couple’s marriage meets such criteria as: jointly managing a common household, having children together, registering and living at the same address, etc. Georgian legislation is very strict about the obligation to register a marriage to obtain certain rights and obligations, including inheritance rights, which I find unfair. There are countries where, despite an unregistered marriage, couples still have rights.[18] For example, in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, citizens are given the freedom to choose between civil partnerships and marriage, and a special municipal service establishes and maintains a register for persons in unregistered marriages.[19] As for the American approach, it differs from state to state. In some states, a religious certificate is sufficient for marriage, but some states do not recognize de facto cohabitation and require registration for the validity of the marriage. Israeli law chooses a religious nature for marriage and its authority is exercised by the relevant hierarch. Based on the example of Italy, it can be said that this is a hybrid model where both religious and civil marriages operate. According to the current legislation in Georgia, no lever would legally equate a de facto (unregistered marriage) with a registered marriage. Simply stating that the couple was not in a registered marriage and therefore cannot become the heir of the deceased is unfair. The fact of marriage registration should not be the determinant of family relations, as is also confirmed by the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights. There are frequent cases when a couple’s marriage is registered not to create a family, but fictitiously, one such example being to obtain citizenship. In such a case, if one of the heirs dies, the spouse becomes his or her first-degree heir and inherits the inheritance rights, which I think is also unfair. It is necessary to have a possibility regarding this issue that would regulate such cases in notarial and judicial practice and would allow a person who was truly married, albeit without registration, to achieve a fair result, and accordingly become the full heir of his spouse. In special cases, the judge can make such an interpretation, and in doing so, he will not violate the general principles of law.[20] Such interpretations are easier for Anglo-American (common law) law countries, as they are more liberal in their interpretations, unlike judges in continental Europe. In Georgian law, I would like to highlight the ruling of the Court of Appeals of Georgia, which fairly explains the meaning of family and states that civil registration of marriage is not the only thing that is essential for a couple to be called a family. I believe that establishing such an explanation and a similar approach in practice will lead to a fair outcome for the couple and therefore protect their inheritance rights as spouses.[21] I think the only real solution is for an interested party to apply to the Constitutional Court to declare Article 1151 of the Civil Code unconstitutional. The interested person must indicate the real reason for his request, while the Constitutional Court, in turn, is obliged to examine the circumstances of the case and make a well-founded decision regarding the change in the content of the article, determine whether the article is within the framework of the Constitution or contradicts its principles, and in special cases, based on the conclusion of the European Court of Human Rights, an unregistered marriage should be equated with a registered marriage. It is also important to transfer to the person all the rights and obligations, including inheritance, that the couple would have had in the event of marriage registration, which will, to some extent, regulate the issues of perfecting the ranks of legal heirs. As we mentioned, when spouses have been in a de facto marriage for years, are registered at the same address, and have children together, but after the death of one of the spouses, the surviving spouse is restricted in their right to receive an inheritance due to the lack of marriage registration. The court’s approach to this issue is also rigid and does not allow for exceptions. It does not work in Georgian reality, and therefore the decisions are legal but less fair. The wording of Article 1151 of the Civil Code refers to “only” registered marriage, which limits other alternatives and rights, including the origin of inheritance rights of spouses. On September 12, 2018, Georgian citizen Tsiala Pertia filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court, requesting to declare Article 1151 of the Civil Code unconstitutional.