Official Journal of the European Union

C 472/16

(Case C-362/21) (*)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market - Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 - Point 12 of Article 3 - Concept of ‘qualified electronic signature’ - Article 25(1) - Article 26 - Annex I - Legal effects of electronic signatures - Requirements relating to an advanced electronic signature - Administrative act issued in the form of an electronic document, the electronic signature of which does not meet the requirements of a ‘qualified electronic signature’ - Cumulative requirements - Consequences - Point 15 of Article 3 - Absence of a ‘qualified certificate for electronic signature’ - Qualified electronic signature entered in the certificate issued by the trust service provider - Effect - Names of the holder of the electronic signature having been written in the Latin alphabet rather than being written, as was customary, in Cyrillic script)

(2022/C 472/18)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ‘EKOFRUKT’ EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 25(1) 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 must be interpreted as not precluding an administrative act issued in the form of an electronic document from being declared invalid, where it has been signed with an electronic signature which does not meet the requirements of that regulation in order to be regarded as a ‘qualified electronic signature’ within the meaning of point 12 of Article 3 of that regulation, provided that document is not found to be invalid solely on the ground that its signature is in an electronic form.

2.Point 12 of Article 3 of Regulation No 910/2014 must be interpreted as meaning that the absence of a ‘qualified certificate for electronic signature’, within the meaning of point 15 of Article 3 of that regulation is sufficient to establish that an electronic signature does not constitute a ‘qualified electronic signature’, within the meaning of point 12 of Article 3, the fact that it could be classified as a ‘professional electronic signature’ being irrelevant in that regard.

3.Regulation No 910/2014 must be interpreted as meaning that the entry of an electronic signature in the certificate issued by the trust services provider is not sufficient for that signature to meet the requirements established by that regulation in order to be regarded as a ‘qualified electronic signature’ within the meaning of point 12 of Article 3 of that regulation. Where such a qualification is disputed in legal proceedings, the national court is required to ascertain whether the cumulative conditions laid down in point 12 of Article 3 are all met, which requires it, inter alia, to ascertain whether the conditions referred to in Article 26 and Annex I of that regulation are met.

4.Point 12 of Article 3, and Annex I of Regulation No 910/2014 must be interpreted as meaning that when verifying the compliance, with the requirements of that annex, of the qualified electronic signature, the fact that the names of the signatory of the electronic signature, who has habitually used the Cyrillic alphabet to write those names, have been written in the Latin alphabet does not preclude its electronic signature from being regarded as a ‘qualified electronic signature’ within the meaning of point 12 of Article 3 in so far as that signature is unequivocally connected to the signatory.

(*) Language of the case: Bulgarian.

OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140