{"id":99805,"date":"2025-08-22T10:17:28","date_gmt":"2025-08-22T09:17:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?p=99805"},"modified":"2025-08-22T10:25:40","modified_gmt":"2025-08-22T09:25:40","slug":"a-judgment-may-be-signed-electronically-as-well-as-by-hand","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/mag-een-vonnis-zowel-elektronisch-als-met-de-hand-ondertekend-zijn\/","title":{"rendered":"May a judgment be signed electronically as well as by hand?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The digitization of justice brings new questions about the validity of procedures. One crucial question is how to properly sign a judgment in an era where digital and paper workflows coexist. Yes, a judgment may bear an electronic signature and a handwritten signature simultaneously. The Court of Cassation recently confirmed this, stating that such a \"mixed\" signature does not affect the validity of the judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The facts: a mixed signing in correctional court<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In a case before the correctional court of Namur, Dinant division, a judgment on appeal was rendered on 20 January 2025. However, the condemned party identified an (alleged) procedural problem: the verdict had been signed by the president of the chamber with a qualified electronic signature, while the two other judges had placed their signatures manually, with a pen. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The convicted person believed that this practice was illegal and went to the Court of Cassation. The argument was that since the judgment was not fully digital (dematerialized), it should not have an electronic signature on it either. This, according to the plaintiff, would be a violation of Article 782 of the Judicial Code<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The legal context: the digitization of signing<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Article 782 of the Judicial Code is the cornerstone of the digitization of court judgments in Belgium. The main rule is clear: in principle, a judgment is made in \"dematerialized form.\" <\/sup><\/sup>If a judgment is digital, it must be signed with a qualified electronic signature. <\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the law provides an exception: if it is impossible to prepare the judgment digitally, it can still be prepared on paper. <\/sup> The law specifies the requirements for a fully digital judgment and a fully paper judgment, but makes no mention of a hybrid form. This was the crux of the dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision of the Court of Cassation.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Cassation a judgment of 11 June 2025<\/a> dismissed the cassation appeal. The Court ruled very clearly that the plaintiff's reasoning was based on an erroneous legal premise. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In its ruling, the Court stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\"None of the provisions referred to in the ground of cassationl, nor any other provision, suggests that a judgment delivered by a panel of judges may not bear both the electronic signature of a member of the court and the handwritten signatures of the other judges who delivered the judgment.\"<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In other words, nowhere does the law explicitly prohibit a judgment from containing a combination of signatures. What is not prohibited is permitted in this case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legal analysis and interpretation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This ruling is a prime example of pragmatism in a legal system that is undergoing a digital transition. The Court of Cassation applies the adage \u201cno nullity without legal text\u201d here. The legislator has laid down the formalities for signing a judgment in order to guarantee the authenticity and immutability of the decision. It is the ultimate confirmation that the judges who deliberated agree with the content of the decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this case, there was no doubt whatsoever about the identity of the judges or their intention to sign the judgment. Whether that signature is digital or manual does not detract from the essence. An overly formalistic interpretation, as proposed by the plaintiff, would make the administration of justice unnecessarily complex and open the door to the annulment of judgments on the basis of mere technical details that do not prejudice the rights of the defense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This ruling provides legal certainty and flexibility for the courts. At a time when not every magistrate yet has the same digital resources at every location, or when telecommuting and physical presence are combined, such a flexible approach is essential for the continuity of justice services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What this specifically means<\/h2>\n\n\n\n