To be precise, the fact that the Ordinance includes physical terms such as "holding", "holding", "in writing" does not negate the recognition of an electronic signature, since the Electronic Signature Law sought to deal precisely with such terms in existing legislation. A clear example of this is signatures under the Inheritance Law, which includes the terms "hand-signature" and "hand-signature", which the Electronic Signature Law explicitly clarifies that an electronic signature can be considered a signature under this law (except, as stated, in the case of a handwritten will).
Advisor Directive 1.2500 also relates to the existence of explicit physical terms in the provisions of the law, and explains how these laws can be adapted to the digital world: "In cases where there may be different interpretations of the law, one of which allows for the existence of the required digital arrangement, the question of whether it is possible to choose this interpretation will be derived from the purposes of the law. If its purposes are consistent with the digital arrangement, then the digital arrangement can be upheld within the framework of applicable law. Thus, for example, the phrase "hand signature" may indicate that the signature must be made with the "hand" of the signer physically, but if the purposes of the law allow it, this phrase may also be interpreted as a signature by the signatory's hand digitally. Similarly, the phrase "handwriting" will be interpreted. (ibid., chapter 3, paragraph 1).
Since an electronic signature can be seen as a distinctly personal act, and the fact that the Banknotes Ordinance includes physical and object terminology does not negate the interpretation of the sale with an electronic signature, it is possible to recognize an electronic signature on a note, and there is no impediment to allowing it to be executed in the track designated for notes in the Execution Office.
The problem is that the Respondent's objection does not revolve mainly around the argument that an electronic signature does not constitute a distinctly personal act, nor does it revolve around the physical terms that appear in the Ordinance. Its objection is based, as will be recalled, on the unique characteristics of the note, first and foremost the merchandising feature (which consists of the element of transgressions and the element of purity), and on an institution that holds it properly.