The Role of the Writ of Execution Issued by a Notary in Preventive Justice and Effective Enforcement

ანოტაცია

The present article examines the legal nature of the writ of execution issued by a notary, its functional purpose, and its relation to preventive justice. The study aims to evaluate the extent to which this mechanism ensures the effective enforcement of due claims while maintaining procedural balance between the interests of creditors and debtors.

The article analyses the Georgian legislation and the practice of the judiciary in comparison with the judicial experience of France and Spain. The research is based on doctrinal, normative, and comparative-legal methods. It also examines the institutional role of a notary, the principle of impartiality, and the significance of enforceable legal instruments, with a particular focus on legal consequences of the writ of execution issued by a notary, simplified enforcement mechanisms, and procedural safeguards.

The study finds that a notarized agreement and the writ of execution issued on its basis contributed to reducing the workload of courts, ensuring the prompt satisfaction of the creditor’s claim and stability of legal relations. At the same time, further improvement of legal and procedural standards is necessary for ensuring the successful exercise of this mechanism.

Keywords: Notary, notarial act, preventive justice, writ of execution, enforcement proceedings.

Introduction

The effective functioning of the administration of justice depends largely on the enforcement system, which ensures proper protection of rights and is based on the principles of transparency, efficiency, predictability, and procedural consistency. This is particularly significant where due and balanced protection of the parties’ interests is required.[1] This idea is reflected in the principle ubi jus, ibi remedium – there is no right without the mechanism of its effective enforcement.[2] Notarial registration of an agreement ensures proportionate protection of the parties’ rights,[3] as a notarial act is considered as the document having conclusive evidentiary effect.[4]

The institutional neutrality of a notary creates a precondition for a notarized agreement to be regarded as a reliable and enforceable legal mechanism.[5] Accordingly, a writ of execution issued by a notary transforms the notarial act into both an evidentiary and an enforceable legal instrument.[6]

Although the institutional function of the notary and the evidentiary force of notarial acts have been widely examined in Georgian and foreign legal doctrines, the legal nature of the notarial writ of execution, its connection with procedural safeguards, and preventive justice remain insufficiently explored. This study aims to evaluate the functional purpose of this institution within existing mechanisms of enforcement.

Methodology

The methodology of the article combines doctrinal, normative, and comparative legal analysis. For the purpose of evaluating the legal character and practical function of a notarial writ of execution, the study examines the applicable legal rules, relevant case law, and academic sources. The interpretation of the legal material is carried out through systematic and teleological approaches, while the comparative component relies on the experience of selected Continental European legal systems.
1. The Institutional Role of the Notary and the Principle of Impartiality

The notarial registration of an agreement is based on the principle of impartiality, where the notary acts as a neutral party entrusted by the parties and not by any of the parties. Unlike a lawyer, who represents one of the parties by virtue of the nature of the profession,[7] the notary verifies the legal correctness of the agreement and safeguards the interests of the parties.

The function of the notary is not limited to drafting and confirming a notarial act; it also contributes to dispute prevention.[8] In the doctrine, a notary is described as an actor performing the role of a „private judge”, while their work is regarded as an instrument for “regulation of obligations”.[9] In this context, the impartiality of a notary is largely related to the principle of balance, which obliges them to take fair decisions and ensure the protection of the parties’ rights. Notary’s independence and impartiality are supported by relevant guarantees, including the remuneration, which rules out dependence on any of the parties. These features make the notarial model significant in terms of reconsidering the role of the lawyer, especially in matters involving the representation of multiple clients.[10]

2. Notariat in the Continental European Legal Systems and the Latin Notariat

The traditional understanding of the European notariat is based on the historic and functional meaning of the term “notaries”.[11] Despite the common foundation, the notarial systems in European states differed in terms of institutional position and powers, as well as in the context of the degree of legal reliability of the documents drafted by them.[12]

German, French, and Spanish legal systems have been selected for the comparative analysis conducted in the present study, because notarial acts in these jurisdictions are regarded not only as documents possessing high evidentiary value, but also as the instrument of direct enforcement. In certain continental legal systems, notarial acts are vested with enforceable authority, allowing creditors’ claims to be enforced without prior judicial involvement.

2.1. The notariat in Germany and the power of the writ of execution

According to the German Doctrine, the notary provides legal guidance with respect to their expressed intentions and demonstrations of will.[13] In Germany, the notariat represents a classic example of a legal institution authorized by the state, while remaining professionally independent. The notary acts as a public official vested with public trust, responsible for verifying the authenticity of legal documents, safeguarding the rights of the parties, and exercising a preventive legal function. In the German legal system, the notary is regarded as a holder of a public office entrusted with the performance of sovereign functions. Unlike a judge, however, the notary does not operate within a state body, but rather exercises these functions within the framework of an independent legal profession.[14]

The German system is based on the principle of preventive justice (präventive Rechtspflege), under which the notary’s primary function is to prevent legal disputes before they arise. With this purpose, the notary reviews legal transactions, ensures their compliance with the law, and verifies that the parties fully understand the legal consequences of their actions. This approach is particularly important in matters related to real estate agreements,[15] company registrations, and family law. The high evidentiary value and, in certain cases, direct enforceability of the acts drafted by the notary[16] contribute to the reduction of judicial disputes by enhancing the efficiency of legal relationships. Generally, the drafting of an authentic document is subject to strict formal procedures designed to prevent insufficient awareness of the parties and hasty actions when composing the document that will be reliable evidence.[17]

