Electronic Contracts in Court

Judicial practice in disputes involving electronic contracts is gradually shifting away from assessing the method of contract formation toward evaluating the admissibility and evidentiary value of the documents used to prove the existence of such contracts. The Supreme Court's judgment of 4 February 2026 in case No. 758/14925/23 is particularly significant from this perspective. Although the dispute arose out of a consumer credit relationship, the Court's key conclusions concern the procedural rules governing the examination of electronic evidence.

The Scope of Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Code

The courts of first instance and appellate instance concluded that the copies of documents submitted by the claimant were sufficient to establish the conclusion of the credit agreement, the transfer of funds, and the existence of the outstanding debt. Throughout the proceedings, however, the defendant consistently challenged the conformity of those documents with their originals and repeatedly requested that the original electronic evidence be produced.

The Court found this approach to be erroneous.

The Court emphasized that Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Code does more than regulate the submission of copies of documents. It establishes a procedural mechanism for verifying their authenticity. Where a party disputes whether a copy accurately reflects the original, and the court takes no procedural steps to examine that objection, any conclusions regarding the facts allegedly established by such evidence are premature.

Particular attention should be paid to the Court's interpretation of the relationship between the procedural rules and the Law of Ukraine "On Electronic Documents and Electronic Document Management."

The Court reaffirmed the established legal principle that the legal validity of an electronic document cannot be denied merely because it exists in electronic form. At the same time, this does not mean that any printed copy of an electronic document automatically proves either its contents or its authenticity.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court distinguished between two separate procedural issues.

The first concerns the admissibility of an electronic document as a category of evidence.

The second concerns whether it has been proven that the particular document relied upon actually existed at the time the transaction was concluded, remained unchanged thereafter, and accurately corresponds to its original electronic version.

Procedural Obligations of the Court

The judgment is noteworthy because the Supreme Court went beyond merely identifying a violation of Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Code. Instead, it effectively outlined the procedural framework that courts should follow when examining electronic evidence.

Depending on the circumstances of the case, the court must determine how the electronic document was transmitted to the opposing party, whether its integrity can be verified after the contract was concluded, and whether the original electronic document is stored within the relevant information and communication system.

The Court also reached another important conclusion. Where a document has been executed using a method other than a qualified or advanced electronic signature, the court must establish not only the fact that such a signing method was used but also whether the integrity of the electronic document can be verified after its creation.

The Procedural Significance of the Judgment

The judgment does not alter the legal requirements governing the conclusion of electronic contracts. Instead, it refines the evidentiary standard applicable in disputes where electronic contracts serve as evidence.

For the party relying on an electronic document, submitting a printed copy alone will no longer be sufficient where the document's authenticity is challenged. The party must be prepared to demonstrate the existence of the original electronic document and ensure that it can be examined by the court.

For the opposing party, the judgment confirms that objections to the authenticity of electronic evidence must be specific and accompanied by appropriate procedural motions requesting examination of the original.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment of 4 February 2026 does not establish new legal rules governing electronic transactions. Its practical importance lies elsewhere. The Court clarified the application of Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Code in disputes involving electronic evidence and effectively formulated a procedural standard for verifying the authenticity of electronic documents.

The practical implications of this legal position extend well beyond consumer credit litigation. It will be relevant in any dispute where electronic documents constitute the foundation of a party's claims or defenses and their authenticity is contested.