{"id":7346,"date":"2019-05-27T01:01:00","date_gmt":"2019-05-27T01:01:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/certsign.ro\/hccj-admits-the-equivalence-between-the-electronic-and-the-handwritten-signature-in-the-documents-sent-to-the-courts\/"},"modified":"2021-03-09T18:33:58","modified_gmt":"2021-03-09T18:33:58","slug":"hccj-admits-the-equivalence-between-the-electronic-and-the-handwritten-signature-in-the-documents-sent-to-the-courts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.certsign.ro\/en\/hccj-admits-the-equivalence-between-the-electronic-and-the-handwritten-signature-in-the-documents-sent-to-the-courts\/","title":{"rendered":"HCCJ admits the equivalence between the electronic and the handwritten signature, in the documents sent to the courts"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

High Court of Cassation and Justice – Civil Division I retained the equivalence between the qualified electronic signature<\/a> and the handwritten signature on documents sent to a court and also acknowledged the electronic way of communicating documents in civil proceedings, as long as they bear a qualified electronic signature.<\/span><\/span><\/p>

Both aspects can be found in the HCCJ Decision no. 520\/2019 delivered at the public hearing on 7 March 2019, which can be consulted here<\/a> in full. In this case, the Supreme Court examined the exception to the nullity of the e-mailed appeal to a court whose decision is being challenged, since neither the appeal nor the email had a qualified electronic signature.<\/span><\/span><\/p>

Following the debates, the Supreme Court ruled that if a party understands submitting requests electronically to the court, \"the existence of the scanned signature of the signatory is not sufficient\", the qualified electronic signature \"connects the signatory's electronic identity with the digital document<\/strong> and can not be copied from one digital document to another, which gives the document authenticity<\/strong> \"and\" provides the court with a guarantee that the message or digital document is created by the person who signed it and that the content of the message or digital document has not been altered since the date of issue \".<\/span><\/span><\/p>

We welcome the decision of the Supreme Court that we believe will encourage law practitioners to move to the use of digital means of signing and communicating acts in the act of justice. Thus, the courts will also have to adapt to the electronic management of the act of justice, to the rapid and efficient communication with its actors.<\/span><\/span><\/p>