In German law, the notary may grant a claim established by contract or by the debtor’s unilateral declaration of intent an enforceable effect equivalent to that of a court judgment. This model is founded on the procedural safeguards inherent in the notarial certification process.[18] A writ of execution, issued based on a notarially certified agreement, enables the creditor to obtain prompt enforcement of the claim. It is noteworthy that this document is issued without any prior judicial examination of the claim.[19] In Germany, the participation of a notary effectively reduces the transaction costs as the notary’s neutral position and obligation to prevent undesirable outcomes for one of the parties actually removes the need for separate legal representation for both parties.[20]

2.2. The notariat and the enforcement proceedings in France

The French notariat represents a classic model of a Latin notarial system, where the notary is a state-authorized public officer who carries out professional activities independently. Sometimes their function is described as the performer of “preventive justice”. The French system is based on the concept of the notarial act (Acte Authentique), a document possessing enhanced evidentiary force and, in many cases, direct enforceable effect.[21] As a result, this system reduces reliance on litigation and promotes stability of legal relationships.

In France, notaries participate in the transactions related to the sale and purchase of real estate, ensuring both the legal validity of such transactions and the informed participation of the parties. The notary is responsible for ensuring that the parties fully understand the legal consequences of the transaction.[22] Under French law, the notary is broadly authorized to issue the writ of execution; however, the legislation provides for certain exceptions. Specifically, disputes related to the prevention of unlawful interference with residential premises are subject exclusively to judicial determination.[23] because of the social implications associated with the use and occupation of residential property. Consequently, entrusting such matters to the courts ensures a higher standard of protection of the parties’ rights, as courts are vested with broader discretionary and procedural powers in the assessment of such disputes.

2.3. The Spanish notarial system: Experience and characteristics of enforcement proceedings

The Spanish notarial system represents one of the classic and most developed models of Latin Notariat, which is based on the combination of the professional independence and public authority of the notary, thereby ensuring high legal reliability of notarial acts.[24] In Spain, the notary is a public official authorized by the state who simultaneously carries out an independent professional activity. The notary’s primary function is to certify the authenticity of legal acts and ensure their compliance with the law.[25]

One of the significant features of the Spanish notarial system is the enhanced legal force of notarial acts. The documents drafted by notaries are regarded as a public instrument and carry high evidentiary value in legal proceedings. Such documents often have a direct enforceable effect, which substantially simplifies the regulation of legal relations and reduces the need for judicial proceedings.[26]

Spanish notaries play a central role in the real estate circulation.[27] In the transactions of sale and purchase of immovable property, notaries certify the legal validity of the transaction, examine the responsibilities of the parties, and guarantee compliance of the transaction with applicable legislation.[28] This procedure established a high level of legal certainty and ensures the effective protection of property rights. Under Spanish Law, the notarial act constitutes one of the grounds for launching enforcement proceedings. Besides, the law provides that not only the original, but the copies of the notarial acts, have enforceable value provided that they are issued with the consent of both parties or certified by the court and specify the person against whom enforcement is to be carried out.[29]

The skepticism of the Spanish notary towards the Anglo-Saxon notarial model primarily is grounded on the fact that the overall judicial system is based on more flexible and less formalized legal control, whereas the Roman-Continental notariat places particular focus on the prior verification of legal acts and the safeguarding of legal certainty.[30]

3. The Simplified Enforcement Function of the Writ of Execution

The notarized transactions have enhanced legal reliability compared to oral or written agreements,[31] as notarial certification confers special evidentiary value on the transaction. Furthermore, the doctrine considers prevention, protection against hasty decisions, and evidentiary assurance as the primary function of notarial certification.[32] In case the parties agree on an alternative dispute resolution mechanism within the contract, the satisfaction of due monetary claims may be effected on the basis of a writ of execution issued by a notary,[33] which constitutes the independent legal ground for initiating the enforcement proceedings.

Through this regulation, the lawmaker has conferred on the notary a competence that enables creditors to satisfy their claims through a simplified procedure without judicial examination, at the same time contributing to the alleviation of the judicial system’s workload. This model does not limit the notary’s function to notarial certification of legal acts, but also makes notarial activity an instrument of preventive justice.[34]

The obtaining of the writ of execution is a relatively swift and cost-effective procedure, causing no need for additional financial expenditures for the parties.[35] The distinctive feature of a notarial enforcement is that it enables the creditor to obtain satisfaction of the claim through compulsory enforcement, including by directing execution against the debtor’s assets.[36] A notarial writ of execution constitutes an enforcement document provided for under notarial legislation and is subject to compulsory enforcement.[37] Accordingly, the legal framework recognizes the enforceability of writs of execution issued by notaries.

