News
The Constitutional Court of Georgia Rules not to Uphold Constitutional Claim № 1494
On January 23, 2026 the Second Board of the Constitutional Court of Georgia ruled not to uphold Constitutional Claim № 1494 ("Lena Svanidze and Zurab Inashvili v. the Parliament of Georgia").
According to the disputed norm of the Constitutional Claim № 1494, the State shall not be responsible for damage caused by a notary public.
According to the position of the Claimant, a notary public exercising powers delegated by the State shall be considered as an administrative body, and the State shall bear responsibility for the damage caused by the notary public. The Claimant explained that the disputed norm excluding the liability of the State for damage caused by a notary public violates the right to compensation for damage caused by public authority guaranteed by Paragraph 4 of Article 18 of the Constitution of Georgia.
According to the explanation of the Respondent, in accordance with the legislation, a notary public is not a public officer or a civil servant. The activity of a notary public represents a free profession characterized by independence, self-financing and unlimited property liability. According to the position of the Respondent, declaring the disputed norm unconstitutional and imposing state liability for damage caused by a notary public would create an unpredictable and heavy burden on the state budget, as well as reduce motivation of notaries to act with maximum diligence.
The Constitutional Court of Georgia explained that the authority granted to a notary public under the Law of Georgia “On Notaries” to certify legal relationships and legal facts does not represent a measure carried out in the field of public administration. The functional purpose of a notary public, as a subject exercising public authority, fundamentally differs from the functions of administrative bodies. The role of a notary public, first and foremost, is directed towards ensuring security and legal certainty of civil relationships between private persons. A notary public acts within the scope of the parties’ will, private autonomy and agreement, ensures legally correct formalization of their intent, which leads to the protection of the stability of legal relationships. In this process, a notary public acts not as an expression of the unilateral, vertical will of the State but as an independent and impartial person who, by its nature, serves to ensure that legal relationships between private persons are conducted in a transparent, reliable and legally secure manner.
At the same time, as a result of analysing legislative norms regulating the activity of a notary public, the Constitutional Court of Georgia concluded that the nature of the office of a notary public differs from the concept of a typical civil servant/public officer, which, according to the view of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, logically explains the decision of the State to impose the obligation to compensate for damage caused by a notary public directly on the latter. In particular, in accordance with the legislation, a notary public is not a public officer and at the same time, their activity does not represent an entrepreneurial activity. A notary public does not receive remuneration or any other form of benefit from the State budget.
A notary public is free in the exercise of their professional activity and when performing notarial actions shall be independent and impartial. Although the Ministry of Justice of Georgia exercises supervision over the official activity of a notary public, its role is limited to supervision established by law, being devoid of the competence to assess, modify or invalidate a notarial act performed by a notary public. In addition, the Constitutional Court of Georgia indicated that the legislative framework governing the activity of a notary public creates a hybrid legal status of a free profession, in the scope of which professional freedom entails the personal liability of the notary public.
Accordingly, the Constitutional Court of Georgia established that, in regulating the issue of compensating for damage caused by a notary public, exclusion of State liability and imposition of private, personal liability on the notary public do not violate the requirements of Paragraph 4 of Article 18 of the Constitution of Georgia. Based on all of the above, the Constitutional Court of Georgia ruled not to uphold the Constitutional Claim № 1494.
A dissenting opinion of the Justice of the Constitutional Court Mr. Teimuraz Tughushi is attached to the judgement.
Subject of the Dispute: Constitutionality of the second sentence of Paragraph 6 of Article 3 of the Law of Georgia “On Notaries” with respect to Paragraph 4 of Article 18 of the Constitution of Georgia.
