Case law: EDS (KEP) has the same legal force as a handwritten signature

Resolution of the Eastern Commercial Court of Appeal dated August 26, 2020 in case No. 905/1088/19:

 

The appellant's reference to the fact that she and the plaintiff did not conclude a contract of suretyship, and, accordingly, did not sign it using an electronic digital signature is refuted by the materials of the case, namely, an extract about the object of inspection under the suretyship contract No. POR1541589884360, which established the ownership of the electronic signature PERSON_1 and it is indicated that the EDS is correct, the signature was affixed on 14.11.2018 at 12:38:05 (a.s. 35).

In accordance with Part 3 of Art. 4 of the Law of Ukraine "On Electronic Digital Signature" , an electronic digital signature is used by individuals and legal entities - subjects of electronic document flow to identify the signer and confirm the integrity of data in electronic form . The use of an electronic digital signature does not change the procedure for signing contracts and other documents established by law for the execution of transactions in writing.

That is, the presence of a digital signature is not preferable to a handwritten signature - both types are used to identify the signer.

In accordance with clauses 3 and 4 of Art. 18 of the Law of Ukraine "On Electronic Trust Services", an electronic signature or seal cannot be declared invalid and deprived of the opportunity to be considered as evidence in court cases solely on the grounds that they have an electronic form or do not meet the requirements for a qualified electronic signature or seal. A qualified electronic signature has the same legal force as a handwritten signature and is presumed to correspond to a handwritten signature.

The specified document is proper and admissible evidence within the meaning of Art. Art. 76-77 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine to confirm the agreement of the second defendant with the essential terms of the suretyship agreement.

That is, in this case, the fact of familiarization with the terms of the contract and agreement with them is confirmed.

 

https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/91215721

Speak for search
Done