Brazil: Validity of electronic signatures on extrajudicial enforcement instruments

20 Jul 2023    2 minute read

In brief

Law No. 14.620/2023, in force since 14 July 2023, includes Paragraph 4 in Article 784 of the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code (CPC) establishing that extrajudicial enforcement instruments may be "constituted or attested by electronic means" and that "any type of electronic signature provided for by law is accepted, and the signature of witnesses is not required whenever its integrity is verified by a signature provider service."

Contents

In more detail

In fact, there has never been any room for discussion regarding the validity of electronic documents. This is due to the provisions of the Civil Code, which establish as a rule that the parties may freely choose the form of the legal transaction, and it is certain that, only in exceptional situations does the law require compliance with a certain form, under penalty of nullity. This is the case, for example, in Article 842 of the Civil Code.

What was much discussed is whether an electronically signed document loses executive effectiveness if it was certified by an entity that has not been previously accredited through the Brazilian Public Key Infrastructure (ICP-Brasil). There were positions arguing that the electronic signature certified by an entity not accredited through ICP-Brasil removed the executive effectiveness of the document (to illustrate this situation, refer to the following judgments of the TJ/SP, Interlocutory Appeal No. 2289091-25.2019.8.26.0000, 11th. Chamber of Private Law, Civil Appeal 1003531-41.2019.8.26.0510; 26th Chamber of Private Law).

With the inclusion of Paragraph 4 in Article 784 of the CPC and the mention that "in executive instruments constituted or attested by electronic means, any type of electronic signature provided for by law is admitted," the above discussion becomes irrelevant, to the extent that an electronic signature certified by an entity not accredited by ICP-Brasil is expressly provided for in Article 4 of Law 14.063/2020.

Therefore, electronic signatures certified by entities not accredited by ICP-Brasil do not remove the enforceability of the document (in fact, the new rule applies even to executions already proposed in which this aspect has not yet been analyzed).
The controversial now concerns whether the signature of the witness can be waived, as the electronic signature is capable of ensuring the integrity of the document. 

* * * * *

*Trench Rossi Watanabe and Baker McKenzie have executed a strategic cooperation agreement for consulting on foreign law

Contact Information
Gledson Marques de Campos
Partner
Sao Paulo
Read my Bio
gledson.campos@trenchrossi.com

Copyright © 2025 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.