When Electronic Formalities Determine Access to Court: EDOC Signatures, Procedural Formalism and Effective Judicial Protection in Latvia — A Primary-Source Case Study under eIDAS, Article 92 of the Latvian Constitution and Article 6 ECHR

This primary-source legal case study examines the interaction between electronic-signature architecture, procedural formalism and effective access to court in Latvian civil proceedings. The study is anchored in the Zemgale District Court decision of 6 October 2026 (Case No. 3-10/2049/43; ECLI:LV:ZRT:2026:1006.34069.1.L). The court recorded that the claimant had electronically signed an EDOC package containing the statement of claim and its attachments, while nevertheless treating the statement of claim as unsigned because it had not been separately signed as an autonomous procedural document. The paper analyses this classification under Latvian civil-procedure and electronic-document law, Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 (eIDAS), Article 92 of the Latvian Constitution (Satversme), and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Particular attention is given to proportionality, excessive procedural formalism, effective judicial protection, the distinction between absence of a signature and disputed signature scope, and the availability of corrective mechanisms capable of preserving effective access to court. The study also examines broader implications for digital justice, including pre-filing validation, auditability, traceability, human accountability and the relationship between technical validity and legal validity in electronic court proceedings. This publication does not allege personal misconduct and does not present a final judicial finding of a constitutional, Convention or EU-law violation. It identifies a legally testable interaction between electronic-signature architecture and procedural requirements and distinguishes documented facts, legal characterisation, normative assessment and unresolved technical questions.