Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2024:905
Date: 2024-10-17
Language of the case: Polish
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Approximation of laws;Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Poland

Translation C-302/23 – 1 
Case C-302/23 [Piekiewicz] i 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
10 May 2023 
Referring court: 
Sąd Rejonowy Katowice – Wschód w Katowicach (Poland) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
28 April 2023 
Applicant: 
M. J. 
Defendant: 
C. J. 
  
… 
ORDER 
28 April 2023 
The Sąd Rejonowy Katowice – Wschód w Katowicach, VII Wydział Gospodarczy 
(District Court, Katowice-East, Katowice, Seventh Commercial Division) 
… 
following consideration … 
in closed session 
of the action brought by M. J. 
against C. J. 
 
i This case has been given a fictitious name which does not correspond to the real name of either of the parties to the proceedings. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 28. 4. 2023 – CASE C-302/23 
 
2  
concerning an enforcement order 
in relation to an application by M. J. for the exclusion of an officer of justice 
(Referendarz Sądowy) 
makes the following order: 
I. 
the following question is referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union, 
pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: 
Must Article 2(1) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No (…) [910/2014] of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic 
identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal 
market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC (OJ 2014 L 257, p. 73), in 
conjunction with Article 25(1) and (2) thereof, and recitals 12, 13, 18, 21, 22 
and 49 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State is 
obliged to accept a procedural document lodged with that court and signed with 
an electronic signature, as referred to in Article 3(10) of the regulation, where 
the national law of the Member State does not provide for any possibility of 
lodging procedural documents with the court by means of an electronic 
signature other than through an ICT system?; 
II. Proceedings are stayed pursuant to Article 177(3¹) of the Code of Civil 
Procedure pending an answer to the question set out in paragraph I. 
… 
GROUNDS 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Parties to the procedure 
(a) 
applicant: M. J., … 
(b) 
defendant: C. J., … 
… 
I. 
Facts of the case, the procedure in, and subject matter of, the main proceedings. 
PIEKIEWICZ 
 
3 
(1) 
The applicant M. J. is a trader and a creditor of the defendant C. J. 
(2) 
On 28 November 2022, the applicant lodged with the Sąd Rejonowy Katowice – 
Wschód w Katowicach an application for an enforcement order to be issued 
against the defendant’s spouse, B. J., in order to carry out enforcement against 
immovable property forming part of the spouses’ community of property. The 
application was sent by e-mail to the court’s email address. The application was 
not provided with a handwritten signature, but was signed electronically with a 
trusted signature correlated to the platform known as (…) [(‘elektroniczna 
platforma usług administracji publicznej’)] (‘electronic platform for public 
administration services’). It is an ICT system in which public institutions make 
services available through a single access point on the Internet. The application 
was also accompanied by an application for exemption from court costs. 
(3) 
On 30 December 2022, the officer of justice examining the application requested 
the applicant to remedy formal defects in the documents inter alia by submitting 
an official form, signed by hand, including details of family status, assets, income 
[and] sources of livelihood, within one week from the date of delivery of the 
request, otherwise the application for exemption from court costs would be 
returned. 
(4) 
On 21 January 2023, the applicant sent a declaration of family status, assets, 
income and sources of livelihood to the court’s email address. He signed that 
declaration with a trusted electronic signature correlated to the platform (…). 
(5) 
By order of 8 February 2023, the officer of justice returned the application for 
exemption from court costs on account of the failure to remedy formal 
deficiencies within the time limit, including, primarily, the failure to sign the 
application by hand. 
(6) 
On 4 March 2023, the applicant sent to the court’s email address an application 
for exclusion of the officer of justice from hearing the case, together with an 
application for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. On that 
occasion too, the application was signed electronically with a trusted signature. In 
the grounds for the application, the applicant stated that there were serious doubts 
as to the officer of justice’s lack of impartiality in hearing the case. In the view the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 28. 4. 2023 – CASE C-302/23 
 
