Notarization of email correspondence

Situations often arise when evidence of certain facts exists only in electronic form. Let’s say you agreed with people in an email correspondence to complete the work and pay in advance, but they took the advance payment and disappeared. Or you have been subjected to certain insults. Many people think that the lack of a “paper” medium makes them unpunished. But in the Russian legal field there is a mechanism that allows you to certify electronic correspondence.

How is electronic correspondence certified?

Specialists from the website internetnotarius.ru told us that it is correct to call this procedure not certification of correspondence, but provision of evidence. The essence of the procedure is that the notary inspects the proposed correspondence and, based on the information received, draws up an inspection protocol, which records all the evidence you need.

Technically, the procedure looks like this:

You come to the notary with your passport and submit an application to him, in which you briefly describe the circumstances and indicate the evidence that you need to provide.
Separately, you provide the notary with the credentials for the account on which you want to perform the inspection. This can be not only mail, but also a social network, forum and any other resource that involves the exchange of electronic messages.
Next, the electronic correspondence is notarized: the specialist logs in using your credentials on the specified website, finds the correspondence that interests you, and records all the facts seen during the inspection in the protocol. Technical parameters are also additionally recorded, such as the IP address of the service, detailed information about the sender of the letter, letter headers (if any), etc.

How applicable is notarized correspondence in court?

The main problem here is to confirm that an email address belongs to a specific individual or legal entity. The situation is much simpler if the correspondence was carried out with an email address on a corporate domain. If the correspondence was carried out with an address located on a public mail service, additional proof of the correspondence of the specific person and his mail address will be required.

In particular, such evidence may include protocols for inspection of sites or forums where this person offers his services and publishes a contact address and other similar documents. If it was possible to prove ownership, there is a high probability that the evidence will be accepted by the court.

It is obvious that e-mail has many advantages and is widely used in the process of conducting business activities.

In this article I propose to consider the issue of legal validity of electronic correspondence as evidence. We are talking about ordinary correspondence carried out by the vast majority of people, without the use of an electronic digital signature or other analogues of a handwritten signature.

Often, during a conversation with principals on a particular issue, it turns out that either the agreement was concluded by exchanging documents by e-mail, or all or part of the legally significant correspondence of the parties to the agreement was carried out by e-mail. Moreover, the principal is simply convinced that he will easily prove that he is right by referring to this correspondence and this agreement.

The question arises whether this correspondence by email proof of certain circumstances? What if the procedural opponent declares that he can also provide correspondence containing opposing information, how to give the correspondence a procedural form and legal force?

Let's go from general to specific.

Legislative regulation in the field of the use of technical means in the preparation of evidence is clearly insufficient; there is no conceptual apparatus as such; in different regulations, the same concepts are often defined differently.

Without going into the technical features of e-mail, leaving you without lengthy definitions of e-mail, information and telecommunication networks and other concepts, let’s move directly to the evidence in the arbitration process, so to speak, a little theory.

As we know, evidence in the case is information obtained in the manner prescribed by the Arbitration Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation) and other federal laws, on the basis of which the arbitration court establishes the presence or absence of circumstances justifying the demands and objections of the persons participating in the case , as well as other circumstances relevant for the correct consideration of the case. Written and material evidence, explanations of persons participating in the case, expert opinions, specialist consultations, testimony of witnesses, audio and video recordings, other documents and materials are allowed as evidence (Article 64 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

In turn, written evidence is containing information about circumstances relevant to the case, contracts, acts, certificates, business correspondence, and other documents made in the form of a digital, graphic record or in another way that allows the authenticity of the document to be established.

According to Art. 75 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, documents received by fax, electronic or other communication, including using the information and telecommunication network “Internet”, are accepted as written evidence in cases and in the manner established by this Code, other federal laws, other legal acts or agreement or determined within the limits of its powers by the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation.

Let us leave aside theoretical disputes in the legal field about whether email correspondence is written or physical evidence, since for the required result (recognition correspondence as evidence in court) it doesn't really matter.

We proceed from the fact that the correspondence contains information about circumstances relevant to the case, no matter what it is - or any other dispute.

As we see, in order to email correspondence meets the criteria for written evidence and is admissible as written evidence, it must meet, at a minimum, the following conditions:

It must be performed in a manner that allows the authenticity of the document to be established;

It must be received in accordance with the procedure established by the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, other federal laws, other legal acts or the contract.

These criteria become a stumbling block every time you refer to email correspondence as evidence of certain circumstances.

Formally, the true content of electronic correspondence can be established by examining it at its location according to the rules of Art. 78 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (for example, the court may require the relevant person to provide access to email, inspect a message or attached file). Personally, I have never encountered courts doing this, although I have seen representatives rushing to see the judge with a laptop.

Regarding “must be performed in a manner that allows the authenticity of the document to be established”:

It seems that perhaps the only possible way to “materialize” electronic correspondence is to print it out on a printer. But the courts are not willing to accept such printouts as evidence, since the likelihood of falsification is high.

