Rättskällor med officiella primärkällor

Utskrivet ·

Skip to main content
Skip to the answer

Back to the decisions

Court of Justice of the European Union · Judgment

C-362/21EKOFRUKT v Direktor na Direktsia „Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika“ – Veliko Tarnovo

Decided
2022-10-20
ECLI
ECLI:EU:C:2022:815
CELEX
62021CJ0362
Finality
Final, the decision cannot be appealed

The court's own keywords

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Internal market – Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 – Article 3(12) – 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 signed with an electronic signature not meeting the requirements for a ‘qualified electronic signature’ – Cumulative requirements – Consequences – Article 3(15) – Absence of a ‘qualified certificate for electronic signature’ – Entry of a qualified electronic signature in the certificate issued by the trust service provider – Effect – Names of the holder of the electronic signature which have been transliterated using Latin script rather than being written in Cyrillic script as they normally are.

Interprets

    Read from EU:s publikationsbyrå, Cellar (EUR-Lex och CURIA) on 2026-08-22.

    The row repeats what the source states. It is not a summary, not a conclusion about any single case and not legal advice.

    Verifiable trust signals

    • Six fixed blocks, one source per line
    • No sentence written by a language model
    • Engine version and read date on every answer
    • No customer data, no documents, no advice
    • Model card and audit published under the EU AI Act

    Model cardAudit