Commentary on Judgment No. 22135 of 2023: The Absence of Digital Signature and the Admissibility of the Appeal

The recent judgment No. 22135, filed on May 23, 2023, offers an important interpretation of the emergency regulations introduced to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic, particularly regarding the submission of appeals to the Court of Cassation. The Court has established that the absence of a digital signature by the defence counsel on attachments sent via certified email (p.e.c.) does not automatically lead to the inadmissibility of the appeal, if these are non-essential documents.

Regulatory Context

The judgment falls within the regulatory framework outlined by Decree-Law No. 137 of 2020, converted by Law No. 176 of 2020, which introduced emergency measures to ensure the proper functioning of justice during the pandemic. In particular, Article 24, paragraph 6-sexies, letter b), sets out specific provisions regarding the methods of transmitting procedural documents.

Emergency regulations for the containment of the Covid-19 pandemic - Art. 24, paragraph 6-sexies, letter b), Decree-Law No. 134 of 2020 - Appeal to the Court of Cassation transmitted by p.e.c. - Absence of digital signature on attachments by the defence counsel - Admissibility - Conditions - Case law. In matters of appeals, under the emergency regulations for the containment of the Covid-19 pandemic, the absence of the defence counsel's digital signature, for conformity with the original, on the electronic copies of the attachments to the appeal document transmitted by p.e.c. is not a cause for inadmissibility of the appeal to the Court of Cassation, pursuant to art. 24, paragraph 6-sexies, letter b), Decree-Law of October 28, 2020, No. 137, converted, with amendments, by Law of December 18, 2020, No. 176, where these are non-essential attachments, as they are not related to the content of the appeal, the principle of preservation of procedural documents being opposed to this. (Case relating to the absence of a digital signature on the appealed judgment, in which the Court deemed the appeal filed admissible, as the submission of the provision by the appellant was superfluous, as it is legally to be transmitted by the registry of the "a quo" judge).

Analysis of the Case

In the case examined, the Court upheld the appeal filed by C. R., holding that the absence of a digital signature on the appealed judgment should not lead to inadmissibility. This approach reflects an interpretation favouring the preservation of documents and the continuity of the proceedings, particularly in a period of emergency when the methods of communication and transmission of documents were significantly affected by the pandemic.

The conditions established by the Court can be summarised as follows:

• Absence of digital signature is not a cause for inadmissibility.
• Non-essential attachments do not need to be digitally signed.
• The principle of preservation of procedural documents prevails in emergencies.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 22135 of 2023 represents a significant step towards greater flexibility in legal procedures during emergencies. It underscores the importance of adapting rules to extraordinary circumstances, preventing formal technicalities from hindering access to justice. These emergency provisions not only facilitate the management of appeals but also highlight the need for accessible and timely justice for all citizens, even in difficult conditions.