Judgment No. 48545 of October 25, 2023, represents an important clarification regarding the admissibility of procedural documents in digital format, emphasizing the necessity of a proper digital signature. This topic is of particular relevance in the era of justice digitalization, where the electronic filing of documents has become common practice.
In this specific case, the Court rejected an appeal filed by the defense counsel of D. P., highlighting that the appeal document, sent via certified email in "smime,p7c" format, lacked a digital signature. This deficiency led to the inadmissibility of the document, as the file extension was not considered sufficient to prove attribution to the authorized professional.
Appeal by Defense Counsel - Electronic Filing of Document - Absence of Digital Signature - Inadmissibility - Case Facts. An appeal filed by defense counsel with a digital document lacking a digital signature, transmitted via certified email, is inadmissible. (Case concerning the filing of an appeal document by defense counsel in "smime,p7c" format, sent from an email address attributable to the aforementioned, in which the Court specified that the use of such file extension, in the absence of a digital signature, is not sufficient to prove its attribution to the authorized professional).
This decision has several implications for legal practitioners and professionals. Here are some key points to consider:
Judgment No. 48545 of 2023 highlights the importance of the digital signature in the context of electronic filing of legal documents. With the increasing digitalization in the legal sector, it is crucial for professionals to understand and comply with current regulations to ensure the admissibility of their appeals. Only then can the loss of legal rights and opportunities due to formal errors in document submission be avoided.