Abstract
The article deals with electronic court files and court registers on one hand and with the law of evidence of electronic documents on the other. Core issues of the electronic court files will be how to guaranty the security, authenticity and sustainability of an electronic court file on a level comparable to the security and authenticity of a traditional paper file. The servers have to be kept in highly secured computer centers. The use of qualified electronic signatures becomes necessary to secure authenticity of the documentation. Sustainability has to achieved by appropriate storing mechanisms. The law of evidence should have no barriers to the admissibility of electronic documents as evidence. It should provide for a free evaluation of the evidence and not impose legal rules for the evaluation of evidence. Parties not bearing the burden of proof and third parties should be obliged to produce and disclose electronic documents at their disposition within the boundaries of their obligations to testify.
This paper was presented at the conference in German. I am responsible for the English version, which is based on a translation furnished by Gabriele Bares.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
At least this is the way I saw it, when I presented my theses long before the congress took place asking for contributions and discussions of my theses. The only contribution to my theses from Prof. Dr. Dimitrios Maniotis of Greece, however, dealt explicitly with an evidentiary question relating to electronic documents: “On the evidentiary value of electronic documents”. I have therefore supplemented my theses under Sect. 12.4 with a section on electronic documents as a form of evidence.
- 2.
See H. Rüßmann, “Moderne Elektroniktechnologie und Informationsbeschaffung im Zivilprozeß – Die Informationsbeschaffung für den Zivilprozess,” in Die verfahrensmäßige Behandlung von Nachlässen, ausländisches Recht und internationales Zivilprozessrecht, ed. Schlosser, 137 (Bielefeld, 1997).
- 3.
Bund-Länder-Kommission (BLK) für Datenverarbeitung und Rationalisierung in der Justiz.
- 4.
See the information provided by the portal of the justice authorities of the federal and state governments at http://www.justiz.de/BLK/schlussberichte/index.php [31.01.2011]
- 5.
See the information provided by the German Association for Computing in the Judiciary at: https://www.edvgt.de/pages/startseite/18.-deutscher-edv-gerichtstag/arbeitskreise--mit-praesentationen-und-protokollen/blk-ii-elektronische-akte.php [31.01.2011]
- 6.
The author of this part of the study is a Judge at the Federal Administrative Court, Professor Dr. Dietmar Berlitz. The language of the report is, of course, German. The translation has been furnished by Gabriele Bares and me.
- 7.
DMS Document Management System; EPS Event Processing System.
- 8.
The report essentially contains an inventory of the systems which can be found in practical use, a list of the technical requirements, and a description of scenarios in which they could be applied to civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings as well as to those in welfare and employment tribunals.
- 9.
On the difficulties presented by the law of evidence in other countries, see amongst others H. Rüßmann, “Moderne Elektroniktechnologie und Informationsbeschaffung im Zivilprozeß – Die Informationsbeschaffung für den Zivilprozess,” in Die verfahrensmäßige Behandlung von Nachlässen, ausländisches Recht und internationales Zivilprozessrecht, ed. P. Schlosser, 137 (Bielefeld, 1997).
- 10.
H.-J. Ahrens, “Elektronische Dokumente und technische Aufzeichnungen als Beweismittel,” in Zum Urkunden- und Augenscheinsbeweis – Festschrift für Reinhold Geimer, ed. R. Schütze, 1 (München, 2002).
- 11.
Greimer in: Zöller, ZPO, 28th Edn. 2010, Vor § 414, margin number 2.
- 12.
M. Köhler and H. W. Arndt, Recht des Internet, 6th ed., (Heidelberg, 2008), 289; J. Scherer and M. E. Butt, “Rechtsprobleme bei Vertragsschluss via Internet”, in Der Betrieb (2000): 1009–16.
- 13.
Greimer in: Zöller, ZPO, 28th Edn. 2010, Vor § 414, margin number 2.
- 14.
Greimer in: Zöller, ZPO, 28th Edn. 2010, Vor § 414, margin number 2.
- 15.
H. Rüßmann, “Moderne Elektroniktechnologie und Informationsbeschaffung im Zivilprozeß – Die Informationsbeschaffung für den Zivilprozess,” in Die verfahrensmäßige Behandlung von Nachlässen, ausländisches Recht und internationales Zivilprozessrecht, ed. Schlosser, 137 (Bielefeld, 1997).
- 16.
Regarding their content, cf. J. W. Britz, Urkundenbeweisrecht und Elektroniktechnologie, (München, 1996), 136.
- 17.
On data logging in general, cf. G. Runge, “Protokolldateien zwischen Sicherheit und Rechtsmäßigkeit”, in Computer und Recht (1994): 710–4.
- 18.
Personal Identification Number.
- 19.
Transaction Number.
- 20.
BGH, 7.December.1994, VIII ZR 153/93; NJW 1995, 665.
- 21.
M. Köhler and H.-W. Arndt, Recht des Internet, 6th ed., (Heidelberg, 2008), 289.
- 22.
