Full Article: PDF
Scientific Object Identifier: http://s-o-i.org/1.1/TAS-02-154-10
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15863/TAS.2026.02.154.10
Language: English
Citation: Tsatsanashvili, M., & Meskhi, S. (2026). State Oversight of Notaries’ Activities in Georgia: Problem or Necessity?. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 02 (154), 63-66. Soi: https://s-o-i.org/1.1/TAS-02-154-10 Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15863/TAS.2026.02.154.10 |
Pages: 63-66
Published: 28.02.2026
Abstract: This Article examines the system of state administration of notarial activity in Georgia and its impact on professional independence in the context of post-Soviet legal transformation. By legal nature, the notary is a hybrid figure, performing simultaneously the functions of a member of a free profession and an institutional element safeguarding the public interest. The purpose of the present study is to identify functional imbalances in the prevailing model of governance of notarial activity and explore ways to optimize such model so that state supervision is positioned as a mechanism supporting, rather than restricting, professional autonomy. Methodologically, the study is based on a synthesis of theoretical and qualitative analysis, including a review of national legislative acts, institutional reports, and international scholarly literature. An original analysis of operational and financial data from Tbilisi notarial bureaus is presented, revealing intensive fiscal pressure: as identified, in high-value transactions, fixed office costs exceed GEL 6,000 on average, resulting in the notary’s financial vulnerability, under conditions of low-budget transactions. As confirmed by statistical processing of data, in 2010–2020, instances of personal liability increased by 15%. In the subsequent period (2021–2024), as a result of strengthened digital monitoring, an additional 5–7% increase in the detection of deficiencies indicates a technological transformation of state oversight. The study’s findings demonstrate that, although state supervision constitutes a necessary guarantee of legal security, the existing balance in Georgia requires revision. The author substantiates that the current regulatory framework frequently creates a “micro-management” environment in which the notary is perceived as a quasi-public official, thereby constraining operational efficiency. The Article sets forth recommendations in three directions: modernization of the fiscal model to ensure the notary’s financial autonomy; transformation of the form of regulation from an imperative to a collaborative model; and implementation of technological innovations (KPIs) for the objective assessment of service quality.
Key words: notariat; professional autonomy; public administration; fiscal regulation; digital monitoring; legal security; micro-management; private practice.
|