[22] The plaintiff stated that he and his wife lived in his wife’s apartment from 1985 until her death (until 2014). Although their marriage was not registered, they lived as one family and met all the criteria for family life, which are also defined by the European Court of Human Rights. Despite the above-mentioned circumstances, the plaintiff did not receive the inheritance. The wife’s property was received by the testator’s sister and brother, who alienated it. Accordingly, the court of first instance decided to evict the plaintiff’s wife from the house, despite the spouses’ twenty-nine years of cohabitation. This approach creates a sense of injustice, as it restricts the right of inheritance recognized by the Constitution, is discriminatory, and contradicts both the Constitution, the Convention on Human Rights, and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. There is no exception in the legislation regarding this issue. The plaintiff points out that a spouse in de facto cohabitation should not be denied the right to inherit due to an unregistered marriage. It would have been important for the interested person to file a constitutional complaint regarding the content of Article 1336 of the Civil Code and demand that the spouse in an unregistered marriage be added to the ranks of the heirs. The Constitutional Court made a radically different decision, and the case did not even reach the substantive hearing. On October 29, 2008, the Constitutional Court of Georgia issued a ruling, by which the constitutional complaint of citizen Lia Surmava was not accepted for consideration on the merits.[23] According to the plaintiff Lia Surmava, she had been in a de facto, but unregistered, marriage with her husband since 1993, who died in 2005, and she was unable to receive the inheritance. He and his wife were married in a religious marriage (christening), and the plaintiff requested that the baptism certificate be equated with civil registration. The Constitutional Court did not even allow this request to be considered on the merits. It should be noted that certain approaches and views on this issue change over time. The Constitutional Court is facing a serious decision regarding the legal problem of equalizing registered and de facto marriage. If the Constitutional Court finds that a norm is unconstitutional and does not comply with fundamental human rights, then the legislature will have to establish new regulations and a procedure for resolving the issue fairly. The cohabitation of any two people should certainly not be considered an unregistered (de facto) marriage, but rather it should be supported by various criteria, which practice should regulate in each case. International practice also testifies to the fact that the state should not place individuals in unequal conditions. For example, if the right to inheritance is guaranteed by the constitution, a registered marriage should not be the only determinant for obtaining this right, since a person may become someone else’s heir completely by chance, even through a fictitious marriage. If based on legislative amendments, registered and de facto (unregistered) marriages are legally equalized, then the fact of the existence of marriage must be established by the court through an indisputable procedure. It should also be noted that establishing the fact of marriage registration is different from establishing the fact of unregistered (de facto) marriage.[24] If a provision is added to Article 312 of the Civil Code, which would allow the judge to establish the fact of a marriage, submit a statement from the interested party, and present relevant evidence, an unregistered marriage would be granted legal status and equated with a registered marriage. The burden of proof in this case will be on the applicant, which may be different.[25] Evidence may include witness testimony, a certificate of registration at a common address, a document confirming a religious marriage (e.g., a baptismal certificate), birth certificates of common children, and any other document that will help a party confirm a family relationship with a spouse in an unregistered marriage. As noted in the article, a lawsuit was being considered in the Constitutional Court of Georgia, which requested the legal equalization of a religious marriage with a civil marriage, which was rejected.[26] As for religious marriage issues, according to the Law of December 3, 1920: “On the Registration of Civil Status Acts”, religious marriages were terminated and their registration is necessary for the validity of the marriage. In Georgia, the equalization of civil marriages and religious marriages has numerous supporters and opponents. In many European countries, religious marriage is equated with civil marriage. Although the canonical and civil-legal understandings of marriage differ, the document itself, on the one hand, a religious marriage certificate and on the other hand a civil marriage certificate, is identical in content, since both documents contain the same style of requisites, the signatures of witnesses (religiously - best men). If religious marriage and civil marriage (registered marriage) are to be equalized in terms of rights, it is essential that the principle of secularism is not violated and that this privilege is not limited to one religion. The approach of different countries around the world is different: there are countries where religious marriage is not prohibited, but a civil registration document creates a legal right. In Germany, religious marriage rituals are performed, a marriage certificate issued by a religious institution is not valid, and marriage is performed only according to the rules established by the state.[27] Until 1982, the only way to get married in Greece was through a canonical marriage, but later a hybrid approach was adopted, and both civil and religious marriages are considered legally valid.[28] Unlike German law, American law does not require a civil marriage. A religious institution issues a religious marriage certificate, for which a special license is required.[29] As for the Georgian approach, it is too rigid. I believe that religious marriage should acquire legal significance. I think the American approach to this issue is fair.

