This article examines the legal acts requiring registration and the status of unregistered transactions under Article 1 of the Act on the Obligation to Officially Register Transactions of Immovable Properties, using a descriptive-analytical method. The purpose is to remove ambiguities from the newly enacted statute and to facilitate its proper implementation by judicial and executive authorities.  An analysis of the new Act—conducted in light of its legislative history and longstanding legal and judicial controversies—reveals the following:  First, the criterion for mandatory registration of legal acts relating to immovable property is extremely broad and encompasses numerous bilateral and unilateral acts, including sale (bayʿ), settlement (ṣulḥ), exchange, gift (hiba), testamentary disposition of ownership (waṣiyya tamlikiyya), pre-sale agreements for buildings, leases and settlements of usufruct, testamentary dispositions of usufruct for a period exceeding two years, lease with transfer of ownership, mortgage (rahn), endowment (waqf) of immovable property, usufructuary rights (ḥaqq al-intifāʿ) and easements (ḥaqq al-irtifāq) for more than two years, as well as commitments to perform any of the foregoing acts with respect to immovable property—although the application of the Act to testamentary dispositions of ownership, the exercise of the right of pre-emption (shufʿa), and court-approved corrective reports remains subject to considerable doubt.  Second, unlike the former Registration Act and the initial drafts of the present statute, registration of the above-mentioned legal acts in the “Electronic Document Registration System” has fully replaced registration at notary public offices.  Third, while certain earlier amendments explicitly prescribed nullity as the sanction for non-registration, the final enacted version leaves the substantive legal status of unregistered transactions unclear and merely declares that claims and evidence deriving from them are inadmissible and devoid of legal effect. Nevertheless, the sanction of nullity is far more consistent with the underlying philosophy of the Act and with several of its provisions—particularly the impossibility of compelling the transferor to perform obligations arising from an unregistered document and the restriction, under Article 1, of actionable claims to restitution of consideration paid.