As a result of the legislative amendments of the 7^th of December, 2010, Georgian law conferred on notaries the authority to issue the writ of execution, thereby granting notarial instruments binding legal force for enforcement purposes.[38] This mechanism creates no significant financial barriers for the parties,[39] which indicates a relatively balanced protection of the parties’ rights. In this context, the approach of the legislator aimed both to ensure the effective protection of the creditor’s interests and to uphold the principle of procedural equality.

According to point 5, article 38 of the Law of Georgia on Notaries, a notary public shall issue a writ of execution based on a matured claim for the enforcement of the payment of monetary indebtedness, the assignment of title to property, and, based on a request, compulsory enforcement against a mortgaged/charged property.[40] This provision makes clear that the enforcement writ issued by a notary may be used both to secure the fulfillment of monetary obligations and to facilitate the exercise of rights related to the subject of the security.[41]

The transfer of the rights to property, where an appropriate contract clause exists, may be interpreted as enabling the creditor to directly acquire ownership of the secured asset. Accordingly, if the parties agree on the transfer of ownership of the secured asset based on a notary’s enforcement writ, it is permissible, within the framework of the applicable legal regulation, for the property to pass directly into the creditor’s ownership in exchange for the performance of the obligation and the set-off of mutual obligations.[42]

3.1. Procedural and legal preconditions for issuing a writ of execution

The Georgian legislation establishes both general and special mandatory requirements for an enforcement writ. According to the law, the enforcement writ must contain the information about the issuing authority, the case based on which it was issued, the dates of the decision and its issuance, the operative part of the decision, as well as the identification and contact details of the creditor and the debtor.[43]

The law also defines the special additional requisites for the writ of execution. The document shall include the information about the notary public and relevant notary office, the basis of the obligation, the performance deadline, the content and the scope of the enforceable obligation, as well as the registration details in the notarial acts register.[44]

Article 40 of the Law of Georgia on Notaries established the legal and procedural grounds for enforcement based on a notarial document. The issuance of a writ of execution is carried out upon a written application of the creditor or their legal successor, to which the relevant notarial document shall be attached.[45] In addition, the claim must not depend on the creditor’s performance of reciprocal obligations, or such obligations must have already been performed.

An important feature of the provision is that a notarial document is granted special evidentiary and enforceable force, which allows the creditor to initiate compulsory enforcement without court proceedings. The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (hereinafter - CEPEJ) of the Council of Europe considers enforcement an inseparable part of doing justice, and notes that ineffective enforcement renders the right to legal protection merely formal.[46]

The Constitutional Court of Georgia has indicated that the issuance of a notarial writ of execution does not rule out the possibility of judicial consideration and does not infringe the right to a fair trial, as the debtor retains the right to appeal both the notarial act and the writ of execution. At the same time, the court emphasized the preventive function of the notary and noted that a transaction certified by a notary is characterized by a higher degree of reliability.[47]

Alongside procedural safeguards, the legislation also provides for the possibility of issuing a duplicate enforcement writ in case of loss,[48] which serves to ensure continuity of enforcement proceedings and legal stability. This norm is consistent with the position of CEPEJ,[49] according to which the timeliness and effectiveness of enforcement are important components for the effective exercise of justice.

3.2. Partial suspension of the writ of execution

The partial suspension of the writ of execution is one of the important mechanisms in safeguarding the balance of the interests of the parties. The Law of Georgia on Enforcement Proceedings provides for the mechanisms of the suspension of the enforcement,[50] which in practice may also apply to only a specific part of the claim. In such circumstances, a full suspension of enforcement may be regarded as a disproportionate interference with the creditor’s rights, whereas partial suspension ensures both the protection of the creditor’s interests and the preservation of the debtor’s procedural safeguards.

The mechanism of suspension of enforcement is aimed at the temporary balancing of the parties’ interests; however, it should not become a means of unjustified obstruction of the creditor’s claim. It has been noted in the case law of the Supreme Court of Georgia that multiple suspensions of the enforcement procedure, especially when the debtor fails to comply with installment payment terms, endanger effective enforcement and actual exercise of the creditor’s rights.[51]

It is noteworthy that CEPEJ places a particular focus on respecting the principles of proportionality and effectiveness in enforcement proceedings.[52] This approach is especially important in cases where only part of the claims is disputed, and a full suspension of enforcement would exceed the objectives of enforcement.

3.3. The notary, registration of property rights, and enforcement

The work of the notary is closely linked with the legal system of registration and enforcement of property rights. The notarized transactions and registration of property rights contribute to the stability of civil circulation and legal security. This is particularly evident in mortgage relations, where the accuracy of registration and the reliability of the notarial document constitute essential preconditions for the effective enforcement of the creditor’s rights.

