Scanned signatures on appeals? Reflection and criticism on Plenary Chamber Decision No. 03-2025/TCP
The Plenary Chamber of the State Procurement Tribunal has approved, by majority, a binding precedent that allows appeals with a scanned signature to be filed as valid. This decision is based on a broad interpretation of the principle of due process and the presumption of veracity of the documents submitted by the parties. As with any decision, there will be opinions for and against, as evidenced by the members who dissented on this point.
For this reason, we consider it necessary to analyze this interpretation in greater detail, beginning by clarifying that the purpose of a signature is to identify the person, reflect their will, and authenticate the document they signed.
Article 306 of the Regulations of the General Law on Public Procurement requires, as a requirement for the admissibility of an appeal filed before the panel of parties of the contracting entity or the Contracting Authority, the signature of the challenger or their representative. The Court has held that a scanned signature—that is, an image inserted into the document—is sufficient to meet this requirement. This position, while facilitating the filing of the appeal, does not guarantee the authenticity of the will of the person appearing as the signatory.
To date, we know that there is specialized software that can detect whether an image—such as a scanned signature—has been inserted into a PDF file, the format we use to file documents in both administrative and judicial settings. I don’t know if these tools are currently used in both settings, but I have no doubt that, at some point, they could be used with the certainty that we would encounter more than one “surprise.”
In this scenario, it’s worth asking an additional question: could artificial intelligence tools be used to perform this verification quickly, securely, and automatically? The answer is yes. Today, the technology allows for the operation of systems capable of detecting scanned signatures, identifying editing layers, and reading metadata from PDF files, and it continues to develop, so it’s no illusion to think that it will eventually be implemented. This type of solution would not only improve controls in administrative or judicial settings but would also allow for the automatic filtering of potentially invalid documents without sacrificing procedural agility. The implementation of AI should not be seen as a barrier, but as an opportunity to balance efficiency with safeguards, provided its use is accompanied by clear rules and subsequent validation criteria.
Instead of accepting scanned signatures without any guarantee, it is appropriate to consider amending the Constitutional Court’s Constitutional Court (TUO) of the LPAG and the Regulations of the General Law on Public Procurement to establish that filing an appeal with the signature of an accredited attorney is sufficient, as long as the attorney acts as the procedural representative of the beneficiary. This would essentially involve replicating the functional logic of Article 290 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary and converting it into an express rule for administrative offices.
Furthermore, it should be considered that the attorney’s signature be handwritten or certified digital, ensuring certainty about its origin and validity. A reasonable option would be to incorporate a digital signature into a Bar Association card with a chip, which would provide a practical, verifiable, and secure solution.
However, this mandatory precedent is interpreted, it is clear that a more secure and functional solution requires adapting the current regulatory framework, without sacrificing the agility required by the administrative procedure, nor the minimum guarantees of authenticity and traceability required by a reliable legal system.
Should you require any additional clarification regarding the legal impact of the information contained in this notice, please contact:
Alfred Kossuth Wieland
Rolando Lema Hanke
