The Supreme Court Defines the Algorithm for Verifying an Online MFI Agreement

On February 4, 2026, the Civil Cassation Court within the Supreme Court adopted a ruling in case No. 758/14925/23, in which it provided a detailed analysis of how the fact of concluding an electronic credit agreement must be proven.

The dispute was typical for microfinance litigation. The creditor company filed a claim seeking recovery of debt, relying on an electronically concluded loan agreement and the transfer of funds to the defendant. The court of first instance partially granted the claim, while the appellate court allowed it to a greater extent, including awarding interest.

The defendant denied the proper conclusion of the agreement and challenged the electronic evidence submitted by the claimant. Despite these objections, the lower courts examined only copies of the documents and did not request the originals of the electronic evidence.

Legislative Framework Referred to by the Court

The Supreme Court noted that legal relations concerning the creation, transmission, storage, and use of electronic documents are governed by the Law of Ukraine “On Electronic Documents and Electronic Document Management.”

According to Article 7 of that Law: “The original of an electronic document is considered to be the electronic copy of the document containing all mandatory requisites, including the electronic signature of the author or a signature equated to a handwritten signature in accordance with the Law of Ukraine ‘On Electronic Identification and Trust Services.’”

The Court also referred to the Law of Ukraine “On Electronic Commerce.” Pursuant to paragraph 6 of part 1 of Article 3 of that Law: “An electronic signature using a one-time identifier means data in electronic form in the form of an alphanumeric sequence added to other electronic data by a person who has accepted an offer (offer to conclude an electronic contract) and sent to the other party to such contract.”

The Supreme Court emphasized that Ukrainian legislation does not require the mandatory use of a qualified electronic signature (QES) or advanced electronic signature (AES) for concluding an electronic agreement. However, the issue of fixing and preserving the content of the document is significant in the context of evidence.

Verification of Authenticity, Integrity, and Immutability

The ruling states: “The possibility for a court to verify the authenticity, integrity, and immutability of an electronic document primarily depends on the type of signature with which it was signed.”

If a document is signed using a QES or AES, the court has the technical ability to verify it through specialized software tools or online verification services.

If other types of electronic signatures are used, the court must determine the method by which the document was transmitted to the defendant, the format in which it was stored, and whether there was any technical possibility of unilateral modification of its content.

The Court specifically noted that placing a contract via a hyperlink in PDF format does not in itself confirm its integrity or immutability, since the owner of the website may unilaterally modify the document. By contrast, sending the contract as an attached PDF file from the creditor’s email address may indicate immutability, provided that the content of the email and its attachments cannot be altered after dispatch.

Procedural Aspect: Application of Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Code

The Civil Cassation Court concluded that the lower courts violated procedural law. The ruling states:

“None of the courts complied with the requirements of Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine and failed to request the originals of the electronic evidence from the applicant, despite the defendant’s motion.”

Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that where a copy of electronic evidence is submitted, the court may, upon motion of a party, request the original.

Significance for Microfinance Litigation

The ruling demonstrates that in cases involving recovery of debt under electronic credit agreements, courts cannot limit themselves to a formal examination of document copies.

It is necessary to establish:

• the type of electronic signature used;
• the method of transmission of the agreement;
• the technical characteristics of document storage;
• the possibility of unilateral modification;
• the consistency between the copy and the original.

Where the defendant raises objections, the court must examine the original electronic evidence.

For creditors, this entails a higher standard of proof. For borrowers, it provides a meaningful procedural defense tool. If an electronic contract is signed using a one-time identifier and the court fails to examine the technical aspects of its creation and storage, the judgment may be overturned. For courts, the ruling serves as guidance on the proper application of Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Code and the laws governing electronic documents and electronic commerce.