The civil law tradition assigns notaries a significant role in safeguarding legal certainty in property-related transactions. Through preventive legal oversight and verification of legal acts, notarial involvement enhances trust in the transfer of real estate and strengthens the predictability of legal relations. These features are commonly viewed as supporting economic stability and market efficiency. Furthermore, the institution of the notary produces wider benefits for both the economy and society by promoting legal security and reducing transactional risks.[53]

The effective exercise of the principle of legality with regard to the registration of the property law requires prior legal scrutiny of the transaction, which is particularly important in real estate conveyances. The notarial form enhances the reliability of both the transaction itself and the right registered in the public registry, as the notary verifies the legality of the transaction, the authenticity of the parties’ intent, and their legal capacity to act.[54] Furthermore, notarial participation helps address imbalances in information available to the contracting parties. By ensuring that each party is properly informed about the legal implications of the transaction, the notary contributes to the protection of their respective interests, particularly those of the more vulnerable party. In this way, the notarial function promotes transparency, reduces the likelihood of misunderstandings, and strengthens legal certainty.[55] The effectiveness of these mechanisms, despite their practical significance, simultaneously raises concerns regarding the provision of procedural safeguards and the protection of the right to a fair trial.

3.4. Compliance of a notarial writ of execution with the right to a fair trial

The enforcement of the matured monetary claim based on the writ of execution issued by the notary shall be initiated by the National Enforcement Bureau without prior recourse to the court, which raises the question of its compatibility with the right to a fair trial. However, this mechanism itself is not contrary to the principle of a fair trial, as it does not rule out access to the court. The debtor retains the right to appeal the enforcement measures and demand judicial review, which represents a minimum procedural safeguard.

The case law of the Constitutional Court of Georgia is particularly important in this regard. The court has indicated that issuance of the writ of execution by the notary may not breach the right to a fair trial, as the debtor retains the right to appeal both the notarial act and the writ of execution. Furthermore, the court has emphasized the notary’s preventive function and noted that the transaction certified by the notary is characterized by a higher degree of legal reliability and certainty.[56]

The current regulatory framework, nevertheless, does not ensure sufficient clarity or a uniform practice with respect to mechanisms of judicial control. In the case of Tchitchinadze v. Georgia, the European Court of Human Rights observed that the quashing of final and enforceable judgements amounts to an interference with the principle of legal certainty as well as the right to a fair trial and the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. According to the Court, the review of a final act is permissible only where substantial and compelling grounds exist, since otherwise, the principles of legal stability and the effectiveness of enforcement are placed at risk.[57] As a result, there arises a risk that the enforcement may take place in parallel with the debtor’s defense rights being actually exercised, thus reducing the degree of effectiveness.

In the case № BS-377(K-23), the Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the suspension of enforcement proceedings initiated based on a writ of execution by a notary, as well as the scope of the applicable procedural safeguards. The court emphasized that the repeated suspension of enforcement proceedings should not become a means of unjustifiable delay of the creditor’s claim, particularly where the debtor could fulfil their duties and protect their rights several times. The court also indicated to the fact that the writ of execution issued by the notary is not a document beyond the judicial control. This was further demonstrated by the fact that the court itself amended the writ of execution by reducing both the principal amount of the claim and the amount of the contractual penalty.[58]

It is the constitutional obligation of the state to ensure adequate procedural safeguards for each component of the right to a fair trial, both in its formal and substantive dimensions.[59] Accordingly, the existence of a notarial enforcement mechanism is not problematic in itself; rather, the concern lies in the insufficiently defined procedural guarantees governing its application. This is a challenge calling for better normative clarity and the development of a more consistent judicial and enforcement practice.

4. The Enforcement in Georgia of the Notarial Writ of Execution issued Abroad

Pursuant to Article 51(a) of the Minsk Convention, the recognition and enforcement in Georgia of enforceable instruments issued by foreign notaries is permissible.[60] Nevertheless, the fact that a consistent judicial practice on this issue has not yet been developed causes the problem of legal predictability.[61] Presumably, the recognition and enforcement of such acts will be carried out by analogy with the rules established for the recognition and enforcement of court judgments, based on the analogy of law.

Under Article 58 of the Brussels Ia Regulation, an authentic instrument, including a notarial act, that is enforceable in one EU Member State may be enforced in other Member States without obtaining a separate declaration of enforceability. This facilitates the cross-border enforcement of notarial acts within the European Union.[62]

The issue is particularly significant in the context of increasingly transnational private law relations, where the economic interests of the parties are often connected to more than one jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the effective recognition and enforcement of a writ of execution by a foreign notary is directly linked both to the stability of civil commerce and to the effective protection of the creditor’s rights.[63]

The absence of proper legislative regulation gives rise to the problem of legal certainty, as the current legislation does not provide a clear definition of procedural standards and the framework of judicial control. This enhances the risk of establishing divergent approaches and may affect the enforcement efficiency and degree of legal trust in the notarial institution.[64]

Conclusion

The writ of execution issued by the notary public represents an effective instrument for simplified enforcement of the claim in modern private law. The high evidentiary and enforcement force of the notarial act relies on the notary’s institutional neutrality, the function of legislative control, and the obligation of balance of the parties’ interests, which ensures stability of civil relations and security of civil commerce.

The Georgian and foreign legal practices examined in the present study have demonstrated that the notarized agreement and the writ of execution issued on its basis facilitate prompt and effective satisfaction of the creditor’s claim, simplification of enforcement proceedings, and reduction of the court’s workload. Furthermore, the legal models of Germany, France, and Spain prove that the institution of the notary performs a significant preventive and enforcement function.