You can’t provide for everything, but analysis of judicial practice helps to develop a number of practical measures to make electronic correspondence “procedural.”

Make an act indicating the date and exact time of preparation. In the act, indicate information about the person who carried out the display of the correspondence on the screen and further printing (full name, position), such a person can be the head of the organization - a party to the dispute, the provider, or any other person related to the dispute.

Also in this act you should provide information about the software (indication of the browser version) and the computer equipment used. An act containing the above information, at a minimum, deprives your procedural opponent of the argument that it is not possible to establish by whom, when and with what use the correspondence was printed. At least, when I object to the inclusion of correspondence, I always refer precisely to the fact that the correspondence presented to the court does not meet the criteria of evidence precisely because it is not clear by whom, when and with what use it was produced.

Letters addressed to my client and that do not correspond to my position on the case are always “sent to spam”; I never received them.

In the act itself, be sure to indicate the sequence of actions performed when displaying the correspondence on the screen and further printing. For example, you can take the protocol of a notary’s inspection of written evidence.

Now let's turn to the reliability of email correspondence.

It seems that reliability in this case should be understood as confidence in the truth of the correspondence. Part 3 of Art. 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation establishes that evidence is recognized by the arbitration court as reliable if, as a result of its verification and research, it turns out that the information contained in it is true.

How should the correspondence be carried out so that its truth is not in doubt?

First of all, it should be clear from the correspondence from whom and to whom the letter or document was sent. It seems that the identification of the parties to correspondence should be taken care of in advance by stipulating the email addresses of the parties in the contract, since it can be very difficult to prove that an email address belongs to a specific person or organization (to register an email account, you do not need to provide any identification documents , or constituent documents, registration is usually anonymous).

As follows from paragraph 3 of Art. 75 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the parties have the right to include in the contract a condition on the procedure for individualizing their electronic correspondence (sending messages to agreed upon email addresses) in order to give it the properties of reliability.

It is worth noting that since this method requires the parties to use exactly those email addresses that are directly indicated in the contract, which is rarely done in practice, this method of establishing the reliability of electronic correspondence is not very reliable.

For an example, look, for example, Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Far Eastern District dated November 16, 2012 No. F03-5177/2012 (The plaintiff’s argument about transferring disputed claims to the defendant by email was rejected because it did not indicate their receipt by the plaintiff. At the same time, it was not presented in the case materials evidence of agreement between the parties on the use of electronic documents in claim work).

If it is impossible to correlate the parties to the contract and a specific address, I can only recommend referring to clause 1 of Art. 5 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, justifying the use of e-mail in the absence of an appropriate indication in a contract or other bilateral document as a business custom, and also indicate the absence of objections from the procedural opponent to such an exchange of information.

I also note that a person conducting email correspondence on behalf of another person (or in his interests) must be authorized to do so.

Documents drawn up inconsistently, without proper specificity, will most likely be rejected by the court on the grounds of unreliability.

As for the second condition - “receipt of correspondence in the manner established by the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, other federal laws, other legal acts or the agreement.”

I have not found in the current legislation any procedure for obtaining such evidence as electronic correspondence. It seems that this correspondence should not violate the constitutional right to confidentiality of correspondence. Certification of electronic correspondence by a notary

Sometimes participants in the process ask for inclusion notarized electronic correspondence.

I will not describe how the provision of evidence by a notary is regulated; those who are interested can find it themselves; we will briefly dwell on the issue of providing evidence by a notary.

Please note that if proceedings have already been initiated, it is too late to contact a notary. Yes, I admit that the court can treat documents certified by a notary with great confidence. But there is no such requirement in the law, and accordingly it is not necessary to apply to it.

I would like to draw your attention to the following points:

The reliability of electronic correspondence in this case is limited to cases where the ownership of email addresses by the parties is not denied;

The notary is obliged to notify the parties and interested parties of the time and place of providing evidence. If the notary does not do this and the court does not establish urgent cases, then there is a possibility that the protocol for examining physical evidence (email) will be deprived of evidence.

The notary does not provide evidence in a case that is being processed by a court or administrative body at the time the interested parties contact the notary.

In conclusion, let's make a few conclusions:

Whether email correspondence constitutes written evidence is determined each time at the discretion of the court.

Considering the insufficient legislative regulation of the issue of using electronic correspondence in economic transactions, it is not possible to talk about the predetermined force of correspondence as evidence.

Considering that the court evaluates evidence according to its internal conviction, based on a comprehensive, complete, objective and direct examination of the evidence available in the case (clause 1 of Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), it cannot be said that the correspondence will be accepted by the court as evidence, and even if it is , then it is not possible to predict what assessment the court will give to such correspondence.

Accordingly, a position based only on electronic correspondence is extremely weak.