2. Foreign Practice and Comparative Review

As for international practice, inheritance rights are regulated differently in the case of unregistered marriages. It is worth noting that in some jurisdictions the legal system recognizes de facto cohabitation (so-called “common-law marriage” or “cohabitation”). Unregistered partners may have certain inheritance rights when they have lived together for a certain period and meet other criteria. For example, in the UK, an unregistered partner has the right to go to court and file an inheritance claim. To do this, he must provide evidence that they lived together as a family and were financially dependent on their deceased partner.[30]   In New Zealand, in the case of unregistered cohabitation, partners acquire certain inheritance rights if they have lived together for at least 3 years. Their relationship is considered a “de facto” relationship, which grants them rights similar to those of a registered marriage. Specific rights and claims depend on the length of the relationship and other circumstances. The rules for the distribution of property in the event of the death of a partner are regulated by the Relationships Property Act 2001.[31] European court decisions are the best example for regulating this issue. The state of Georgia is a party to the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; therefore, it has a kind of obligation to reflect all new approaches at the national (legislative or judicial) level. Just signing is not enough and it is necessary to check other prerequisites as well. Johnston and Others v. Ireland.[32] The European Court of Human Rights explained that the plaintiffs: Roy and Janice Johnston, have been living together for 15 years, their relationship was established outside of marriage, and they have a child together. They are covered by Article 8 of the Convention and are part of the term “family”, and therefore they are entitled to protection under this Article. One of the important decisions, based on its content, is Kroon and Others v. The Netherlands, in which the court explained that it is possible to have a so-called “de facto” family union, when the main thing is not necessarily living together, but also other essential criteria. In this decision, the court defined having children together as such an essential factor.[33] In the court decision X, Y, and Z v. The United Kingdom (X, Y, and Z v. The United Kingdom), the concept of “family life” was clarified and marriage cannot be the only basis for creating a family. Other objective circumstances are generally considered to be “family life”, such as living together for a long time, obligations arising towards each other, mutual support, and having children together.[34] One of the first decisions, Marckx v. Belgium,[35] explains that, if the relevant criteria are met, de facto cohabitation is the basis for family cohabitation, which gives rise to the right to inherit. The Georgian judicial body has adopted several decisions, which include quotations or various explanations, using specific precedents of the European Court.[36] The European Court of Human Rights explains that a family is not based solely on marriage and family life should not be defined based on the existence of civil registration, so it is unclear why Georgian legislation holds that only a registered marriage gives rise to rights and obligations, including the right to inherit.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be said: that based on the Georgian legislative approach, only through a registered marriage does a spouse acquire the right to be an heir. Unregistered multi-year de facto marriage should allow for the emergence of rights such as inheritance. The fact that a marriage is not registered should not be used as a basis for denying the surviving spouse the right to inherit the deceased’s estate. It is necessary to establish and evaluate the family relationship between them and have the court establish the fact of marriage. The rights of registered and unregistered marriages should be equalized in terms of procedure, and an amendment should be made to the Civil Procedure Code, which would state that a judge can establish the fact of marriage (and not just the fact of marriage registration, which is essentially different). Once the court decides and establishes the fact of marriage for a couple in an unregistered marriage, in accordance with the Civil Code, the parties will be assigned the rights and obligations that would exist in the event of a registered marriage, including the right to inheritance. It would be appropriate if Georgian legislation also considered the American approach. In reality, a religious marriage certificate and a civil marriage certificate have the same content and purpose, therefore, I believe that these two documents of the same style should be legally equalized, which will lead to the perfection of the ranks of legal heirs. This opinion is also supported by the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights. I believe that any legislative norm should be maximally tailored to the individual and justice, such an approach would be fairer. If a person, due to their religious or other beliefs, does not wish to register a marriage as provided for by civil law, they should not be deprived of the rights and obligations they would have had if registered. The protection of human rights is an ongoing process, and approaches require renewal to perfect the ranks of legal heirs. The legal equalization of registered and unregistered marriages will not harm the state’s interests, and people who have been connected by family relationships for years will be allowed to gain rights, including inheritance rights.

Bibliography

1. Gagua, I., (2012). Burden of Proof in Civil Procedural Law. Dissertation. (in Georgian)


2. Ioseliani, T. (2019). Legal Regulation of the Right of Inheritance of Persons in an Unregistered Marriage. Justice and Law, 3(63). (in Georgian)


3. Korkelia, K. (2007). Towards the integration of the European Court: the European Convention on Human Rights and the experience of Georgia. p. 74. (in Georgian)


4. Metreveli, V. (2009). History of Georgian Law. (in Georgian)


5. Metreveli, V. (2014). Roman Law (Fundamentals). (in Georgian)


6. Ninua, E. (2019). General Characteristics of the Institutions of Family Law of Georgia. Justice and Law, 3(63). (in Georgian)


7. Papastatis, K. (2011). State and Church in the Member States of the European Union. 2^nd translation. (in Georgian)


8. Roberts, G. (2011). State and Church in the Member States of the European Union. Translation of the 2^nd (in Georgian)


9. Shengelia, R., Shengelia, E. (2019). Family and Inheritance Law. (in Georgian)


10. Sumner, I., Warendolf, H. (2003). Family Law Legislation of the Netherlands.


11. Waldle, L.D. (2010). Marriage and Religious Liberty: Comparative Law Problems and Conflict of Law Solutions. Journal of law&family studies. Vol. 12.

