Did you know that an electronic document cannot be denied legal validity or evidentiary value simply because it is in electronic form? However, this does not mean that all electronically signed documents automatically have the same legal effect as hand-signed paper documents. Under eIDAS and ZEISZ, only a qualified electronic signature is fully equivalent to a handwritten signature, while simple and advanced electronic signatures have a different and less clear evidentiary status.
The transition from analog to digital business operations presents companies with an important decision: how to ensure that electronic documents are treated as legally valid without creating unnecessary administrative and financial burdens?
Choosing the wrong type of e-signature can quickly turn short-term savings into high, unforeseen costs. To select the optimal solution, electronic signing must be evaluated from various perspectives.
Cost-Effectiveness of Different Types of E-Signatures
The purpose of advanced and qualified electronic signatures is to ensure reliable identification of the signer and to verify the authenticity and integrity of electronically signed documents.
A simple electronic signature – such as a scanned handwritten signature, a signature made with a finger or stylus on a screen, or various forms of “click-to-sign” signatures without verification of the signer’s identity – does not provide these functions. From this perspective, its use is justifiable at most for transactions in which all signatories can withdraw from the agreement without any consequences.
When considering the cost-effectiveness of e-signing, it is increasingly important to distinguish between signing an e-document in the physical presence of the signer at the point of signing and remote e-signing (via the internet).
When a party is physically present, the question arises as to the appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of the signature. In accordance with the amendment to ZUP-I (2025), an e-signature no longer provides added value if an official reliably verifies the party’s identity (e.g., by inspecting an identification document) and the party’s intent is clearly evident from their actions (e.g., submitting an application). Subsequent signing on a tablet in such a case represents an additional administrative burden as well as unnecessary costs for equipment and services.
A similar logic can also apply to private-law procedures, such as renewing auto insurance and vehicle registration at a service counter. The clerk identifies the customer, the customer selects the service, and pays for it with a card. The customer’s identity and intent have already been established, and the card payment further confirms them.
However, the situation is entirely different in remote (online) transactions. Where there is no personal contact or direct verification of documents, the e-signature is crucial for verifying the customer’s identity and documenting their intent. At this level, a qualified remote electronic signature is the most appropriate and, in the long term, the most cost-effective solution. This is because only a qualified e-signature – in which the signer’s identity is verified using a high-assurance electronic identification means – ensures legal equivalence to a handwritten signature. Unqualified e-signatures, on the other hand, shift the burden of proof to the user and create hidden storage costs.
Relying on simple or advanced e-signatures in business operations involves storing extensive audit trails for several years, which significantly increases the costs and complexity of providing evidence.
Within the category of advanced signatures, a distinction must be made between those based on a qualified certificate and the rest. In the former, the signatory is identified by a qualified trust service provider, so the level of identification is the same as for a qualified signature; the only difference is the requirement for a qualified signature creation device. For this reason, the transition to a qualified signature at this stage involves minimal cost and, from a legal standpoint, provides equivalence to a handwritten signature. In the case of advanced signatures without a qualified certificate, however, identification may consist solely of confirming an email address, and the evidentiary value depends on the preservation of audit trails.
In contrast, a qualified electronic signature combined with a qualified timestamp inherently ensures the long-term integrity, authenticity, and legal presumption of validity of the document without the need for additional supporting materials.
When deciding which type of e-signature to use as part of the digitization of your business, it is essential to conduct a risk assessment of the use of a specific e-signature and evaluate it from multiple perspectives:
| Management Perspective | Legal Perspective | User Perspective | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simple Signature | Low implementation costs, but high costs of proving validity in the event of a dispute. | There is no legal presumption of validity. Validity must be proven through additional records, audit trails, witnesses, etc. The burden of proof lies with the user. | Suitable for internal documents where disputes are not expected. If a dispute arises, proving validity is difficult and expensive. |
| Advanced Signature | Moderate costs, moderate legal certainty, suitable for business contracts. | Must meet eIDAS requirements (binding to the signatory, detection of changes). Providing proof is easier, but the burden still falls on the user. | A good choice for business contracts where greater security is desired, though it still does not provide complete protection. |
| (Subtype: created with a qualified certificate for e-signature) | |||
| Qualified Signature | Higher setup costs, but minimal costs of proof, as it has a legal presumption of validity. | Under eIDAS, it has the same legal validity as a handwritten signature. Validity is presumed, and the burden of proof lies with the party challenging the signature. This means significantly lower costs of proof and greater legal certainty. | The most secure. It is used for contracts with banks, public tenders, and legal proceedings. If a dispute arises, the signature is considered valid until someone successfully challenges it. |
| Conclusion | A qualified signature is less expensive in the long run because it reduces the risk of disputes and the costs of proving authenticity. It is also the only type of e-signature that is automatically recognized as valid throughout the EU. | ||
Management Perspective: Simple signatures entail low initial implementation costs but high, unpredictable costs of proof in the event of a dispute. While a qualified signature requires slightly higher setup costs, it results in minimal costs of proof due to its legally presumed validity.