It cannot be said that the courts are great at accepting electronic correspondence as evidence, although there are cases of a favorable attitude towards this type of evidence as a modern, convenient, reliable, widespread method of transmitting information (see Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated April 27, 2006 in the case No. A40-20963/2005).

In general, in war all means are good and all possibilities must be used to the maximum.

I hope this article will be useful to you in your work.

If you liked this article, subscribe to the newsletter and leave your comments.

Watch an interview with an expert who certifies electronic correspondence

Best wishes,
Lawyer Mugin Alexander S.

This is not the first time I turn to your resource on topical issues, and I always find practical “grain”, without “water”. Thank you very much.

Thank you for the article!
Just in practice, he “broke” the notary’s protocol, which was drawn up at the time of the proceedings in the arbitration court.
Regarding the inspection of correspondence in court. I think the judges should inspect. But the other side must already provide evidence to substantiate its objections.
By the way, regarding the correspondence. If the correspondence was conducted through mailboxes, then as part of the pre-investigation check, police officers can send inquiries about what IP was used to access the mailbox and who owned this IP at the time of access. As an option for further proof in court.

I had a court decision where the main evidence of the fact - a significant violation of the deadlines for completing work - was correspondence on Skype, the court terminated the contract for the provision of services and ordered the contractor to return the money, based precisely on the electronic correspondence of the representatives of the parties... the only caveat is that at the court hearing the contractor’s representative did not deny that this correspondence took place

Good day, Natalia!
This once again confirms that you should not neglect such evidence as correspondence by e-mail, including via Skype.

Best wishes,
Lawyer Mugin Alexander S.

Alexander,

The question is not related to e-mail, but to a certain software package of the Customer, which is mandatory for the preparation of work completion certificates. Access to the PC is via the web. How can it be included as evidence in court?

Good afternoon

To be honest, I didn’t quite understand the question. Is it possible to somehow copy or print the “software package” onto a tangible medium? If yes, then include it, documenting it with the appropriate protocol.

Best wishes,
Lawyer Mugin Alexander S.

Good afternoon
I would ask you to comment on the situation when a party to the dispute wants to exclude from the contract the clause on the transfer of legally significant information. But we are not talking about Arbitration, but about a dispute between the bank and the bank’s client (me).
The bank blocked my accounts with reference to 115-FZ, and notified me by email (the message ended up in spam and I became familiar with its contents later at the branch after I was faced with account blocking). In the account banking agreement (accession agreement, published on the website for all bank clients) there is a clause:
Please send me documents to the specified address (we are talking about e-mail)…. I have the technical and other capabilities to receive and familiarize myself with documents....; The bank is not responsible for losses... if documents and other information are not received by me

As a rule, the service for providing electronic mail addresses is provided by third parties. Is it possible to challenge, say, the point “I have the technical and other capabilities to receive and familiarize myself with documents” in Rospotrebnadzor (as I understand it, this supervisory authority can administratively force the bank to remove illegal clauses of the contract), since I, as a client of the postal service, do not control the technical capabilities and in my opinion, this point is controversial when it comes to individuals - numerous bank clients. And later, when going to court about the illegal blocking actions of the bank, ask Rospotrebnadzor to participate in the court as a third party (as they usually write: in the interests of an unlimited number of persons) - of course, if the complaint to Rospotrebnadzor is considered positively.

Good afternoon
Of course, you can challenge either a separate clause or the entire contract as a whole. But it is not possible to assess the prospect without studying the documents. Besides, to be honest, I don’t understand what your problem is considering how you are going to solve it.

Best wishes,
Lawyer Mugin Alexander S.
- In short: The application (acceptance) for joining the banking service agreement (sorry, I misled you - the above clause is not an agreement, but an excerpt from this statement) contains the above-mentioned clause.
  
  I recently emailed. I received an email request for information with a link to 115-FZ, the letter went to spam and I did not respond to it because I did not see it. I have an impressive amount of money stuck in my accounts - everything has been settled by now, but in the future I would like to protect myself from such surprises. At the same time, a representative of the bank (financial monitoring), in response to my objections about the suspension of operations, expressed the idea that an email notification had been sent to me. Now I wonder how legal such inclusions in contracts are. In addition, if the situation turned out differently, and I had to defend my interests in court, could I ask the judge to consider this point insignificant, violating my rights - at the moment I am busy thinking about how to justify this.

Good afternoon, I have this situation. The ex-husband is a citizen of Kazakhstan, works in Russia, provided the bailiff (in Kazakhstan) with a certificate of salary of 8,400 rubles, of which he pays me alimony in the amount of 2,100 rubles (25%). The child is also a citizen of Kazakhstan, but lives under a temporary residence permit in Russia with me, my ex-husband sends alimony to my card. Can I file a lawsuit for payment of alimony in a fixed amount and in which country will I need to file the application, because: 1) he receives salary in rubles and not in tenge, 2) he worsened the child’s life (previously when he worked in Kazakhstan, alimony was 6,000 rubles). And will his correspondence on social media serve as evidence for the bailiff? networks with friends? I have a password for his mailbox, where he corresponds with friends. Where every month he discusses his salary in the amount of 32,000 + travel allowances in the amount of 5,000 rubles. Please tell me what to do. Thank you.