The study has also revealed that a writ of execution issued by a notary, in itself, does not contravene the right to a fair trial, as the parties retain the possibility of judicial review and the right to appeal enforcement measures. It is precisely the availability of judicial oversight that constituted the key procedural safeguard ensuring a balance between the simplified enforcement mechanism and the protection of the debtor’s interests.

Accordingly, a writ of execution issued by a notary should be regarded not only as a simplified instrument for the enforcement of claims but also as a mechanism that promotes the effective protection of creditors’ interests, the stability of legal relations, and the implementation of preventive justice. Its effective functioning, however, depends significantly on clear and consistent legal regulation.

References

Scientific literature:

Akhalkatsi, E. (2025). The Problem of Enforcement of Notarial Acts (comparative analysis). Journal of Law, 1. <https://doi.org/10.60131/jlaw.1.2025.9276>;

Böck, R. (2020). The System of the German Notariat. The Magazine of Comparative Law, 8. [In Georgian];

Bormann, J. (2022). The German Enforceable Notarial Act in Cross-Border Cases, LeXonomica, Vol. 14, No. 1. <https://doi.org/10.18690/lexonomica.14.1.49-72.2022>;

Calvo Caravaca, A.-L., Carrascosa González, J. (2020). Power of Attorney Authorised by Foreign Notaries and Purchase of Property located in Spain. Revista de Derecho Internacional Privado, 5179;

Dekers, E. (2001). Notarial Practice, Deontology, and Institutional Structures, The Georgian Notariat Magazine, №3-4, September-December, Kuparava, R. (Transl.), Zoidze, O. (Ed.), Tbilisi. [In Georgian];

Dharmawan, N. K. S., Salain, M. S. P. D., Prianatha, I. G. N. B. P. (2025). Harmonization of Notary Honorarium Arrangement Related to the Notarial Deed Authority: Toward Legal Certainty. Law and World, 11(1). <https://doi.org/10.36475/11.1.2>;

Faba, J. M. (2017). Sobre la fuerza ejecutiva de la escritura pública y el nuevo sistema de expedición de copias: cuestiones surgidas en la jurisprudencia actual. Revista CESCO de Derecho de Consumo, 20. [In Spanish];

Gogoladze, M., Shamatava, I. (2026). The Evolution of the Georgian Notariat: From the State-controlled Soviet System to Professional Independence and Digital Modernization. European Scientific Journal, 52;

Gotua, L. (2009). Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments and Foreign Arbitral Awards, thesis, Tbilisi. [In Georgian];

Kereselidze, D. (2009). The Most General Systemic Concepts of Private Law, Tbilisi. [In Georgian];

Kharitonashvili, N. (2021). The Notary Law, Tbilisi. [In Georgian];

Knieper, R. (2017). The Economic Relevance of Notarial Authentic Instruments. International Union of Notaries;

Kurdadze, S., Kurdadze, G., Khunashvili, N., Chkonia, Z. (2018). Commentary on the Law of Georgia on Enforcement Proceedings, Part I (Articles 1–48). Tbilisi. [In Georgian];

Lapachi, E. (2016). The Impact of the Registration of Rights in Rem over Immovable Property on the Exercise and Protection of Such Rights (Thesis), Tbilisi. [In Georgian];

Makhatadze, N. (2021). Procedural Issues Related to the Issuance of a Notarial Writ of Execution. Journal Justice and Law, 3(71), Tbilisi. [In Georgian];

Malavet, P. A. (1996). Counsel for the Situation: The Latin Notary, a Historical and Comparative Model. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 19(3);

Mantovani, M. (2019). Notaries and their Debt-collection Writs under the Brussels Ia Regulation: A Difficult Characterisation. Journal of Private International Law, 15(2). <https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2019.1645973>;

Martínez-Velencoso, L. M. (2017). The Role of the Notary in the Spanish Legal System. European Review of Private Law, 25(4). <https://opo.iisj.net/index.php/sortuz/article/view/2497>;

Morandi, E. (2007). The Role of the Notary in Real Estate Conveyancing. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 4. <https://doi.org/10.14296/DEESLR.V4I0.1795>;

Plamesti, M. R., Abustan, A., Miskiah, S. (2025). Strength of Proof of Notarial Deeds in an Agreement. In Proceedings of the 2^nd International Conference Changing of Business Law (ICOCLB 2024), Atlantis Press. <https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-356-6_30>;

Rivero Silva, S. (2026). The good (civil law?) notary. Sortuz: Oñati Journal of Emergent Socio-Legal Studies. <https://doi.org/10.35295/sz.iisl.2497>;

Rouchaud, A. M. (1998). Conclusions – Workshop No. 2: Writs of execution in the Execution of Court Decisions in Civil Cases. Council of Europe Publishing;

Shamatava, I. (2024). Notarial Registration of a Loan Agreement as an Effective Mechanism for Debt Recovery and the Simplified Enforcement of Matured Claims. Contemporary Law Journal, 1. [In Georgian];

Shamatava, I. (2024). The Standard of Proportionate Protection of the Parties’ Rights and Obligations in a Loan Agreement (Monograph). Bona Causa Publishing House and Caucasus University. [In Georgian];

Smits, J. M. (2020). Advanced Introduction to Comparative Law. Edward Elgar Publishing;

Sukhitashvili, D. (2012). The Notary Law, Tbilisi. [In Georgian];

Taliashvili, T., Shamatava, I. (2020). Recent Evolution of Intellectual Property Enforcement in Georgia. TalTech Journal of European Studies, 10(2). <https://doi.org/10.1515/bjes-2020-0014>;

Uitdehaag, I., Kurtauli, S. (2013). An Overview of the Enforcement System of Georgia. The Georgian Enforcement System in National and International Contexts, Tbilisi. [In Georgian];

Wenckstern, M. (2012). Notary Public. Max Planck Encyclopedia of European Private Law. <https://max-eup2012.mpipriv.de/index.php/Notary_Public>.

