Objected by e-mail without a signature? A Czech court must not ignore it, the Constitutional Court confirms

The District Court for Prague 6 imposed a suspended prison sentence with probation supervision on a man — by a penal order, i.e. without a single hearing and without the court ever seeing him. The man defended himself. Within the statutory time limit he filed an objection to the penal order by e-mail from a private address. On the last day of the time limit he also sent a registered letter with documents and a CD, which he referred to in the objection as evidence. The court nevertheless swept his defence off the table: the e-mail did not bear a qualified electronic signature and therefore, according to the court, could not be taken into account at all. The penal order became final and enforceable. In judgment file no. III. ÚS 3315/25, the Czech Constitutional Court described this approach as arbitrary.

The court acted as if the objection had never arrived

The key point is that the objection arrived in time. Even so, the district court treated it as if it had not received it. It based its approach on the form of the filing: according to the court, an electronic filing must be signed with a recognised electronic signature within the meaning of Section 6 of Act No. 297/2016 Coll., on Trust Services for Electronic Transactions. An e-mail from an ordinary mailbox did not meet this condition, so the court denied it any legal effect. The defect of form could allegedly only be remedied within the statutory time limit for filing an objection — and that had already expired. From the court's point of view, the matter was closed.

The complainant saw it differently. He argued that the approach was excessively formalistic. Even if the written version of the objection was missing from the envelope, the court should have assessed his filing according to its actual content — it was clear what he was seeking — or at least asked him to remedy the defects. Instead, he received a decision against which he could not effectively defend himself.

A law in force since 2016 decided the case — the court applied the old wording

The dispute turned on a single amendment. Until 18 September 2016, a missing signature under special regulations was a defect in the form of a filing. This changed from 19 September 2016 when Act No. 298/2016 Coll. took effect. The Third Chamber of the Constitutional Court (judge rapporteur Daniela Zemanová) concluded that the signature requirement is no longer part of the formal requirements under Section 59(1) of the Czech Code of Criminal Procedure. A missing signature is now a defect in the content requirements under Section 59(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The difference between a "defect of form" and a "defect of content" sounds like hair-splitting, but its consequences are significant. A defect of content under Section 59(3) triggers the court's duty to ask the filer to remedy it and give him the opportunity to do so. That is the exact opposite of what the district court did. It applied an interpretation that would only have held under the wording in force until 18 September 2016 — i.e. under law that had not been in force for almost ten years at the time of its decision.

When the court knows who is defending himself, it must not stay silent

The Constitutional Court gave weight to the fact that the filer was not unknown to the court. Both the e-mail and the registered letter made it clear who was filing and what the filing was directed against. In such a situation, the court cannot set the filing aside by pointing to a missing signature. It must ask for the defect to be remedied and only then draw conclusions. If it disregards the objection entirely and treats the penal order as a final decision, it acts arbitrarily.

The consequence was exceptionally harsh this time. The man first encountered "his" court only when the penal order with a ready-made sentence was served on him. He did not take part in any hearing in person. The Constitutional Court therefore found a violation of the right to personal liberty under Article 8(2) of the Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, the right of access to a court under Article 36(1) of the Charter and the right to have the case heard in the presence of the person concerned under Article 38(2) of the Charter. It prohibited the district court from continuing the interference and ordered it to restore the situation prior to the violation — so the penal order can no longer stand as final and enforceable.

The decision fits into the Constitutional Court's long-standing line that access to a court must not be denied through excessive formalism. The purpose of formal rules is to organise proceedings, not to exclude from them someone who defends himself clearly and in time.

Key takeaways

A filing by e-mail without a recognised signature is not the same as no filing. If you are within the time limit and the law enforcement authority knows who you are and what you are asking for, it is obliged to ask you to add a signature — not quietly ignore your filing. This applies above all to those who defend themselves without a lawyer or at the last minute and turn to e-mail from an ordinary mailbox.

Sobriety is in order, though. The judgment deals with a specific situation after the 2016 amendment and concerns an objection to a penal order; it does not make an unsigned e-mail a flawless filing. A data box (datová schránka) or a recognised electronic signature remains the more reliable route — it saves a later dispute over whether the court had to ask you at all. Anyone dealing with an objection to a penal order or another filing at risk of rejection for a formal defect should act quickly and verify the form in advance. We can help assess a specific filing and defend against a formalistic approach by the court.

Source: Judgment of the Czech Constitutional Court file no. III. ÚS 3315/25, announced by the Constitutional Court on 30 June 2026.