Good afternoon
You can file a claim for payment of alimony in a fixed amount at your place of residence.
As for the evidence for the bailiff, I don’t understand why you decided to prove something to the bailiff.
It is not possible to suggest anything specific as part of the response to your comment - there are few introductory ones.

Best wishes,
Lawyer Mugin Alexander S.

That’s for sure: in war it’s like in war. Electronic correspondence is introduced everywhere in government bodies to receive citizens' requests. If anyone takes advantage of this offer and sends an appeal to an email box, then immediately on the second or third day request confirmation of registration of the appeal. I now have such a situation that I did not ask for confirmation and now I have tried to appeal against illegal inaction. The authority plays a fool and denies receipt, although the appeal was sent properly and there is confirmation that another addressee, to whom a copy was sent by the same letter, received the appeal. The court examined the scan of the mail at the hearing, identified the addressees, etc., did not ask questions about unreliability and refused to examine the mailbox at the court hearing, and later, after the end of the hearing, stated in its decision that the scan was not clear to the court and could not serve as evidence .

Thank you so much for this article! There doesn’t seem to be any specifics, but the thoughts are presented and presented with dignity, i.e. there is something to think about.
Thanks again!

Good afternoon
I don’t even know whether to be happy or not about such gratitude (I’m talking about “no specifics”), but thank you anyway.
It reminded me of a joke when people were flying in a hot air balloon and got lost, they asked the man below where they were, to which he replied that they were in a hot air balloon. The travelers, in turn, immediately realized that they were talking to a lawyer, since his answer was correct, but useless.

Best wishes,
Lawyer Mugin Alexander S.

Hello.
I worked in an organization where all employees worked remotely, i.e. In different cities. The only way to communicate with management is by email. By mail, managers sent us instructions, orders, signed memos, etc. Naturally, communication by email is not specified in our employment contract, but the place of work is indicated, this is the home address.
Question:
1 How can I prove in court that email was the only means of communication with all employees.
2 What can be provided in court as evidence from other employees, because they live in other cities.

Good afternoon
I apologize for the delay in response.
It seems that it is not advisable for you to establish in court the fact that communication with all employees was carried out exclusively through e-mail. I can't imagine how this could help you.
Regarding the second question, I also find it difficult to answer, since the subject of the dispute is not clear enough to recommend you anything specific.

Best wishes,
Lawyer Mugin Alexander S.

Good afternoon The situation is this: there was an oral agreement with the contractor (we are both individual entrepreneurs). The conditions for it were discussed in ice. Now there is a dispute and he intends to attach a scan from this correspondence to the case in his favor. What are my chances of challenging this correspondence? Will he be able to prove that it was me who conducted this correspondence, and not someone else from my computer or from my account?

Good afternoon
You didn't pose the question quite correctly. There are chances to challenge, but I won’t tell you which ones, there are no clear criteria. Whether he can or cannot prove it, I also cannot answer you, it all depends on how he will do it and how the court will evaluate the evidence.

Best wishes,
Lawyer Mugin Alexander S.

Fundamentals of the legislation of the Russian Federation on notaries Chapter XX. Providing evidence, Article 102 part 2 is no longer in force. Does this mean that a notary can certify email correspondence even after the hearing of the case in court has begun?
Thank you.

- Alexander, thanks for the answer. What legal force does notarized correspondence in the form of screenshots of pages have? In particular: can this be evidence in court in this case, and how can the contents of an attachment in a letter be certified in this case? Thank you in advance.

Good afternoon. Tell me, please, are there any chances of winning in court? This is the situation.
I transferred money from my bank card to another person’s card.
A person abroad. He was supposed to buy me something and send it to me.
But he did not fulfill his obligation. Spent my money. Now he feeds me breakfast and promises to return it.
All our correspondence was conducted on Skype. There is a card number with his name, his letters stating that he spent my money.
From the relevant evidence, I can take a bank statement about the transfer of money.
What do you say? No prospect of going to court?

Good afternoon
With your “introductory” information, it is much more difficult to make the court refuse to satisfy your claims. Of course, you have every chance of getting a decision to recover funds.
The only question is the jurisdiction of the dispute. If your “villain” has never lived on the territory of the Russian Federation and does not have any property here, then you will have to file a claim at the defendant’s place of residence abroad, according to the rules established by the legislation of the relevant state.

Best wishes,
Mugin Alexander S.

