Fiction of signature in the case of a petition filed by an attorney from the perspective of the Constitutional Court’s ruling

At the beginning of this year, a key ruling of 18 December 2024 was published in the database of decisions of the Constitutional Court, with reference no. Pl. ÚS 30/24, in which the Constitutional Court dealt with a constitutional complaint filed by the complainant against the procedure of the Supreme Administrative Court.

The complainant argued that the Supreme Administrative Court had violated his right to judicial protection under Article 36(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms by refusing to hear his petition to invalidate the election of a candidate in the elections to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic held on 20 and 21 September and 27 and 28 September 2024 in electoral district number 8 – Rokycany.

Factual circumstances

The petition to invalidate the election of the candidate was submitted via an attorney’s data mailbox, but it contained only a simple electronic signature of a law clerk, not the attorney himself. The first page of the petition contained the stamp of the Supreme Administrative Court and the indication “electronic signature verified”. The petition was also accompanied by a power of attorney for the attorney to file the respective petition. The attorney also granted a substitute power of attorney to two law clerks in the full scope of the power of attorney granted by the client.

The Supreme Administrative Court considered the petition in question to be a defective electronic submission by the law clerk who attached his signature to the petition.

Since the submission was an election petition, which, if made by means of a data box, must be signed, the court addressed the question of whether the so-called fiction of signature applies to the law clerk in this case. Pursuant to Section 18(2) of Act No. 300/2008 Coll., the Act on Electronic Acts and Authorised Conversion of Documents, an act performed via a data box by the person for whom the data box was established [1]or by an authorised person has the same effects as a signed act performed in writing. However, the court concluded that the fiction of signature does not apply to the law clerk in the present case, as the law clerk is a person different from the “holder” of the data box.

For this reason, the Supreme Administrative Court refused to hear the case, as it considered that the submitted petition could not be taken into consideration.

Decision of the Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court found that the procedure of the Supreme Administrative Court violated the complainant’s right to judicial protection guaranteed by Article 36(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

Contrary to the conclusions of the Supreme Administrative Court, the Constitutional Court concluded that the attorney in the present case is entitled to the fiction of signature, as it is linked to the person for whom the data box was established. The Constitutional Court supported the conclusion that it is not relevant who is listed as a signatory in the petition to initiate proceedings if the petition was sent from the attorney’s mailbox. This would not apply only in the case of misuse of access data to the attorney’s data box.

Furthermore, the Constitutional Court emphasized that the fiction of signature pursuant to Section 18(2) of Act No. 300/2008 Coll., on Electronic Acts and Authorized Conversion of Documents, also applies to submissions made through a data box, to which only a simple electronic signature of another person acting on behalf of the holder of the data box (e.g. a representative, assistant or substitute) is attached, if it is obvious from the circumstances that the person to whom the data box was established was authorized to make and sign the submission himself.

The Constitutional Court concluded that the law clerk was acting as a substitute for the attorney who had granted him power of attorney, and the petition was sent from the attorney’s data mailbox. Given these circumstances, there could not have been reasonable doubt as to the authenticity, seriousness, procedural obligation and authorship of the petition. 

The plenum of the Constitutional Court thus ultimately upheld the complainant’s constitutional complaint against another intervention by a public authority.

Conclusion

The above discussed ruling of the Constitutional Court undoubtedly strengthens the protection of the rights of parties to proceedings and softens the absoluteness of formal requirements in access to judicial protection. Although the conclusions of the Constitutional Court strengthen the protection of procedural rights and stress that formalism must not prevail over the meaning and purpose of law, it is still necessary to pay increased attention to the formalities of submissions, especially when communicating via data mailboxes. Although the Constitutional Court has ruled in favour of a factual approach, this interpretation cannot be relied upon as a blanket – procedural diligence remains key.

[1] Alternatively, the business individual for whom the data box was established; the statutory body of the legal entity or a member of the statutory body of the legal entity for which the data box was established; and the head of the public authority for which the data box was established.