The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: when witnessing a signature, a notary is not obliged to verify the facts set forth in the document

CrimeaPRESS reports:

The performance of notarial acts does not always require the notary to establish the authenticity of the facts indicated in legal documents. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation pointed out that when certifying the authenticity of a signature, a notary certifies only the fact that the signature was made by a certain person, and not the facts set forth in the document being certified.

Determination 1655-O / 2023 dated June 27, 2023 issued following the consideration of the complaint. The woman tried to challenge the constitutionality of parts 7 and 10 of Article 22 of the Fundamentals of the RF Legislation on Notaries (“Payment for notarial acts and other services provided in the course of notarial activities”). As follows from the materials of the case under consideration, the Plaintiff applied to a notary for the service of witnessing signatures on documents. On the basis of a signature certificate, she tried to get a public service, but was denied. Then the woman tried to recover from the notary the money paid to him for the provision of legal and technical services. However, the courts took the side of the notary, motivating the decision by the fact that the notary certifies only the fact of the signature on the document by a certain person, but not the facts contained in the document (Article 80 of the Basics). The woman considered the decision of the courts violating her constitutional rights and applied to the country’s highest judicial body of constitutional control.

When considering the complaint, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation indicated that the fee for services of a legal and technical nature should be determined on the basis of clear criteria under the control of authorized state bodies that guarantee the availability of notary services and equality of rights when receiving them. At the same time, the Constitutional Court noted that in a number of cases a notary is not obliged to carry out an additional analysis of the documents certified by him.

The performance of individual notarial acts does not always require additional efforts from the notary in the legal analysis of the submitted documents, advising on the application of legislative norms, preparing documents and providing other services of a legal and technical naturethe Constitutional Court pointed out.

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation emphasized that the applicant, who does not agree with the need to pay the notary the cost of such services, has the right to go to court. The courts, in turn, must, in each specific case, ascertain the need for a notary to provide services of a legal and technical nature based on the essence of a particular notarial act. In this case, the Constitutional Court recognized that the challenged norm had not violated the applicant’s constitutional rights.

Thus, it was recognized that the contested norms could not violate the applicant’s constitutional rights.

source: Notary Chamber of the city of Sevastopol

News of the Crimea | CrimeaPRESS: latest news and events in Crimea today