J. Scherer and M. E. Butt, “Rechtsprobleme bei Vertragsschluss via Internet,” in Der Betrieb (2000): 1009–16.
- 23.
See H. Rüßmann, “Haftungsfragen und Risikoverteilung bei ec-Kartenmißbrauch,” in Datenschutz und Datensicherheit (1998): 395–400.
- 24.
In a pilot study on electronic communication in judicial proceedings, the lawyers simply handed their chip cards and PINs over to their secretaries in order to allow them to sign the written submissions. Cf. A. Roßnagel, Die Simulationsstudie Rechtspflege (Berlin, 1994).
- 25.
AGV, Opinion on the Law of 11.08.2000, 10 and Federal Association of Notaries, Opinion of 27.07.2000, 12.
- 26.
AGV, Opinion on the Law of 11.08.2000, 10 and Federal Association of Notaries, Opinion of 27.07.2000, 13.
- 27.
For an opposing view, see the Opinion of the Federal Association of Notaries of 27.07.2000, 13.
- 28.
AGV, Opinion on the Law of 11.08.00, 10 and Federal Association of Notaries, Opinion of 27.07.2000, 14.
- 29.
This question brings the procurement of information into play.
- 30.
G. Lüke, “Der Informationsanspruch im Zivilrecht”, in Juristische Schulung (1986): 2–7; Greger in: Zöller, ZPO, 28th ed. (2010), § 138, margin number 8a.
- 31.
P. Schlosser, “Die lange deutsche Reise in die prozessuale Moderne,” in Juristen Zeitung (1991): 599–608.
- 32.
Fundamentally P. Stürner, “Die Aufklärungspflicht der Parteien des Zivilprozesses (Tübingen, 1976); idem, Parteipflichten bei der Sachverhaltsaufklärung im Zivilprozeß,” Zeitschrift für Zivilprozeß 98 (1985): 237–56. The “Alternativ-Kommentar zur ZPO” has always recognised the better alternative: Schmidt in: AK-ZPO, § 138, margin number 17 et seq.
- 33.
P. Arens, “Zur Aufklärungspflicht der nicht beweisbelasteten Partei im Zivilprozeß,” in Zeitschrift für Zivilprozeß 96 (1983): 1–24; G. Lüke, “Der Informationsanspruch im Zivilrecht,” in Juristische Schulung (1986), 2–7.
- 34.
Cf. BGH, 11. June 1990, II ZR 159/89, ZZP 104 (1991), 203 with the official head note (Translation): The Code of Civil Procedure places no general duty of clarification upon the party who does not bear the evidentiary burdens of production and proof, or at least none which extends beyond the acknowledged duty to substantiate a denial. The BGH approves K. Schreiber, “Zur Frage, inwieweit die Parteien eines Zivilprozesses eine allgemeine Aufklärungspflicht trifft,” in Juristische Rundschau (1991), 415–6. A critical opinion can be found in R. Stürner, “Zur allgemeinen Aufklärungspflicht der nicht beweisbelasteten Partei im Zivilprozeß,” in Zeitschrift für Zivilprozeß 104 (1991): 208–17.
- 35.
Such as to the production of medical documents.
- 36.
Such as § 258 Subs. 1 HGB for trade books.
- 37.
This is the solution of the Federal Supreme Court in footnote 35.
- 38.
A skilled application of all of these instruments would almost certainly lead to the same results as have been achieved by recognising the duty of clarification placed upon the party not bearing the burden of proof.
- 39.
§ 390 Consequences of a Refusal to Give Evidence
Where a witness refuses to give evidence or take the oath and gives no, or no legally significant, reason for this failure, he will be liable for the costs caused by his refusal to give evidence, even in the absence of an application to this effect. He will also be subject to an administrative fine or, in cases where this is not practicable, a period of custody in default.
In cases of repeated refusal, an application may be made to compel the witness to testify. The period of custody set for the purposes of compelling testimony should not extend beyond the end of the proceedings at the instance to which it relates. The provisions regarding custody in enforcement proceedings apply
Any appeal of such an order is to be held immediately.
- 40.
The tie to the duty to testify gives access to privileges not to testify which may in a specific case allow not to disclose the information.
- 41.
See (Ed. Bundesministerium der Justiz) Bericht der Kommission für das Zivilprozeßrecht, 1977, S. 151 ff.
- 42.
See the report of H. Rüßmann, “Moderne Elektroniktechnologie und Informationsbeschaffung im Zivilprozeß – Die Informationsbeschaffung für den Zivilprozess,” Die verfahrensmäßige Behandlung von Nachlässen, ausländisches Recht und internationales Zivilprozessrecht, ed. Schlosser, 137 (Bielefeld, 1997).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rüßmann, H. (2012). Electronic Documents. Security and Authenticity. In: Kengyel, M., Nemessányi, Z. (eds) Electronic Technology and Civil Procedure. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 15. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4072-3_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4072-3_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4071-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4072-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)