In recent months, the notary institution has once again found itself at the center of public and professional attention. On June 3, 2026, the Majilis of the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan approved in its second reading a draft law on notarial activities and legal assistance.

The catalyst for an active discussion were statements made in Parliament regarding violations in the execution of enforcement endorsements, issues concerning the interaction between notaries and microfinance organizations, and the need to strengthen state control over notarial activities.

The proposed legislative changes touch upon several socially sensitive topics: the procedure for making enforcement endorsements, the protection of personal data, the digitalization of notarial procedures, and the liability of notaries for violations committed.

In this regard, the editorial board of the "Yuridicheskaya Gazeta" (Legal Gazette) deemed it necessary to provide an opportunity for representatives of the notary community to speak out and to get answers to questions of greatest public interest.

We spoke about how the enforcement endorsement institution works today, what changes have been implemented in recent years, how citizens' rights are protected, and what reforms the notary system considers priorities for the near future, with Oleg Polumordvinov, Chairman of the Republican Notarial Chamber.

– Recently, within the walls of Parliament, deputies cited data regarding thousands of enforcement endorsements which, in their opinion, were issued in violation of the principle of indisputability. What is your position on this matter?

– When discussing enforcement endorsements, it is important to remember why this institution was created in the first place. Its task is not to replace the court or restrict anyone's rights, but to help citizens and organizations resolve situations more quickly where there is no dispute of right between the parties.

In essence, an enforcement endorsement is a legal mechanism for indisputable claims. If a debt is confirmed by documents and does not require a substantive court hearing, the state provides the opportunity to collect it through an extrajudicial procedure. This decision was made as part of the judicial reform so that courts could focus on genuinely disputed cases.

That said, it cannot be claimed that the enforcement endorsement institution remained unchanged. On the contrary, during its existence, legislation has been amended eight times. Each amendment was a response to questions that arose from practice. This is a normal process of development for any legal mechanism.

Regarding the statements made in the Majilis, it should be taken into account that a significant portion of the claims referred to inspection materials from 2021-2022. Since then, serious decisions have been made at both the legislative and organizational levels. One of the most important steps was the introduction of the principle of territoriality. Today, an enforcement endorsement is generally made at the debtor's place of registration or residence, which has significantly reduced the risks of abuse.

There is another important point. In the public sphere, enforcement endorsements are often associated exclusively with bank loans or microloans. But this is only part of the overall picture. The law provides for ten categories of indisputable claims for which an enforcement endorsement may be made. These include claims based on notarized transactions, collection of overdue utility bills, collection of accrued but unpaid wages, and several other cases.

Therefore, evaluating the effectiveness of the institution solely through the lens of credit obligations would not be entirely correct. It is necessary to look at the entire law enforcement practice as a whole.

The regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court No. 6 of May 26, 2022, was of great importance for forming a uniform approach. It defined important guidelines for notaries and courts and effectively eliminated the possibility of making enforcement endorsements on claims for early collection of the entire amount of debt on loans and microloans if the obligation's performance deadline had not yet arrived.

Today, we can confidently say that the enforcement endorsement institution has undergone significant refinement and continues to develop. At the same time, the debtor's rights are protected by law at several levels. After an enforcement endorsement is made, the citizen is notified of it, can review its content through state electronic services, submit objections to the notary, and also appeal to the court. If objections are received within the established period, the enforcement endorsement is subject to cancellation.

For the notary community, the principle of indisputability is not a formality. It is the foundation upon which the entire institution of the enforcement endorsement rests. If there is no indisputability, there can be no enforcement endorsement.

– Is there information on how many such endorsements have been challenged and canceled in the last three years, and what measures has the Republican Notarial Chamber already taken against notaries who committed violations?

– When discussing enforcement endorsements, it is very important to rely not only on individual high-profile cases but also on statistics. The legal system is evaluated primarily by how it works as a whole.

The Republican Notarial Chamber annually publishes data on the number of enforcement endorsements made, their judicial appeals, cancellations, and private court rulings against notaries. We consider such openness a necessary condition for trust in the notary system.

For example, in 2025, notaries in the country made 1,911,528 enforcement endorsements. Of these, 249 were appealed in court, 19 were canceled by the court, and ten private rulings were issued against notaries.

