Courts made mistakes with two-factor authentication of verdicts

Judges and clerks have not signed some digital judgments according to the law, the Council of State says. This had to be done with two-factor authentication, but sometimes the same authentication method was used twice. The judiciary will adjust the working method.

Judges and clerks have been digitally signing judgments in asylum and detention cases since March 29, the Council of State writes. According to the law, two-factor authentication must be used to ensure the reliability of the link between the identity of the signatories and the decision. In some cases, however, according to the Council of State, this has not been met. The problems would arise if the judges or clerks use fixed or mobile workstations of the Judiciary, or autonomous units involved in the justice system.

For example, when judges and court clerks use a mobile workplace to digitally sign a ruling, the same authentication method is used twice, the Council of State writes. The Council does not say which methods these are, but this could mean, for example, that users have to log in twice with a login name and password.

If judges and clerks want to use a fixed workplace of the Judiciary, they must log in with a Rijkspas, a smart card for civil servants. According to the Council of State, this is not an authentication method, although no reason is given why this is not seen as an authentication method. According to the Council of State, if judges and clerks use their ‘own’, mobile workplace, the legal requirements are met.

According to the Council of State, it is not possible to tell from a judgment from which workplace the judge and the registrar signed it. It is therefore not possible to see whether the statement is authorized with two-factor authentication. That is why judgments in asylum and detention cases are now again signed with a written signature. The judiciary says it will also adjust the method for the digital signature in order to comply with the law. The new method will also be used for digital civil cases. According to the judiciary, a ‘different digital signature’ is used within criminal law. This ruling of the Council of State therefore has no consequences for criminal law.

Although certain judgments have not been signed correctly, this does not affect previous judgments, the Council of State writes. Only if an appeal is lodged and there is a complaint about the signature, will the Administrative Jurisdiction Division make a decision.