Hello. If it’s not difficult, please answer this question.
I want to sue the bank.
Huge interest and fines were charged, although there were notifications about my serious health problems (by email). I want to provide correspondence in court. Do I need to have it certified by a notary, given that it seems unlikely to me that the bank will deny the fact of receiving these letters. Is it enough to simply print this correspondence with all the information from the browser (with dates, addresses...)?
Thank you!

Good afternoon
The question here is that since the evidence does not have a predetermined force for the court, it is difficult to determine how the court will evaluate this or that evidence (certified by a notary or not), so it is always better to be “too safe than not.”

Best wishes,
Lawyer Mugin Alexander S.

Hello. We have such a difficult situation. My son borrowed money from his wife’s brother, against receipt. He returned the main amount. After the divorce, this brother filed a lawsuit. with a demand to repay the entire debt, since allegedly he had not been repaid at all. My son still has correspondence on social networks, where it is said that my son was paying off his debt. And how much is left? My son repaid most of the debt in cash against a receipt. , and transferred the rest to the card of his brother and wife, since they were in another city. Question: Can email correspondence be certified as evidence?

Good afternoon
If you are only interested in this question, then yes, email correspondence can be certified as evidence, and this is exactly what the article is about.

Best wishes,
Lawyer Mugin Alexander S.

Hello!
I purchased a router in March 2015 from an online store (1 year warranty).
After the purchase, it turned out that the product was inoperative and could not be set up.
Since October 2015, I have been in email correspondence with employees of an online store who take a contradictory position: they offer to come for a refund, I come, the employees refuse to accept the goods, I report this in correspondence, the employees change their point of view and begin to demand conclusions from the SC, ignoring my references to Art. 18 of the law on ZPP.
After contacting Rospotrebnadzor, I received a letter saying that the store was ready to accept the goods, you just need to drive up.
Please tell me, can my email be considered a claim when going to court? Can I collect a penalty starting from the date of the letter? Can I receive compensation for moral damages? Have you had to come to the store several times and leave with nothing?

Good afternoon
Without knowing the contents of your letter, I cannot say whether it will be considered a claim, because it is the court that evaluates the evidence. The penalty is accrued from the date of expiration of the deadline for fulfilling the consumer’s legal requirement. Since it was not clear whether the requirement was, I also cannot answer this question. Regarding moral damage, I can only say that you can definitely demand compensation for it. But whether you will be able to receive it and whether it will be recovered from the seller, I will not say without familiarizing yourself with all the materials of the case, I am afraid to give unreasonable hope.
My colleagues from ADN Legal deal with consumer protection issues, try contacting him.

Best wishes,
Lawyer Mugin Alexander S.

Hello! She presented email correspondence to the court as evidence. The judge said it was important evidence, but it had to be certified by a notary. How to convince the court that certification of an electronic document is not the exclusive prerogative of a notary?

Good afternoon
Your question is too abstract, I believe that an answer like “you need to be very convincing, provide legal norms and examples of judicial practice to support your position” will not suit you. Although in fact it is necessary to paint the judge such a picture of the world so that he has no doubts about the optionalness of notarization of correspondence, and this is sometimes simply impossible.

Best wishes,
Lawyer Mugin Alexander S.

Hello, Alexander! As part of a labor dispute, to confirm the fact (there is no other evidence) of fulfillment of labor duties, which is denied by the employer, I would like to attach to the claim a copy of electronic correspondence with the company’s counterparties on economic and financial issues. company activities. The correspondence was carried out from my corporate email address, opened for free on Yandex. Does it need to be notarized for this purpose? The fact is that all correspondence for the period worked amounted to more than 700 letters, incl. with attachments. Is it possible to petition the court to request this correspondence from Yandex in order to avoid notarization? Should the petition be included in the claim or submitted as a separate document?
I would be very grateful for your answer.

Good afternoon
Whether it’s necessary or not, it’s better to be “over-safe than under-safe,” as they say. Moreover, if correspondence is your only evidence, then I would generally wait to go to court. It is also advisable to apply for evidence by attaching documents confirming that you have exhausted the possibilities of obtaining evidence yourself, for example, you made a request and were refused or ignored. Otherwise, the court will most likely refuse you.

Best wishes,
Lawyer Mugin Alexander S.
- Hello, if I provide the court with correspondence for consideration as evidence of the dishonesty of a former employer who does not give me documents, and he denies his involvement in the correspondence, can he file a counterclaim for libel/damage to business reputation/moral damage and etc. ?
  - Good afternoon
    Your defendant can file anything at all, the question is whether the court will accept it. I very much doubt that the court will accept such counterclaims, just as I doubt the prospects for satisfying such claims.
    
    Best wishes,
    Lawyer Mugin Alexander S.
    
    Best wishes,
    Lawyer Mugin Alexander S.