Legal Perspective: With simple and advanced signatures, there is no legal presumption of validity, or the burden of proof still rests with the user. With a qualified signature, there is a legal presumption of authenticity – the burden of proof shifts to the party challenging the signature.
User’s Perspective: A simple e-signature is suitable for internal documents with no risk of disputes. An advanced e-signature is a good choice for standard business contracts. A qualified e-signature, however, is the most secure and indispensable for transactions with banks, public tenders, and legal proceedings.
So, What is the Right Choice for Your Business?
Looking at the issue from a management, legal, and user perspective quickly reveals the following:
A qualified e-signature is the most cost-effective in the long run – it reduces the risk of disputes and the costs of providing evidence, and it is the only type of e-signature that is automatically recognized as valid throughout the entire EU.
Qualified electronic signatures are economically justified – only a qualified electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature. When it is necessary to prove the signer’s identity and the authenticity of an electronically signed document, a document signed with a qualified electronic signature constitutes, in and of itself, all necessary and sufficient evidence. This distinguishes it from other types of signatures, where similar proof would require various supporting documents (applications, approvals, procedures, the course of business transactions, etc.) as well as audit trails of the e-signature process. Long-term storage of such extensive evidence is more expensive than storing a document with a qualified electronic signature.
Let’s Look at a Practical Calculation
Article 25 of the eIDAS Regulation grants a qualified electronic signature the same legal effect as a handwritten signature. A document signed with a qualified electronic signature is evidence in and of itself, which means that in the event of a dispute, the burden of proof lies with the party challenging the authenticity and integrity of the document. However, if a simple or advanced electronic signature is challenged in a dispute, the burden of proof lies with the party relying on the signature and the signed document.
When calculating the actual costs of a simple signature, we must therefore take into account not only the cost of signing but also all procedures, measures, and records necessary to preserve the evidentiary value of a document signed in this manner. For example, the costs of:
- signature solutions (including, among other things, dedicated hardware and software) and their maintenance; the system used to create the signature must be documented, and its operation must be verifiable even years after the signature was created;
- evidence in a dispute (e.g., expert opinions, attorneys’ fees) and protracted proceedings with an uncertain outcome;
- retention of audit trails and supporting evidence (log entries, delivery receipts, correspondence, transaction history) for every concluded (and unconcluded) transaction for the entire period during which we wish to preserve the evidentiary value of the document; for multi-year contracts, this entails the long-term management and safeguarding of extensive documentation;
- contractual relationships with external providers; if an external provider handles the signing, a complex contractor–subcontractor relationship arises that requires prior arrangements regarding access to audit trails and responsibility for their retention, including the preservation of supporting documents in the event of a transfer of retention to another contractor or the termination of the provider;
- notification and cooperation of signing parties – in the event of a dispute, it is necessary to obtain statements or testimony from the individuals who participated in the signing, which is often difficult to accomplish years after the event; and, last but not least:
- the “cost” of lost corporate reputation in the event of a failed attempt to prove the validity of an e-signed document.
A document with a qualified signature inherently ensures all of the above: validity is presumed, and the burden of proof lies with the party challenging the signature. The cost of a qualified signature is thus negligible in comparison.
You Can Ensure Both Security and a Simple User Experience at the Same Time, Without Compromise
Digitizing business operations does not require compromising between cost and security. By using a qualified e-signature, you get the best of both worlds: full legal protection across the entire EU and maximum cost optimization.
The best user experience and greatest cost-effectiveness come from using a remote qualified e-signature service, which is based on high-assurance identification of the signer, multi-factor authentication, and the issuance of a qualified certificate for a single-use signature. The signer can complete all of these procedures via their smartphone while communicating with a provider of a qualified remote e-signature service. The quality, security, and reliability of this signature service are guaranteed by comprehensive EU regulations and competent oversight. As the number of users grows, the cost of the qualified remote e-signature service is becoming increasingly affordable. However, none of the aforementioned guarantees apply to a simple e-signature.
Save on Costs Before They Arise
With Rekono services and solutions, you can implement qualified signing in just a few minutes. You can sign remotely using a computer or phone without the need for specialized hardware or software.
For companies with a higher volume of signing, we provide customized solutions – contact us at prodaja@rekono.si.