Legal acts:

CEPEJ. (2009). Guidelines for a Better Implementation of the Existing Council of Europe’s Recommendation on Enforcement, 11Rev2. <https://rm.coe.int/16807473cd>;

Civil Code of Georgia, Parliamentary Gazette, No. 31, July 24, 1997. [In Georgian];

Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (Minsk Convention), 22 January 1993;

Council of Europe. (2010). Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE). Opinion No. 13 on the Role of Judges in the Enforcement of Judicial Decisions. <https://rm.coe.int/-ccje-13-2010-/168074824c>;

Law of Georgia on Enforcement Proceedings, Legislative Herald of Georgia, 13(20), 01.05.1999. [In Georgian];

Law of Georgia on Notariat. Legislative Herald of Georgia, No. 46, 22.12.2009. [In Georgian];

Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Brussels Ia Regulation);

Resolution No. 507 of the Government of Georgia of 29 December 2011 on Approving the Amounts of Fees for Notarial Acts and Fees Established for the Chamber of Notaries of Georgia, as well as the Rules for Their Payment and the Timeframes for Service Provision, Legislative Herald of Georgia, 30.12.2011. [In Georgian].

Court decisions:

Decision No. 2/22/930 of 28 December 2017 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia in the case Citizen of Georgia Ana Jalaghonia v. Parliament of Georgia, II-12. [In Georgian];

Decision of the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia in case No. BS-377(K-23), 11 October 2023. [In Georgian];

Decision of the Civil Cases Chamber of the Tbilisi City Court of 31 May 2018 in case No. 2/17482-17. [In Georgian];

ECHR. Judgment (Merits) of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Tchitchinadze v. Georgia, Application No. 18156/05, 27 May 2010;

Judgment No. 3/2/574 of 23 May 2014 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia in the case Citizen of Georgia Giorgi Ugulava v. Parliament of Georgia, II-59. [In Georgian].

Footnotes

[1] Kurdadze, S., Kurdadze, G., Khunashvili, N., Chkonia, Z. (2018). Commentary on the Law of Georgia on Enforcement Proceedings, Part I (Articles 1–48). Tbilisi, 7; See: Council of Europe. (2010). Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE). Opinion No. 13 on the Role of Judges in the Enforcement of Judicial Decisions, para. 16. <https://rm.coe.int/-ccje-13-2010-/168074824c>.

[2] Cited in: Taliashvili, T., Shamatava, I. (2020). Recent Evolution of Intellectual Property Enforcement in Georgia. TalTech Journal of European Studies, 10(2), 43. <https://doi.org/10.1515/bjes-2020-0014>.

[3] Shamatava, I. (2024). Notarial Registration of a Loan Agreement as an Effective Mechanism for Debt Recovery and the Simplified Enforcement of Matured Claims. Contemporary Law Journal, 1, 14–28. See: Dharmawan, N. K. S., Salain, M. S. P. D., Prianatha, I. G. N. B. P. (2025). Harmonization of Notary Honorarium Arrangement Related to the Notarial Deed Authority: Toward Legal Certainty. Law and World, 11(1), 22–34. <https://doi.org/10.36475/11.1.2>.

[4] The existence of a notarial act is intended to ensure legal clarity and guarantees for the parties, as well as to create the best and most reliable evidence in compliance with the applicable legal standards. See: Plamesti, M. R., Abustan, A., Miskiah, S. (2025). Strength of Proof of Notarial Deeds in an Agreement. In Proceedings of the 2^nd International Conference Changing of Business Law (ICOCLB 2024), Atlantis Press, 256. <https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-356-6_30>.

[5] Compare: Knieper, R. (2017). The Economic Relevance of Notarial Authentic Instruments. International Union of Notaries, 11: The notarial system is often the subject of criticism by scholars and policymakers in the United Kingdom, as what appears most unusual to the English is the notion that a single notary acts in the interests of both parties. Instead of properly appreciating the specific functions of the notary and his or her public-law status – within the framework of which the notary ensures the protection of both parties’ interests in a cost-effective manner – opinions are expressed in favor of limiting the role of the notariat.

[6] Gogoladze, M., Shamatava, I. (2026). The Evolution of the Georgian Notariat: From the State-controlled Soviet System to Professional Independence and Digital Modernization. European Scientific Journal, 52, 495–514.

[7] Malavet, P. A. (1996). Counsel for the Situation: The Latin Notary, a Historical and Comparative Model. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 19(3), 391.