Judicial Practice:

1. Constitutional Complaint #1351 of 12.09.2018, Citizen of Georgia Tsiala Pertia vs. the Parliament of Georgia <https://www.constcourt.ge/ka/judicial-acts?legal=15542> [Last accessed: 10.01.2025].


2. Constitutional Complaint #2/8/448 of 29.10.2008, Citizen of Georgia Lia Surmava against the Parliament of Georgia. <https://constcourt.ge/ka/judicial-acts?legal=389> [Last accessed: 15.01.2025].


3. Constitutional Court of Georgia. Minutes of 28.05.2019 case #2/9/1351 <https://www.matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/download/4587694/0/ge/pdf> [Last accessed: 20.01.2025].


4. Supreme Court of Georgia. №2K-651AP.-20 Ruling (16.02.2021). <http://prg.supremecourt.ge/> [Last accessed: 25.09.2024].


5. Supreme Court of Georgia. №AS-681-637-2010 Ruling (25.01.2011). <http://prg.supremecourt.ge/> [Last accessed: 25.09.2024].


6. Supreme Court of Georgia, Judgment No. AS-7-7-2016 (2016, March 16.) <http://prg.supremecourt.ge/> [Last accessed: 25.09.2024].


7. European Court of Human Rights (13.06.1979). Judgment in the case of Marckx v. Belgium No. 6833/74 <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57534%22]}> [Last accessed: 01.11.2024].


8. European Court of Human Rights (18.12.1986). Judgment in the case of Johnston and Others v Ireland No. 9697/82 <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57508%22]}> [Last accessed: 05.12.2024].


9. European Court of Human Rights (27.10.1994). The decision in the case Kroon and others v. The Netherlands No. 18535/91 <https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168008ebe1> [Last accessed: 18.12.2024].


10. European Court of Human Rights (22.04.1997). Judgment in the case of X, Y, and Z v. The United Kingdom No. 21830/93 <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-58032%22]}> [Last accessed: 11.11.2024].


11. Supreme Court of Georgia, No. AS-1153-2019 Ruling (22.11.2019). <http://prg.supremecourt.ge/> [Last accessed: 22.09.2024].


12. Supreme Court of Georgia, No. AS-136-466-09 Ruling (28.07.2009). <http://prg.supremecourt.ge/> [Last accessed: 22.09.2024].


13. Tbilisi Court of Appeal. (27.07.2020) №2b/1156-19 Ruling. <http://www.tbappeal.court.ge/?category=g> [Last accessed: 10.10.2024].


14. Tbilisi Court of Appeal. №2b/2913 15 Ruling. <http://www.tbappeal.court.ge/?category=g>. [Last accessed: 10.10.2024].

Normative Acts:

1. United Kingdom. Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act. (Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975). <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/63> [Last accessed: 07.03.2025].


2. New Zealand. (2001). Property (Relationships) Act 1976 <https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1976/0166/latest/whole.html> [Last accessed: 07.03.2025].

Footnotes

[1] Metreveli, V. (2009). Roman Law (Fundamentals). p. 101.

[2] Metreveli, V. (2014). History of Georgian Law. p. 355.

[3] Shengelia, R., Shengelia, E. (2019). Family and Inheritance Law. p. 13.

[4] Ibid. p. 79.

[5] Supreme Court of Georgia, No. AS-136-466-09 Ruling (28.07.2009). <http://prg.supremecourt.ge/> [Last accessed: 22.09.2024].

[6] Shengelia, R., Shengelia, E. (2019). Family and Inheritance Law. p. 73.

[7] Supreme Court of Georgia, No. AS-1153-2019 Ruling (22.11.2019). <http://prg.supremecourt.ge/> [Last accessed: 22.09.2024].

[8] Shengelia, R., Shengelia, E. (2019). Family and Inheritance Law. p. 58.

[9] Cf. European Court of Human Rights (27.10.1994). The decision in the case Kroon and others v. The Netherlands №18535/91. <https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168008ebe1> [Last accessed: 18.12.2024].

