How to deliver data messages with powers of attorney
Delivering messages to data boxes have been causing interpretation uncertainties since 2009 when data boxes were introduced in our legislation, in particular where the formal elements of documents delivered via data boxes are concerned. Both civil and administrative courts have recently expressed their opinion on certain aspects of communication via this system, thus contributing to the creation of a uniform administrative practice.
In connection with the introduction of the possibility or duty to communicate with public administration via the data box system a number of questions have arisen in practice with respect to the signing and delivery of documents. Early this year, the Supreme Court issued an extensive opinion in which it attempted to harmonise the courts’ approach to the sending of messages through data boxes. It confirmed, inter alia, that where an entity performs a submission in form of an appendix to a data message (in PDF format, for example), this appendix need not be signed by an acceptable electronic signature.
The above applies unless it is clear from the submission that although the data message was sent by one entity, the message actually relates to another entity and the data message itself is only a medium or an envelope. The submission then should be attributed to the entity that is the actual author. If, for example, Mr Novák files an appeal via a data message that is signed by his friend Mr Svoboda’s acceptable electronic signature (e.g. as he deems this to be the quickest way of delivery), the court should regard this document as Mr Svoboda’s appeal.
Where an individual has more than one data box (e.g. one as a person not carrying out business activities and one as a lawyer), the state body should always deliver to the data box that corresponds to the nature of the document. For example, a decision to impose a fine for fast driving should be delivered to a private data box and not to the person’s professional data box. But, even if such an error occurs, the message is considered delivered in due manner, i.e. at the moment the addressee accesses their data box, the document is deemed delivered.
Even though the above conclusions are a priori applicable to civil court proceedings, administrative courts are often inspired by the general courts and vice versa. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that these conclusions will also be applied to tax matters. In its opinion following civil proceedings, the Supreme Administrative Court recently held that the confirmation of delivery to a data box is a public instrument associated with the presumption of accuracy. Consequently, if anybody attempts to challenge the accuracy of this confirmation, they have to prove so in a credible manner.
As regards delivery, the SAC recently also confirmed that the rules on observing a deadline under the Tax Procedure Rules should also apply to powers of attorney granted to tax advisors, which means that it is sufficient to submit a power of attorney for delivery by post on the last day of the deadline. Despite the fact that a large number of processes in communication with the tax administration have been digitalised, the tax authorities still insist on the submission of powers of attorney in written form.