Comment on Judgment No. 22135 of 2023: The Lack of Digital Signature and the Admissibility of the Appeal

The recent judgment No. 22135, filed on May 23, 2023, provides an important interpretation of the emergency regulations introduced to address the Covid-19 pandemic, particularly regarding the submission of appeals for cassation. The Court established that the lack of a digital signature by the lawyer on the attachments sent via certified email (p.e.c.) does not automatically result in the inadmissibility of the appeal if they are non-essential documents.

The Regulatory Context

The judgment is situated within the regulatory context 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), establishes 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), d.l. No. 134 of 2020 - Appeal for cassation transmitted via p.e.c. - Lack of digital signature of attachments by the lawyer - Admissibility - Conditions - Case. Regarding appeals, under the emergency regulations for the containment of the Covid-19 pandemic, the lack of a digital signature by the lawyer, in conformity with the original, of the electronic copies of the attachments to the appeal transmitted via p.e.c., does not constitute grounds for inadmissibility of the appeal for cassation, pursuant to Art. 24, paragraph 6-sexies, letter b), d.l. October 28, 2020, No. 137, converted, with modifications, by Law December 18, 2020, No. 176, when it concerns non-essential attachments, as they are not related to the content of the appeal, opposing the principle of preserving procedural documents. (Case concerning the lack of digital signature of the contested judgment, in which the Court deemed the proposed appeal admissible, as the sending of the provision by the appellant was considered superfluous, to be transmitted by law by the court clerk "a quo").

Analysis of the Case

In the examined case, the Court upheld the appeal proposed by C. R., considering that the lack of a digital signature of the contested judgment should not lead to inadmissibility. This approach reflects a favorable interpretation towards the preservation of documents and the continuity of the process, especially during an emergency period in which the methods of communication and transmission of documents have been significantly influenced by the pandemic.

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

  • Lack of digital signature is not a cause of inadmissibility.
  • Non-essential attachments do not need to be digitally signed.
  • The principle of preserving procedural documents prevails in cases of emergency.

Conclusions

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

Bianucci Law Firm