May a judgment be signed electronically as well as by hand?

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.

The facts: a mixed signing in correctional court

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.

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.

The legal context: the digitization of signing

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." If a judgment is digital, it must be signed with a qualified electronic signature.

However, the law provides an exception: if it is impossible to prepare the judgment digitally, it can still be prepared on paper. 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.

The decision of the Court of Cassation.

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

In its ruling, the Court stated:

"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."

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.

Legal analysis and interpretation

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 “no nullity without legal text” 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.

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.

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.

What this specifically means

• For the litigious citizen or business: This ruling is good news. It guarantees that your case will not stumble over a procedural detail such as how the judges sign off. Legal certainty prevails.
• For the attorney: It is useless to challenge the validity of a judgment just because it contains both electronic and handwritten signatures. This ruling by the country's highest court makes it clear that such an argument has no chance of success.
• For the judiciary: Magistrates and clerks receive confirmation that they can pragmatically handle the signing of judgments during the transition period to a fully digital work environment.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Is a judgment with only electronic signatures also valid?
Yes, absolutely. Article 782 of the Judicial Code states that this is the standard procedure for judgments made in dematerialized (digital) form.

What happens if a judgment is not signed at all?
The signature of all the judges who made the decision is a substantial formality. An unsigned judgment is basically null and void. This is because the signature confirms the authenticity and final decision of the college.

Why is this statement important?
This decision prevents the digitization of justice from leading to unnecessary procedural debates. The Court of Cassation takes a functional approach: as long as the purpose of the signature (guaranteeing authenticity) is achieved, the form (electronic, manual or mixed) is of secondary importance.

Conclusion

The Court of Cassation sent an important and pragmatic signal with its ruling of 11 June 2025. A judgment can and may perfectly include a combination of electronic and handwritten signatures. This decision provides the necessary legal certainty and supports the smooth operation of courts in their transition to a fully digital future.