GE: E-Signatures – “Attorney-at-Law” Is Not Sufficient

Oct 21, 2022 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The requirement of a ‘simple signature’ means the simple rendering of a name at the end of a document. According to the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), this can be a name printed in typewritten form or a scanned signature at the bottom of the document. Simply providing ‘Attorney-at-Law’ without a name, however, is not sufficient as the legal document cannot be attributed to a specific person.

In the case in question, a local court had ordered a defendant to pay overdue and current child support. His lawyer filed an appeal via the German court e-filing system. The court subsequently informed the lawyer that the complaint submitted in this way was inadmissible as the document had not been properly signed. Merely typing ‘Attorney-at-Law’ without giving a name was not sufficient, in the court’s opinion.

The attorney then filed an application for restitutio in integrum as a precautionary measure and submitted the appeal with her name in typed form. The competent Higher Regional Court rejected the complaint and dismissed the application.

The Federal Supreme Court shared the opinion of the lower court. The electronically submitted document did not meet the simple signature requirements under Section 130a (3) of the German Code of Civil Procedure. Merely identifying oneself as ‘attorney’ at the end of a document does not constitute a valid signature. It also posed the problem in this case that the document, which only bore the German word Rechtsanwältin (woman lawyer), cannot be attributed to a specific person responsible for its content. It would even be impossible to make a clear identification via the office’s letterhead, which listed only other male lawyers in addition to one other female lawyer.

The Higher Regional Court was justified in rejecting the application for restitutio in integrum, according to the Federal Supreme Court. In view of the notice saying ‘no signature found’, it should have been obvious to the lawyer that, contrary to her assumption, the document had not been furnished with a valid electronic signature.

BGH, XII ZB 215/22 (7 September 2022)