[10] Ninua, E. (2019). General Characteristics of the Institutions of Family Law of Georgia. Justice and Law, 3(63). p. 129.

[11] Ioseliani, T. (2019). Legal Regulation of the Right of Inheritance of Persons in an Unregistered Marriage. Justice and Law, 3(63). p. 85.

[12] Supreme Court of Georgia. №2K-651AP.-20 Ruling (16.02.2021). <http://prg.supremecourt.ge/> [Last accessed: 25.09.2024].

[13] Supreme Court of Georgia. №AS-681-637-2010 Ruling (25.01.2011). <http://prg.supremecourt.ge/> [Last accessed: 25.09.2024].

[14] Tbilisi Court of Appeal. №2b/2913 15 Ruling. <http://www.tbappeal.court.ge/?category=g>. [Last accessed: 10.10.2024].

[15] Ioseliani, T. (2019). Legal Regulation of the Right to Inheritance of Persons in Unregistered Marriages. Justice and Law, 3(63). p. 87.

[16] European Court of Human Rights (27.10.1994). The decision in the case Kroon and others v. The Netherlands No. 18535/91 <https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168008ebe1> [Last accessed: 18.12.2024].

[17] Supreme Court of Georgia, Judgment No. AS-7-7-2016 (2016, March 16.) <http://prg.supremecourt.ge/> [Last accessed: 25.09.2024].

[18] Ioseliani, T. (2019). Legal Regulation of the Inheritance Rights of Persons in Unregistered Marriages. Justice and Law, 3(63). p. 92.

[19] Sumner, I., Warendolf, H. (2003). Family Law Legislation of the Netherlands. p. 245.

[20] Ibid. p. 17.

[21] Tbilisi Court of Appeal. (27.07.2020) №2b/1156-19 Ruling. <http://www.tbappeal.court.ge/?category=g> [Last accessed: 10.10.2024].

[22] Constitutional Complaint #1351 of 12.09.2018, Citizen of Georgia Tsiala Pertia vs. the Parliament of Georgia <https://www.constcourt.ge/ka/judicial-acts?legal=15542> [Last accessed: 10.01.2025].

[23] Constitutional Complaint #2/8/448 of 29.10.2008, Citizen of Georgia Lia Surmava against the Parliament of Georgia. <https://constcourt.ge/ka/judicial-acts?legal=389> [Last accessed: 15.01.2025].

[24] Shengelia, R., Shengelia, E. (2019). Family and Inheritance Law. p.73.

[25] Gagua, I. (2012). Burden of Proof in Civil Procedural Law. Dissertation. p. 99.

[26] Constitutional Court of Georgia. Minutes of 28.05.2019 case #2/9/1351 <https://www.matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/download/4587694/0/ge/pdf> [Last accessed: 20.01.2025].

[27] Roberts, G. (2011). State and Church in the Member States of the European Union. Translation of the 2^nd ed. p. 106.

[28] Papastatis, K. (2011). State and Church in the Member States of the European Union. 2^nd ed. translation. p. 152.

[29] Waldle, L.D. (2010). Marriage and Religious Liberty: Comparative Law Problems and Conflict of Law Solutions. Journal of law&family studies. Vol. 12. p. 327.

[30] United Kingdom. Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act. (Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975). <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/63> [Last accessed: 07.03.2025].

[31] New Zealand. (2001). Property (Relationships) Act 1976 <https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1976/0166/latest/whole.html> [Last accessed: 07.03.2025].

[32] European Court of Human Rights (18.12.1986). Judgment in the case of Johnston and Others v Ireland No. 9697/82 <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57508%22]}> [Last accessed: 05.12.2024].

[33] European Court of Human Rights (27.10.1994). Judgment in the case of Kroon and others v. The Netherlands No. 18535/91 <https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168008ebe1> [Last accessed: 18.12.2024].

[34] European Court of Human Rights (22.04.1997). Judgment in the case of X, Y and Z v. The United Kingdom No. 21830/93 <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-58032%22]}> [Last accessed: 11.11.2024].

[35] European Court of Human Rights (13.06.1979). Judgment in the case of Marckx v. Belgium No. 6833/74 <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57534%22]}> [Last accessed: 01.11.2024].

[36] Korkelia, K. (2007). Towards the integration of the European Court: the European Convention on Human Rights and the experience of Georgia. p. 74.