4  
applicant, the officer of justice manifestly infringes EU law by refusing to accept a 
document provided with an electronic signature sent to the court’s email address. 
The applicant considers that the officer of justice in particular infringes 
Article 25(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No … [910/2014] of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and 
trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing 
Directive 1999/93/EC (‘the eIDAS Regulation’). 
(7) 
In the view of the applicant, the officer of justice is not impartial in hearing the 
case because he fails to comply with the principle of the primacy of EU law, 
which is well-established in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union … The applicant considers that the abovementioned circumstance is 
influenced by the political situation in Poland and the administration of justice by 
certain registrars nominated by the contested National Council of the Judiciary. In 
addition, the principle of primacy of EU law has recently been called into question 
in Poland and the applicant is a politically active person. The applicant further 
pointed out that the officer of justice had unlawfully rejected the application and 
thereby made an unauthorised political declaration. 
(8) 
The applicant argued that in court proceedings in the territory of the European 
Union an electronic signature must also be honoured by courts in Poland since 
Community law takes precedence over national law. An electronic signature 
cannot be denied legal effects and admissibility as evidence in legal proceedings 
solely on the grounds that it is in an electronic form or that it does not meet the 
requirements for qualified electronic signatures, as is clear from Article 25(1) of 
[eIDAS] Regulation … 
(9) 
All the documents which the applicant lodged at the court’s email address were 
printed off and added to the file by the court staff. 
II. EU law relevant to the answer 
10) [eIDAS] Regulation … 
recital 12: One of the objectives of this Regulation is to remove existing barriers 
to the cross-border use of electronic identification means used in the Member 
States to authenticate, for at least public services. This Regulation does not aim to 
intervene with regard to electronic identity management systems and related 
infrastructures established in Member States. The aim of this Regulation is to 
ensure that for access to cross-border online services offered by Member States, 
secure electronic identification and authentication is possible. 
PIEKIEWICZ 
 
5 
recital 13: Member States should remain free to use or to introduce means for the 
purposes of electronic identification for accessing online services. They should 
also be able to decide whether to involve the private sector in the provision of 
those means. Member States should not be obliged to notify their electronic 
identification schemes to the Commission. The choice to notify the Commission 
of all, some or none of the electronic identification schemes used at national level 
to access at least public online services or specific services is up to Member 
States. 
recital 18: This Regulation should provide for the liability of the notifying 
Member State, the party issuing the electronic identification means and the party 
operating the authentication procedure for failure to comply with the relevant 
obligations under this Regulation. However, this Regulation should be applied in 
accordance with national rules on liability. Therefore, it does not affect those 
national rules on, for example, definition of damages or relevant applicable 
procedural rules, including the burden of proof. 
recital 21: This Regulation should also establish a general legal framework for the 
use of trust services. However, it should not create a general obligation to use 
them or to install an access point for all existing trust services. In particular, it 
should not cover the provision of services used exclusively within closed systems 
between a defined set of participants, which have no effect on third parties. For 
example, systems set up in businesses or public administrations to manage internal 
procedures making use of trust services should not be subject to the requirements 
of this Regulation. Only trust services provided to the public having effects on 
third parties should meet the requirements laid down in the Regulation. Neither 
should this Regulation cover aspects related to the conclusion and validity of 
contracts or other legal obligations where there are requirements as regards form 
laid down by national or Union law. In addition, it should not affect national form 
requirements pertaining to public registers, in particular commercial and land 
registers. 
recital 22: In order to contribute to their general cross-border use, it should be 
possible to use trust services as evidence in legal proceedings in all Member 
States. It is for the national law to define the legal effect of trust services, except if 
otherwise provided in this Regulation. 
recital 49: This Regulation should establish the principle that an electronic 
signature should not be denied legal effect on the grounds that it is in an electronic 
form or that it does not meet the requirements of the qualified electronic signature. 
However, it is for national law to define the legal effect of electronic signatures, 
except for the requirements provided for in this Regulation according to which a 
qualified electronic signature should have the equivalent legal effect of a 
handwritten signature. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 28. 4. 2023 – CASE C-302/23 
 
6  
Article 2(1): This Regulation applies to electronic identification schemes that have 
been notified by a Member State, and to trust service providers that are established 
in the Union. 
Article 2(3): This Regulation does not affect national or Union law related to the 
conclusion and validity of contracts or other legal or procedural obligations 
relating to form. 
Article 3(10): For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply: 
(…) ‘electronic signature’ means data in electronic form which is attached to or 
logically associated with other data in electronic form and which is used by the 
signatory to sign; 
Article 25(1): An electronic signature shall not be denied legal effect and 
admissibility as evidence in legal proceedings solely on the grounds that it is in an 
electronic form or that it does not meet the requirements for qualified electronic 
signatures. 
Article 25(2): A qualified electronic signature shall have the equivalent legal 
effect of a handwritten signature. 
III. National law and case-law relevant to the answer 
(11) Ustawa z dnia 17 listopada 1964 r. Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Law of 
17 November 1964 establishing the Code of Civil Procedure) (Dz.U.2021.1805, 
consolidated text of 2021 October 2004): 
Article 126(1)(6): Every procedural document must contain: the signature of the 
party concerned or his or her legal or authorised representative. 
Article 126(5): A procedural document lodged through an ICT system shall bear a 
qualified electronic signature, a trusted signature or a personal signature. 
Article 125(2)(1): Unless a special provision so provides or an option has been 
exercised to lodge procedural documents through an ICT system, procedural 
documents in the case shall be lodged only through an ICT system. Documents 
not lodged through that system shall not produce the legal effects which the Law 
attaches to the lodging of a document with the court, about which the court shall 
notify the person lodging the document. 
Article 125(2)(1a): Opting to lodge procedural documents through an ICT system 
and the continued lodging of such documents through an ICT system shall be 
permissible if, for technical reasons attributable to the court, this is possible. 
(12) Ustawa z dnia 17 lutego 2005 r. o informatyzacji działalności podmiotów 
realizujących zadania publiczne (Law of 17 February 2005 on the 
computerisation of the activities of entities performing public tasks) (Dz-
U.2023.57, consolidated text of 9 January 2023): 
PIEKIEWICZ 
 