In 2024, 1,486,936 enforcement endorsements were made. Of these, 473 were appealed, 38 were canceled by the court, and two private rulings were issued.

In 2023, notaries made 2,022,335 enforcement endorsements. Of these, 756 were appealed, 116 were canceled, and eight private rulings were issued.

These figures show that the proportion of enforcement endorsements that became the subject of legal disputes is extremely small relative to the total number of notarial acts performed. This indicates that this mechanism generally fulfills its task and remains a sought-after tool for protecting rights.

However, I would not want statistics to be perceived as a reason to turn a blind eye to individual violations. For the notary community, every well-founded signal is important. If a citizen believes their rights have been violated, they have the right to appeal to court, justice authorities, or the disciplinary commissions of the notarial chambers. And such appeals are subject to objective review.

At the same time, it is important to maintain a balance. A notary, like any other participant in legal relationships, must be held accountable for violations committed. But accountability should arise based on the results of an investigation and established facts, not on assumptions or emotional assessments. This approach is consistent with the principles of a rule-of-law state.

– Deputies directly speak about the affiliation of some notaries with MFIs and collection agencies. What internal mechanisms for detecting such conflicts of interest do you think are necessary at this point?

– Trust in the notary system is built on one simple principle: a notary must remain independent. Therefore, any issues related to a possible conflict of interest require the most serious attention.

At the same time, I would caution against generalizations. One cannot draw conclusions about the entire notary community based on isolated cases. Today, nearly five thousand notaries work in the country, and the vast majority conscientiously perform their professional duties.

In recent years, decisions have been made that have significantly reduced the risks of concentrating enforcement endorsements with individual notaries. The most significant of these was the introduction of the principle of territoriality. Whereas previously a claimant had the opportunity to contact notaries in different regions of the country, today an enforcement endorsement is made primarily at the debtor's place of registration or residence.

Furthermore, the notary system has long ceased to exist exclusively in paper format. All basic notarial acts are recorded in the Unified Notarial Information System (UNIS). This allows for an overview of the situation, analysis of workloads, and timely identification of atypical indicators in notaries' work.

A notary is obliged to study documents, verify the existence of grounds provided by law, and only then make a decision. When quantity begins to replace quality, the risks of errors inevitably arise.

Of course, any control system can be improved. The notary community is open to discussing additional transparency mechanisms if they genuinely strengthen citizen trust. But it is important to remember: the independence of a notary and effective control do not contradict each other. On the contrary, it is their combination that ensures the stability of the entire system.

– Citizens are complaining en masse that they learn about an enforcement endorsement only after their accounts are frozen. Is the current notification procedure sufficient, and what additional measures do you think need to be implemented to protect the rights of debtors?

– Any situation in which a person learns about a collection only after their account has been frozen evokes an understandable emotional reaction. And here it is important to understand at what stage the problem arises.

Current legislation imposes on the notary the obligation to notify the debtor of the making of an enforcement endorsement no later than the next business day after it is made. A copy of the enforcement endorsement is sent via communication means allowing confirmation of the delivery of the notice.

Additionally, digital tools are now in use. SMS notification using state services is implemented through the UNIS. The notification is sent to the phone number registered in the eGov database, and the document itself can be viewed through eGov Mobile. If a citizen disagrees with the enforcement endorsement, they have the right to send objections to the notary, including in electronic format.

But life is always more complex than any legal norm. People change phone numbers, do not update information in state databases, and do not check notifications in mobile applications. As a result, a notification may be properly sent but effectively go unnoticed.

Therefore, in my opinion, the need today is not so much to increase the number of notification methods, but to make state digital channels an official and independent means of notifying the debtor. If a citizen receives notifications from banks, government agencies, and other services via their smartphone, it is logical to use the same approach in the notarial sphere.

We are interested in ensuring that a person learns about an enforcement endorsement as quickly as possible. The sooner a citizen receives the information, the more opportunities they have to exercise their rights, and the less grounds there are for conflicts and mistrust.

Ultimately, the notary system is interested not in surprise for the debtor, but in legal certainty for all participants in legal relationships.

– The draft law presented by the deputies provides for strengthening state control and revoking licenses for personal data leaks. Do you consider these measures sufficient or excessive? Is the notary community ready for stricter oversight by the Ministry of Justice?

