E-filing with an assistant's digital signature and exposed personal data
Lawyer R. filed a cassation complaint with the Supreme Court's e-justice portal on 2 April 2024. The complaint was signed with an electronic digital signature (EDS) issued to R.'s legal assistant, not to R. The attached power of attorney is a scanned PDF showing R.'s authority, but it is not an electronic document signed with an EDS. The portal generated a receipt, and the court registry registered the complaint the same day. The opposing party moves to return the complaint as improperly filed. Separately, the complaint's annex includes a hospital discharge summary with a third party's diagnosis and ID number; the portal's default settings make annexes visible to all case participants. The judge must decide whether to return the complaint, leave it without movement, or accept it, and what to do about the personal data. The cassation deadline expires on 10 April 2024.
1. Is the cassation complaint properly signed and filed, given that the EDS belongs to the assistant and the power of attorney is only a scanned copy?
Read the worked answer
The complaint is defective but likely curable. Under the Law on Electronic Document and Electronic Digital Signature, an electronic document signed with a valid EDS is equivalent to a paper document signed by the EDS holder. The EDS identifies the assistant, not R. The assistant may file on R.'s behalf only if authority is properly established in electronic form. A scanned PDF of a power of attorney is not itself an electronic document signed with an EDS; it is an image. The e-justice rules may permit scanned copies in some circumstances, but the safer view is that the representative's authority must be confirmed by an electronic power of attorney or by an EDS-signed document. The portal's automatic receipt and registry registration do not cure the defect; registration is administrative, not a judicial validation of authority. Therefore the judge should not simply accept the complaint as valid. Returning it outright would be harsh because the deadline is 10 April and the defect can be fixed. The judge should leave the complaint without movement and set a short deadline to file an EDS-signed power of attorney or a complaint signed by R. personally.
2. What should the judge do about the third party's medical diagnosis and ID number in the annex?
Read the worked answer
The judge must protect personal data and medical confidentiality. The annex contains sensitive personal data of a person who may not be a party, and the portal's default visibility exposes it to all participants. The judge should not ignore this because the data is already filed. The judge should order that access to the annex be restricted, that the data be redacted or anonymized in the case file, and that the parties not disseminate it. If the medical information is relevant to the cassation grounds, the judge may allow access only to the court and to the parties' representatives under a confidentiality undertaking. If it is not relevant, the judge should exclude the annex or require a redacted version. The judge should also consider whether the filing violated the Law on Personal Data and its Protection and, if appropriate, refer the matter to the court's data protection officer. The ruling should explain that open justice does not require disclosure of sensitive third-party data. The judge should ensure the portal settings for this case are changed to restrict annex visibility.
3. How should the judge balance procedural discipline against access to cassation and the urgent deadline?
Read the worked answer
The judge should use the least restrictive procedural response. The defect in authority is formal and curable, while the cassation deadline is imminent. Returning the complaint would risk extinguishing R.'s right to cassation for a defect that can be fixed in days. Leaving it without movement preserves the filing date if the defect is cured within the set period, depending on the applicable rules. The judge should issue a clear order: the complaint remains registered but is not yet admitted; R. must file an EDS-signed power of attorney or a personally signed complaint by 9 April 2024; the personal-data annex must be redacted immediately. The order should warn that failure to cure will result in return. The reasoning should distinguish between the filing date and the admissibility decision: the court can preserve the filing date while verifying authority. The judge should also verify whether the assistant had actual authority and whether R. ratified the filing. If R. ratifies promptly, the defect is cured. This approach respects the deadline, protects the opposing party from an unauthorized filing, and avoids unnecessary injustice.