7 
Article 3(13): For the purposes of this Law (…) electronic platform of public 
administration services means an ICT system in which public institutions make 
services available through a single access point on the Internet. 
Article 3(14a): For the purposes of this Law (…) trusted signature means an 
electronic signature, the authenticity and integrity of which are ensured by means 
of an electronic seal of the minister competent for computerisation, containing: (a) 
data identifying the person concerned, established on the basis of electronic 
identification means issued in the scheme as referred to in Article 20aa(1), 
including: – first name(s). – surname, – PESEL number [the Polish residence 
identification number], (b) the identifier of the electronic identification means 
used to submit it, and (c) the time of its submission; 
13) Resolution of the Sąd Najwyższy of 23 May 2012, file reference: III 
CZP 9/12: 
1. 
‘The lodging of an appeal by electronic means shall only be admissible if a special 
provision so provides (Article 125(2); now Article 125(2¹) of the Code of Civil 
Procedure). 
2. 
A printout of an inadmissible appeal lodged by electronic means may be treated as 
an appeal not lodged by such means if the lack of a signature is remedied 
(Article 130(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, in conjunction with 
Article 126(1)(4) thereof); the date on which this appeal is lodged with the court 
shall then be the date on which the printout is made (Article 130(3) of the Code of 
Civil Procedure)’. 
IV. Reasons why the court of first instance referred the question for a 
preliminary ruling 
(14) The present proceedings concern consideration of an application for the 
exclusion of an officer of justice who, when examining an application for an 
enforcement order, requested the applicant to remedy a formal defect in the 
application for exemption from court costs by signing it. The applicant, however, 
takes the position that it is not necessary to sign the application with a 
‘handwritten’ signature since the [eIDAS] Regulation … allows a document 
signed with an electronic signature to be lodged with a court. The application for 
the exclusion of the officer of justice was also only provided with an electronic 
signature. Thus, the dispute in the present case essentially concerns issues of law, 
and the correct interpretation of the … [eIDAS] Regulation … is crucial as to 
whether the application for the exclusion of the officer of justice should be 
accepted and moved forward or whether it should be deemed to contain a formal 
defect and a request to remedy it is justified. The correct interpretation of the … 
[eIDAS] Regulation … is also relevant to the possibility of lodging any procedural 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 28. 4. 2023 – CASE C-302/23 
 
8  
documents lodged with a court where they have been provided with an electronic 
signature rather than a handwritten signature. 
(15) The Court of Justice’s answer to this question is relevant to the principle of 
uniformity of EU law. EU law must be applied uniformly in its entirety in all 
Member States. A uniform legal order in all Member States is one of the key 
values of EU law. 
(16) In Poland, most courts do not apply the … [eIDAS] Regulation … as regards 
the possibility of lodging documents with the courts signed with an electronic 
signature, advanced electronic signature or qualified electronic signature. This 
appears to have its origin primarily in the Code of Civil Procedure, which makes 
the possibility of lodging a document signed with an electronic, trusted or 
personal signature conditional on the existence of an ICT system which enables 
that type of documents to be lodged with the courts (Article 126(5) of the Code of 
Civil Procedure). The referring court also does not have such a system. In 
Article 125(2)(1a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Polish legislature explicitly 
states that the court concerned must have an ICT system for it to be possible to 
lodge documents through it. 
(17) The well-established case-law of the Polish courts and the practice which 
has existed for years demonstrate that only documents signed with a ‘handwritten’ 
signature are accepted in Poland. This relates to documents lodged in ordinary 
civil proceedings. Certain other proceedings provide for the possibility of lodging 
documents electronically, such as, for example, electronic writ-of-payment 
proceedings and bankruptcy proceedings. Such a position was taken primarily by 
the Sąd Najwyższy in its resolution of 23 May 2012, file ref. III CZP 9/12. That 
resolution, however, was adopted on the basis of the law as it stood before the 
entry into force of the … [eIDAS] Regulation … 
(18) Article 126(1)(6) of the Code of Civil Procedure, although stating that every 
document must contain the signature of the party concerned, does not specify 
whether that signature may take a form other than that of a ‘handwritten’ 
signature. It is only for the last few years that the national legislature has, in 
Article 126(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, provided for the possibility of 
lodging a document signed electronically, provided that there is an ICT system 
designed for that purpose. In that regard, however, it must be emphasised that the 
requirement relating to the signing of a document by hand applies only to 
procedural documents. As regards all other documents which are used in the 
course of court proceedings (primarily as evidence), they are admitted to the 
material of the case under the … [eIDAS] Regulation … and the effects thereof 
are assessed in accordance with national law. 
(19) However, it follows from Article 25(1) … [eIDAS] Regulation … that an 
electronic signature cannot be discriminated against and denied legal effect solely 
on the grounds that it is in an electronic form or that it does not meet the 
requirements for qualified electronic signatures. At the same time, that provision 
PIEKIEWICZ 
 
