The Supreme Court has recently taken a stand on submission and delivery of electronic court documents by means of public data network by defining when it is necessary to use the electronic signature when communicating with Czech courts. The procedure of how messages from persons utilising more databoxes ought to be sent and received is also established. The following points are the most important ones.
It was confirmed that proceedings submission (e.g. a civil action) made via a databox of the acting party need not be supported by a subsequent submission of a hard copy of the documents and the effects are the same as those of a printed and signed ones. A recognised electronic signature would only be needed if the documents in question were submitted via a databox owned by a person different from the submitter.
One of the most important aspects of the Supreme Court statement regarding legal entities is that if an entity is able to prove that at the time of the delivery of the document no person with the authorised access to the entity’s databox was available to receive the documents and this situation was not caused by the entity, the effects of a successful delivery do not take place. Also, a procedural step taken via databox has the same effect as one made in writing and signed by a person authorised to act on behalf of the entity.
Should a physical person have more than one databox (e.g. a personal and business ones), court decisions and other documents are to be sent to the one which corresponds best with the nature of the document. It is necessary to realise, however, that the effects of the delivery of a document sent by public authorities do take place even if the document is delivered to the less relevant databox of the physical person in question at the moment when a person authorised to access the document logs in to it.
The Supreme Court stance regarding deliveries and effects of submission to courts of all levels is decisive.