[8] Morandi, E. (2007). The Role of the Notary in Real Estate Conveyancing. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 4, 28–33. <https://doi.org/10.14296/DEESLR.V4I0.1795>.

[9] Dekers, E. (2001). Notarial Practice, Deontology, and Institutional Structures, The Georgian Notariat Magazine, №3-4, September-December, Kuparava, R. (Transl.), Zoidze, O. (Ed.), Tbilisi, 10.

[10] Malavet, P. A. (1996). Counsel for the Situation: The Latin Notary, a Historical and Comparative Model. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 19(3), 401.

[11] Regarding the historic formation of the notary, see Wenckstern, M. (2012). Notary Public. Max Planck Encyclopedia of European Private Law. <https://max-eup2012.mpipriv.de/index.php/Notary_Public> [Accessed: 28.05.2026].

[12] Malavet, P. A. (1996). Counsel for the Situation: The Latin notary, a Historical and Comparative Model. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 19(3), 401.

[13] Kereselidze, D. (2009). The Most General Systemic Concepts of Private Law, Tbilisi, 300.

[14] Böck, R. (2020). The System of the German Notariat. The Magazine of Comparative Law, 8, 1.

[15] Morandi, E. (2007). The Role of the Notary in Real Estate Conveyancing. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 4, 28–33. <https://doi.org/10.14296/DEESLR.V4I0.1795>.

[16] Böck, R. (2020). The System of the German Notariat. The Magazine of Comparative Law, 8, 10.

[17] Mantovani, M. (2019). Notaries and their Debt-collection Writs under the Brussels Ia Regulation: A Difficult Characterisation. Journal of Private International Law, 15(2), 393–417. <https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2019.1645973>.

[18] Bormann, J. (2022). The German Enforceable Notarial Act in Cross-Border Cases, LeXonomica, Vol. 14, No. 1, 69. <https://doi.org/10.18690/lexonomica.14.1.49-72.2022> [Accessed: 28.05.2026].

[19] Akhalkatsi, E. (2025). The Problem of Enforcement of Notarial Acts (comparative analysis). Journal of Law, 1, 70. <https://doi.org/10.60131/jlaw.1.2025.9276> [Accessed: 28.05.2026].

[20] Knieper, R. (2017). The Economic Relevance of Notarial Authentic Instruments. International Union of Notaries, 11.

[21] Smits, J. M. (2020). Advanced Introduction to Comparative Law. Edward Elgar Publishing.

[22] Martínez-Velencoso, L. M. (2017). The Role of the Notary in the Spanish Legal System. European Review of Private Law, 25(4), 679–698. <https://opo.iisj.net/index.php/sortuz/article/view/2497>.

[23] Rouchaud, A. M. (1998). Conclusions – Workshop No. 2: Writs of execution in the Execution of Court Decisions in Civil Cases. Council of Europe Publishing, 117.

[24] Rivero Silva, S. (2026). The good (civil law?) notary. Sortuz: Oñati Journal of Emergent Socio-Legal Studies, 245–264. <https://doi.org/10.35295/sz.iisl.2497>.

[25] Calvo Caravaca, A.-L., Carrascosa González, J. (2020). Power of Attorney Authorised by Foreign Notaries and Purchase of Property located in Spain. Revista de Derecho Internacional Privado, 5179, 11.

[26] Gogoladze, M., Shamatava, I. (2026). The Evolution of the Georgian Notariat: From the State-controlled Soviet System to Professional Independence and Digital Modernization. European Scientific Journal, 52, 503.

[27] Calvo Caravaca, A.-L., Carrascosa González, J. (2020). Power of Attorney Authorised by Foreign Notaries and Purchase of Property Located in Spain. Revista de Derecho Internacional Privado, 5179, 54–56.

[28] Rivero Silva, S., The Good (Civil Law?) Notary, Sortuz: Oñati Journal of Emergent Socio-Legal Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2026, 248–249. <https://doi.org/10.35295/sz.iisl.2497>.

[29] Faba, J. M. (2017). Sobre la fuerza ejecutiva de la escritura pública y el nuevo sistema de expedición de copias: cuestiones surgidas en la jurisprudencia actual. Revista CESCO de Derecho de Consumo, 20, 74–81.

[30] Rivero Silva, S. (2026). The Good (Civil Law?) Notary, Sortuz: Oñati Journal of Emergent Socio-Legal Studies, 16(1), 248–249. <https://doi.org/10.35295/sz.iisl.2497>.

[31] Dharmawan, N. K. S., Salain, M. S. P. D., Prianatha, I. G. N. B. P. (2025). Harmonization of Notary Honorarium Arrangement Related to the Notarial Deed Authority: Toward Legal Certainty. Law and World, 11(1), 22–34. <https://doi.org/10.36475/11.1.2>.

[32] Lapachi, E. (2016). The Impact of the Registration of Rights in Rem over Immovable Property on the Exercise and Protection of Such Rights (Thesis), Tbilisi, 160.

[33] Sukhitashvili, D. (2012). The Notary Law, Tbilisi, 308.

