In a period of galloping digitalisation, more and more areas of life are moving to the virtual world, and the law is no exception. The submission of procedural documents by electronic signature became one from key solutions that could improve communication with courts and administrative authorities. With this technology you can save time, reduce the costs associated with traditional paper correspondence, while at the same time ensuring the security and authenticity of the submitted documents.
This Article constitutes an examination of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 October 2024 on C-302/23 in which the Court referred to an assessment of the effectiveness of a request for a declaration of enforceability sent by e-mail to the address of the court and signed electronically by means of a trusted signature within the meaning of Article 3(14a) Act on 17 February 2005 information about the activities of entities carrying out public tasks.
This is particularly important due to the increasing importance of digitalisation in almost every sphere of life, for which courts, both in Poland and in the European Union, often fail to keep up. The problem of adapting justice to modern technologies creates tensions between public expectations and real administrative and legal capabilities. The Court's judgment in this case can therefore set the course for changes that will bring the judiciary closer to the digital reality of the 21st century.
The facts assessed by the Court of Justice concerned a case in which the Polish citizen applied to the Katowice-East District Court for a declaration of enforceability together with an application for exemption from judicial costs in order to execute the property forming part of the common assets of the debtor and his spouse. This request was sent in electronic form and signed with a trusted signature, which, in accordance with Polish rules on trust and electronic identification services, is considered to be one from acceptable forms of electronic signature.
However, the Judicial Referendary called on the applicant to complete the formal deficiencies, indicating that in the Polish civil proceedings the procedural documents submitted by electronic means must bear a qualified electronic signature or a handwritten signature.
The court argued that the trusted signature does not meet the requirements in this respect, and in practice, due to the lack of adequate information systems in the Polish courts, only documents with own-handed signature are accepted.
Applicant on 21 January 2023 has sent to the same e-mail address of that court a statement containing the requested information, also signed by a trusted signature. The next order of the Court of Justice referred the applicant to the request indicating that the formal deficiencies had not been completed within the time limit.
The facts of the case and the applicant’s questioning of the correctness of the proceedings taken by the judicial referrer were the grounds for referring the Katowice-East District Court to the Court of Justice with the following preliminary question:
„Is Article 2(1)(3) ori dic Article 25(1)(2) Theme 12, 13, 18, 21, 22 and 49 preamble [Regulation No. 910/2014] it must be interpreted as requiring the court of a Member State to accept a procedural letter lodged with that court and signed by the electronic signature referred to in Article 3(10) Regulations where the national provisions of a Member State do not provide for the possibility of bringing procedural documents to court using electronic signatures other than via the electronic system?’
In response to this question, The Court rightly held that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings where the procedural document is brought to the court by electronic means, although the court does not have an adequate information system by which the procedural documents must be lodged, it is therefore not refused to accept that document ‘for that reason only’, that the signature in that document is electronic or that it does not meet the requirements for a qualified electronic signature.
In view of the above, the answer to this question is: Article 2(1)(3) and Article 25(1) Regulation No 910/2014 Whereas it must be interpreted that they do not preclude national legislation by which a procedural document may be brought to the court by electronic means and signed electronically only if the court has an adequate IT system and that document is filed through that system;
The Court therefore stressed in its ruling that one from the key conditions for the effective submission of the pleading by electronic means is the availability of the relevant information system in the court.
Only if the court has such a system can a procedural letter be filed electronically, which will have full legal effect, as in the case of a traditional paper-based letter. If the court does not have an adequate IT system, the letter cannot be considered to be effectively filed, although it has been signed electronically.
Having such a system is therefore a necessary condition for a procedural document to be recognised by a court, whether or not an electronic signature meets the requirements of a qualified electronic signature.
In conclusion, it is clear from the Court’s ruling that, where the court does not have an adequate information system, even a procedural document bearing an electronic signature cannot be considered to be effectively filed.
This legal situation underlines the need for courts to ensure the availability of appropriate IT tools which allow the submission of procedural documents in electronic form.
This practice not only improves judicial proceedings, but also fits into the drive to digitise judicial systems, which is the objective of many Member States of the European Union.