A week later (after the fact after all the copying work I did) by email. I receive an agreement in the mail with the terms of use of the images. The conditions do not suit me (the museum has the exclusive copyright, severely limited use of any parts, huge fines, the obligation to ensure the safety of copies from third parties, etc.), and I, of course, refuse to sign it. Moreover, according to the contract, the images had to be scanned by the museum, and not by me, photocopied with an amateur camera. There are also several other discrepancies in the agreement. For example, the number of photographically copied sheets is simply described, without describing the text on them, numbers and previews, incl. this applies to photographs.

I'm by email. mail invited the person (the head of the archive with whom he corresponded) to draw up an agreement on the mutual destruction of copies or the licensing of images by the Museum for free non-commercial use. use, asked for the address of the museum's lawyer. He proposed draft agreements, theses that would suit me, and asked me to show them to the museum’s lawyer. But the manager the archive clearly realized her mistake (that she did not warn me about the rules and the agreement in advance), and now she wants to hush up the matter, and does not want to change the agreement or officially destroy copies. However, it does not provide any written guarantees. In a lengthy email correspondence from the museum’s address, she offers not to sign the contract, refuses unfounded claims, and only asked for copyright information. She says that the employee made a fatal mistake, that she had no right to allow me to work without drawing up a contract. But I have no complaints. At the bottom of the letter is her first and last name, position. The name of the post contains the name of the museum. But in essence, this is a piece of paper from a legal point of view.

Everything is complicated by the fact that from the moment the work is completed in the archive (there is an entry in the visit log) until the terms of the contract are received by email. mail for signature (3-4 days passed), from my email address. The copies I made were provided to some people. I am confident in their integrity, but one cannot be completely sure of anything. From the moment you receive a copy of the contract by email. I destroyed all copies on electronic media on the Internet and sent them by email. mail notifications to recipients with a request not to publish photocopies and indicate copyright. But I cannot be sure about the use of data by third parties. At the same time, the manager tells me that you can use the data, just put a copyright.

Does it make sense to certify this email? correspondence for the future, as well as messages about copyright to third parties (my addressees), or not? And the second question, if possible -

if the museum warned me about the rules of the archive, its exceptional author. rights to exhibits, and terms of the contract exclusively by email. mail, moreover, very late in the production of photocopies of the exhibits by me, and the head of the archive in electronic correspondence refuses to destroy the photocopies and change the contract, suggests forgetting about it, in the event of theoretical claims against me from the museum for the actions of third parties and the museum proves the fact of transfer copies of images from my email. mail to third parties (in violation of the terms of the contract, which I did not sign) before the day I received the contract for signature, can I refer to the fact that I was not familiarized with the terms of the contract and author. the rights of the museum as a release from liability to the museum? In the sense that, being in the dark, I could believe that the author. the rights belong exclusively to the persons who published the manuscript (exhibit), and the exhibit is in the museum as a copy, and having received the contract, I took all actions in my power to correct the situation within my capabilities.

However, in any case, I did not intend and do not intend to use these photocopies for commercial purposes; they were needed only for historical research with publication in non-comm. electronic media in compliance with copyright.

Or should we contact the director of the museum and formally demand an agreement on mutual destruction of copies? But what then to do with those copies that, under the conditions described above, were sent to third parties, if they suddenly do not delete them, but distribute them? Maybe it’s better to keep all this quiet really... I don’t understand whether the museum in the future, if the fact of non-contractual use of copies by third parties is discovered, can make claims against me because of this (despite the fact that I did not know about the rules and publishing rights of the museum when making fair copying), or only the authors? Of all the documents confirming our relationship - a statement about familiarization with the exhibit, a signature in the visit log and a copy of the unwritten agreement by email from the director. mail, + correspondence with the head of the archive. Of the witnesses - 1-2 people who saw me at work and were present during the telephone conversation with the manager, when at the end of the first day she “remembered” about the contract.

I don’t have any money for lawyers and never will, I’m disabled, seriously ill, etc. I think a little about the future myself.

Good afternoon
Based on your input, I wouldn’t worry, to be honest, since it’s obvious that you didn’t cause any harm to anyone.

Best wishes,
Lawyer Mugin Alexander S.

Good afternoon
Tell me what to do in the following situation: there was a gray salary. Upon dismissal, it was promised that the debt on the envelope portion would be paid.
As a result, the only evidence is email and skype correspondence, in which there are amounts, promises and “come for part of the debt” and so on. On the company side, correspondence from work emails.
Is it possible to achieve anything based on this?
Thank you

Good afternoon Please tell me what to do in this situation: a person I know asked for money to develop a business (we live in different cities, regions of the Russian Federation), I took out a consumer loan from a bank and sent him funds to his card, he verbally agreed with the condition that he will return the funds in accordance with the loan agreement. (i.e. He sent me the amount of the monthly payment on the card), paid for a year and a half (loan term is 5 years), then payments on his part ended, he says that there is no way to pay anymore, and he refused the debt. There is no receipt, there is only the testimony of his wife, a paper confirming the transfer of funds to his card and correspondence on Viber. What do you advise? Is it possible to have any leverage to force a person to continue paying me? There is also another person who took the same demand as I did. a loan to develop his business, and he also stopped paying him, but the only difference between our situations is that he has a receipt, but I don’t.