9 
does not specify what legal effect that signature is intended to have. The first 
sentence of recital 49 of… the [eIDAS] Regulation …also indicates that an 
electronic signature cannot be discriminated against on the grounds that it is an 
electronic signature. 
(20) The referring court considers that the legal effect of the electronic signature 
was set out in particular in recitals 22 and 49 of the [eIDAS] Regulation. In the 
view of the court, that effect is determined by national law. It is only with regard 
to qualified electronic signatures that the … [eIDAS] Regulation … states that that 
signature is to be equal in effect to a handwritten signature. 
(21) As explained above, the Polish Code of Civil Procedure allows procedural 
documents provided with an electronic signature (qualified, trusted, personal) to 
be lodged only if the court has an appropriate ICT system. The referring court 
considers that it should be inferred from the above that since the court does not 
have an ICT system, it is not obliged to accept a procedural document signed 
electronically. Such a document lodged outside an ICT system is vitiated by a 
formal defect in the form of an incorrect signature. 
(22) Nevertheless, the court considers that account should also be taken of the 
other recitals of the … [eIDAS] Regulation …, according to which the … 
[eIDAS] Regulation … seeks to enhance trust in electronic transactions in the 
internal market between citizens, businesses and public authorities. In the view of 
the court, it is therefore also possible to interpret the … [eIDAS] Regulation … as 
meaning that there is an obligation to accept a document signed electronically on 
account of the unification of ICT systems in the Member States and non-
discrimination against them. 
(23) In this context, it may be relevant that Poland has not notified the 
Commission of any electronic scheme under … [eIDAS] Regulation … In 
particular, the (…) scheme correlated with the trusted signature, through which 
the applicant lodged the document, has not been notified to this day. However, it 
appears to follow from Article 2(1) and (3) … [eIDAS] Regulation … that the … 
[eIDAS] Regulation … only applies to electronic identification schemes which 
have been notified by a Member State. (…) [that] does not affect national or 
Union law related to the conclusion and validity of contracts or procedural 
obligations. 
(24) In the view of the referring court, the correct interpretation of the … 
[eIDAS] Regulation … leads to the conclusion that the … regulation … merely 
introduces tools by which technological facilities may be introduced, but does not 
impose an obligation to apply them and, in particular, does not supplant national 
measures adopted with regard, in particular, to the legal effects of lodged 
documents. 
(25) It may be that this interpretation does not accelerate the processes related to 
the development of innovation in judicial proceedings, but it appears that the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 28. 4. 2023 – CASE C-302/23 
 
10  
intention of the EU legislature was not to impose on the Member States the 
adoption of specific measures in judicial procedures relating to the use of 
electronic signatures. This seems to due mainly to the technological capabilities of 
a particular Member State. 
(26) A different interpretation would lead to the conclusion that, irrespective of 
the existence of an ICT system and the notification thereof to the Commission, the 
courts of all Member States of the European Union must uniformly accept 
procedural documents signed electronically. Such an interpretation would lead to 
uniformity as regards the lodging of procedural documents with all the courts of 
all Member States. 
(27) The Court of Justice’s answer will make it possible to interpret national law 
in a manner consistent with EU law and at the same time determine whether, in 
the case pending before the national court, it is necessary to accept an applicant’s 
document relating to the exclusion of an officer of justice, or whether it is 
necessary to request the applicant to remedy a formal defect in the document by 
signing it with his handwritten signature. 
… 
INSTRUCTION 
1. 
… [issue of delivery of a copy of the order] 
2. 
… [issue of anonymisation] 
3. 
… [issue of sending the case file] 
4. 
… [remaining procedural issue] 
K., 28 April 2023 
…