[34] Compare: Kharitonashvili, N. (2021). The Notary Law, Tbilisi, 31.

[35] With regards to the cost-effectiveness of the enforcement proceedings, See: Uitdehaag, I., Kurtauli, S. (2013). An Overview of the Enforcement System of Georgia. The Georgian Enforcement System in National and International Contexts, Tbilisi, 130.

[36] Gotua, L. (2009). Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments and Foreign Arbitral Awards, thesis, Tbilisi, 14.

[37] Makhatadze, N. (2021). Procedural Issues Related to the Issuance of a Notarial Writ of Execution. Journal Justice and Law, 3(71), Tbilisi, 58–72.

[38] Shamatava, I. (2024). The Standard of Proportionate Protection of the Parties’ Rights and Obligations in a Loan Agreement (Monograph). Bona Causa Publishing House and Caucasus University, 128.

[39] Resolution No. 507 of the Government of Georgia of 29 December 2011 on Approving the Amounts of Fees for Notarial Acts and Fees Established for the Chamber of Notaries of Georgia, as well as the Rules for Their Payment and the Timeframes for Service Provision, Legislative Herald of Georgia, 30.12.2011.

[40] Law of Georgia on Notariat. Legislative Herald of Georgia, No. 46, 22.12.2009, Article 38(5).

[41] For a detailed discussion on monetary loan obligations, see: Shamathava, I. (2024). The Standard of Proportionate Protection of the Parties’ Rights and Obligations in a Loan Agreement (Monograph), Bona Causa Publishing House and Caucasus University, 121–143.

[42] Civil Code of Georgia, Article 300, Point 3.

[43] Law of Georgia on Enforcement Proceedings, Legislative Herald of Georgia, 13(20), 01.05.1999, Article 21.

[44] Ibid., point 3¹.

[45] Law of Georgia on Notary. Legislative Herald of Georgia, 46, 22.12.2009, Article. 42, 04.12.2009, Article 40.

[46] CEPEJ. (2009). Guidelines for a Better Implementation of the Existing Council of Europe’s Recommendation on Enforcement, 11Rev2, para. 1. <https://rm.coe.int/16807473cd>.

[47] Decision No. 2/22/930 of 28 December 2017 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia in the case Citizen of Georgia Ana Jalaghonia v. Parliament of Georgia, II-12.

[48] The Law of Georgia on Notary. Legislative Herald of Georgia, 46, 22.12.2009, Article 42, 04.12.2009, Article 40, point 4.

[49] CEPEJ. (2009). Guidelines for a Better Implementation of the Existing Council of Europe’s Recommendation on Enforcement, 11Rev2, para. 1. <https://rm.coe.int/16807473cd>.

[50] The Law of Georgia on Enforcement Proceedings. Legislative Herald of Georgia, 13(20), 01.05.1999, Article 36.

[51] Decision of the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia in case No. BS-377(K-23), 11 October 2023.

[52] CEPEJ. (2009). Guidelines for a Better Implementation of the Existing Council of Europe’s Recommendation on Enforcement, 11Rev2, paras. 33-35. <https://rm.coe.int/16807473cd>.

[53] Morandi, E. (2007). The Role of the Notary in Real Estate Conveyancing. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 4, 33. <https://doi.org/10.14296/DEESLR.V4I0.1795>.

[54] See additionally: Lapachi, E. (2016). The Impact of the Registration of Rights in Rem over Immovable Property on the Exercise and Protection of Such Rights (Doctoral dissertation), Tbilisi, 158–159.

[55] Morandi, E. (2007). The Role of the Notary in Real Estate Conveyancing. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 4, 33. <https://doi.org/10.14296/DEESLR.V4I0.1795>.

[56] Decision No. 2/22/930 of 28 December 2017 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia in the case Citizen of Georgia Ana Jalaghonia v. Parliament of Georgia, II-12.

[57] ECHR. Judgment (Merits) of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Tchitchinadze v. Georgia, Application No. 18156/05, 27 May 2010.

[58] Decision of the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia in case No. BS-377(K-23), 11 October 2023. See also the Decision of the Civil Cases Chamber of the Tbilisi City Court of 31 May 2018 in case No. 2/17482-17.

[59] Judgment No. 3/2/574 of 23 May 2014 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia in the case Citizen of Georgia Giorgi Ugulava v. Parliament of Georgia, II-59.

[60] Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (Minsk Convention), 22 January 1993, Article 51(a).

[61] Akhalkatsi, E. (2025). The Problem of Enforcement of Notarial Acts: Comparative Analysis. Journal of Law, №1. <https://doi.org/10.60131/jlaw.1.2025.9276>.

[62] Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Brussels Ia Regulation), Art. 58. Cited., Mantovani, M. (2019). Notaries and their Debt-collection Writs Under the Brussels Ia Regulation: A Difficult Characterisation. Journal of Private International Law, 15(2), 393–417. <https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2019.1645973>.

[63] CEPEJ. (2009). Guidelines for a Better Implementation of the Existing Council of Europe’s Recommendation on Enforcement, 11REV2, paras. 6–7. <https://rm.coe.int/16807473cd>.

[64] Ibid., 201–203.