Best wishes,
Lawyer Mugin Alexander S.

Hello! Please tell me, here’s one person who spread numerous information about me and my company that does not present me and the company in the best light, that I don’t pay people, I didn’t pay him money for the work, in the form of mailings to different people (I went to the client’s website under an admin account and made a mailing). Then, corresponding with this person by e-mail, he admitted that it was him and said that he allegedly conveyed the truth to people. This is a former employee of my company. As a result, I have electronic correspondence with him, all the data on him (passport, contracts), also an agreement on non-disclosure of confidential information.
Can I go to court and jail him?

Good afternoon
I answer: you can go to court, but you can go to jail - only if you don’t go to prison!
Actually, what a question, such is the answer.

Best wishes,
Lawyer Mugin Alexander S.

Hello! My situation is this: I found a new job, had an interview, they promised me that they would hire me to replace an employee who was going on maternity leave, because... There were 4 months left before the maternity leave, and the employee in the office should work only one 5/2, I was told that until the maternity leave we would work 2/2, but we would lose a little in salary. I agreed, worked for 2 weeks at my old job, went to training (2 weeks) and then it turned out that the employee refused to work according to this schedule, said that she would complain to the labor inspectorate that her rights were being violated, etc. I was offered to work as a substitute employee only on weekends with a salary of 0.25% of the tariff rate. There’s nothing to be done, I had to agree with the hope that when she goes on maternity leave, everything will work out. And now, a month and a half before her maternity leave, the following happens: the fact is that my boss and I have a 4-hour time difference, and sometimes they send official messages when we are already at home, that same employee told me to connect email to my mobile phone and always see what the bosses are sending, that is, she didn’t say that I should do it, but said that she did it. I thought that this might also be useful for me and I connected it for myself too. One late evening I saw such messages that the hair on my head began to stand up. Regional Director, Deputy, Security Council i.e. copies were sent to everyone, where the director responded to the report (the content was deleted, it was clear that this was a response

It would seem, why notarize letters? Do we really distrust our loved ones so much that we have to record all their words not only in our own heads, but also with a notary? Unfortunately, the reality is harsh. Business partners, friends and even relatives can sometimes do unpredictable things, including in personal correspondence. If you want to protect your rights and give a simple letter legal force, then contact a notary. He will be able to certify the authenticity of the sender’s signature, so in the future this item can be considered not only as a memorable souvenir, but also as evidence in a trial.

FAQ

Does the notary testify to the authenticity of the facts stated in the text of the letter?

No, the notary only certifies the authenticity of the signature under this letter. He cannot testify to the authenticity of the facts stated in the text, since the law does not give him such a right.

Can email correspondence be notarized?

Yes, you can. Modern technologies today go hand in hand with the law, helping to maintain order. If necessary, information from emails can be used to protect your own interests in court. To certify such a letter, the notary conducts an inspection, during which he fills out a protocol - enters information about the date, place and time of the inspection, the persons participating in it, and the circumstances discovered during the inspection. Then the correspondence is printed out and filed with the protocol, after which it is subject to notarization.

If you want to get an appointment with the notary Yuldasheva T.V., find out the cost of certain notarial actions, or consult on the issue of opening an inheritance, call one of the contact numbers.

Material prepared by:

Email has long been an integral element of business communication. It is not surprising that email correspondence often becomes evidence to confirm one’s position in court.

In what cases can such correspondence be used in the process? What is required for this and what features should be taken into account?

First of all, we note that general rules of evidence apply to electronic correspondence. At the same time, to establish the reliability of electronic correspondence it is necessary:

A) Identify the sender and recipient;
B) Establish the authority of the sender and recipient to make relevant decisions that constitute the subject of correspondence;
IN) Establish the authenticity (authenticity) of a direct electronic message.

A. Identification of sender and recipient

Registration of an electronic mailbox, as a rule, is anonymous in nature (no identification documents of an individual or constituent documents of a legal entity are required), which is also forced to be stated in judicial practice. This greatly complicates the process of identifying the sender and (or) recipient of an electronic message, which means establishing the ownership of an electronic mailbox to a particular person (sender, recipient).

However, in courts it is possible to prove that an electronic mailbox belongs to a specific person. For example, if a party to a dispute claims that the mailbox does not belong to him, but the bills that were sent by the other party to this address were paid, there is a result of work for which payment was made, and there is no evidence confirming the completion of such work by any other person, then such party will be denied a claim for unjust enrichment, since the party’s denial of ownership of the mailbox contradicts other evidence in the case (Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated April 9, 2013 No. 09ap-9501/2013-gk in the case N A40-134500/12).

B. Establishing the authority of the sender and recipient to make relevant decisions that constitute the subject of correspondence.