– Let me start with the main point. The notary system, by its very nature, works with the most sensitive information a person has: data on family, property, inheritance, obligations, and personal rights. Therefore, maintaining notarial secrecy is not just a legal requirement, but the foundation of the profession.

That is why I would not view the notary system as a source of heightened risk in the field of personal data. On the contrary, over decades of work, the notarial system has built a culture of confidentiality, without which neither citizen trust nor notarial activity itself would be possible.

Of course, the goal of the draft law deserves support. Personal data protection has become a matter of national importance today. However, in such matters, it is especially important to observe the principle of proportionality.

Revocation of a license is not an administrative fine or a disciplinary sanction. For a notary, it effectively means the termination of their professional activity. Therefore, such a serious measure should be applied when a person's guilt has been established – a deliberate violation of the law or gross negligence resulting in severe consequences.

We live in an era where the world's largest corporations, banks, and government information systems become targets of cyberattacks. It would be unfair to automatically assign equal responsibility to the attacker and to the specialist who conscientiously fulfilled all prescribed information protection requirements.

Therefore, the position of the notary community is simple: we support strengthening personal data protection, but we believe that liability should be differentiated and take into account the specific circumstances of each case.

As for state control, the notary system has never existed outside a supervisory framework. We work daily under the oversight of the justice authorities, and this is a normal part of our activities. Moreover, the professional community is interested in control being effective and objective.

But if we are talking about long-term protection of citizens' data, it is ensured not only by sanctions. The most reliable investments are the development of technology, strengthening cybersecurity, and continuously improving information systems. This is the direction in which the notary system is working today and intends to continue working, together with the state.

– In light of the criticism in the Majilis, which systemic reforms of the notary system do you consider the highest priority for 2026-2027 to increase citizen trust while simultaneously protecting conscientious notaries from unfounded accusations?

– Any criticism is useful if it becomes a reason for development. Therefore, I would view the current discussion surrounding the notary system not as a problem, but as an opportunity to honestly answer again the question: what should the notary system of tomorrow look like?

In my opinion, one of the key issues remains improving the approaches to determining the number of notaries. Sometimes this topic is presented as an exclusively professional or corporate interest. In reality, it is primarily about the quality of notarial assistance.

A notary is not an entrepreneur in the classical sense. The state endows them with specific public powers and, along with them, places serious responsibility for each act performed. To perform this function with quality, a notary must have the opportunity to invest in professional development, modern technology, information security, and the organization of their work.

When the system develops in a balanced manner, everyone wins: citizens receive quality legal assistance, the state gains a reliable institution of preventive justice, and the notary can focus on the quality of their work. Therefore, the issue of a reasonable ratio between the number of notaries and the needs of the population requires serious professional discussion.

A second absolute priority is the further digitalization of notarial activities. The future of the notary system is not linked to an increase in the volume of paperwork, but to the development of modern digital services. The more processes take place through secure information systems, the higher the transparency, convenience, and security for citizens.

Today, many notarial acts are already performed using digital tools, but the development potential remains significant. This is not just about technological progress. Each new digital capability is an additional guarantee of the protection of citizens' rights and an additional tool for monitoring compliance with the law.

A third direction I would name is the further improvement of disciplinary procedures. Public trust is impossible without accountability, but it is also equally impossible without justice.

A conscientious notary must be protected from unfounded accusations no less than a citizen is protected from dishonest actions. Therefore, any issues of liability must be considered based on objective facts, with respect for the right to a defense and the principle of the presumption of good faith.

It seems to me that today it is especially important to move away from the false juxtaposition of citizens' interests and the interests of the notary community. In reality, they coincide. Citizens need a professional, independent, and responsible notary system. And the notary system needs the trust of citizens.

Therefore, the main task for the coming years is not just to improve individual provisions of legislation, but to strengthen the very culture of legal certainty and trust.

After all, the notary system does not exist for the sake of notaries. It exists so that a person can be confident in the future: that their rights are reliably protected, their will will be executed, and the law will prove stronger than any circumstances. This is precisely what I see as the main mission of the notary system and the main guiding star for its further development. The notary system is often called the bridge between law and life. Our task is to make this bridge reliable, understandable, and safe for every person.

Interviewed by Ravil KASYMOV