An analysis of judicial practice indicates that a person who corresponds by e-mail on behalf of another person (or in his interests) must be authorized to do so. If a person denies the fact of sending a message to a certain address, and the letter received at this address is impersonal, then such a letter could be sent by anyone, including without the will of this person.

However, if the electronic correspondence indicates the specific last name, first name and patronymic of the sender of the letter, who directly participated on behalf of the entrepreneur in correspondence with counterparties (sent draft agreements, invoices, expert opinions), and also if this person acts as a representative of the entrepreneur (plaintiff) ) in court in a case of unjust enrichment, then such a representative cannot be recognized as an unauthorized person to make decisions constituting the subject of correspondence (Resolution of the Seventeenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated June 20, 2013 No. 17ap-5881/2013-gk in case no. a60- 50181/2012).

B. Establishing the authenticity (authenticity) of a direct electronic message.

Electronic messages are very vulnerable to falsification, since they are in an intangible form. Accordingly, it is difficult to establish the fact of their falsification without special knowledge and technical means, since an electronic message is presented to the court, as a rule, in the form of a printout of pages on the Internet (the printout itself may not be falsified, whereas the electronic message itself contained in Internet, may be modified).

Proof of the authenticity of the message can be: a notarial protocol of inspection of an electronic mailbox, a conclusion of a computer technical examination, the presence of an electronic signature.

The notarial protocol for examining an electronic mailbox only states the presence of an electronic message with a certain content on a certain date; accordingly, confirmation of the ownership of this message to any person is not made. Therefore, the effectiveness of this method of establishing the reliability of electronic correspondence is limited mainly to cases where the parties to the dispute do not deny the ownership of their email boxes, directly questioning the content of the electronic correspondence or the very fact of sending certain electronic messages.

The reliability of the information constituting electronic correspondence can be established through a computer-technical examination. It will either confirm the fact of falsification of the electronic message, or, on the contrary, the fact of its authenticity (Resolution of the Thirteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated October 27, 2008 in case No. A56-743/2008, Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service dated May 5, 2011 in case No. A68-4041/10). The following questions may be posed to the expert: was written information identical to that presented in the case file sent from a certain address on certain dates and times? If the content of information received from one email address to another differed from the content of the information presented in the case file, then how is this difference expressed? Is it possible to change the content of an email stored in the recipient's mailbox, and if so, is there evidence that the content of written information sent from one email address to another has changed?

Signing such documents with an electronic signature will help to avoid difficulties in proving the admissibility of electronic documents as evidence in the arbitration process. In accordance with the Law of April 6, 2011 N 63-FZ “On Electronic Signatures”, an electronic signature is recognized as legally equivalent to a handwritten signature in a document on paper, subject to certain legal conditions for the use of an electronic signature in the processes of exchanging electronic documents. Today, using an electronic signature is the most reliable way to identify an email.

Form for submitting an electronic message to the court.

It is necessary to distinguish between the admissibility of evidence and the proper form of its presentation (evidence may be admissible in principle, but presented in an inappropriate form). The question arises: what is the proper form for submitting an electronic communication to the court?

In addition to the expert opinion and the notarial protocol for examining the mailbox, the form of submitting a message to the court is also a printout, that is, a copy of the message printed on a printer by the email user himself. Sometimes such printouts are actually accepted by the courts as admissible evidence, despite the fundamental absence of any necessary signs of authenticity (Resolution of the Ninth AAC dated January 17, 2012 N 09AP-34143/2011-GK in case N A40-65915/11-32-525) .

Another option is to invite the court to inspect the electronic mailbox itself and provide it with passwords, as well as the technical device. A protocol is drawn up. If necessary, a specialist can be involved (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District dated October 20, 2010 N KG-A40/12616-10 in case No. A40-17579/10-19-77). The party also has the right to request the examination and inspection of evidence at its location (Article 78 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

In addition, if a party has reason to fear that in the future the submission of an electronic message to the court will for some reason become impossible or difficult, it can submit an application for inspection of the electronic mailbox in order to secure evidence (Article 72 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

In order not to find yourself in a situation where the court does not recognize the electronic correspondence of the parties as evidence, the following rules must be observed: the contract itself must provide

choosing a method of communication between the parties in the form of email;
authorized email addresses from which correspondence will occur, as well as the procedure for changing such addresses;
the obligation of the parties to maintain the confidentiality of email passwords and ensure that messages cannot be sent by third parties;
the obligation to immediately inform about a change of mail address and violation of the confidentiality regime.

It is also recommended that in regular paper letters to the counterparty, reference to electronic messages is made in order to recognize the reliability of the information contained in the electronic correspondence. If the contract did not contain any indications of e-mail, or the contract itself was concluded by sending a draft contract and invoices that were subsequently paid (acceptance of the offer), it is necessary to find other evidence confirming the information in the correspondence or confirming that the electronic correspondence is the established practice of relationship between the parties.