For these reasons, the Applicant is of the opinion that the Enforcement and Collection Authority exceeded its authority in prescribing procedures that do not allow the execution of a deed signed electronically as a promissory note for all intents and purposes. Since Regulation 104(a) of the Execution Regulations determines when a request for execution of a deed for execution will not be accepted, and there is no prohibition on signing a deed electronically, the Execution Bureau was obligated to open a collection proceeding as stated in Regulation 104(a). The Applicant argues that this conduct of the Respondent amounts to an exceedance of authority, and that the provisions of the Law, which permit the electronic signature of a promissory note, cannot be circumvented by the establishment of internal procedures.
- The Applicant argued at length that we are dealing with procedures that are not at all publicized, in a manner that violates legal certainty and the public's right to know. In this context, she complained about the uncertainty in which she finds herself in light of the Respondent's decision in her case, which is of critical significance to her, especially in light of her business model, which is based, as stated, on an electronic signature.
- In the response that the Applicant submitted to the clarifications submitted on behalf of the Respondent, she insisted that the "negotiability" feature does not have to be done physically, but can also be realized in the transfer of the original file, and explained that there is no impediment to identifying with certainty the original file and the digital signature. Therefore, the Applicant argues, there is no basis for the State's insistence on the "object dimension".
The Applicant added that even today, checks are submitted for realization at the Execution Bureaus, i.e., copies of them, and not the original checks, as are copies of promissory notes, when the lawyer declares that the original is in the possession of the winner. This is also true with respect to digital files, and in the words of the Applicant: "An original file, signed with the original digital signature, is one and only, and a printout/output of the file is submitted to the Execution Office."
- The Applicant referred to the Attorney General's Directive No. 1.2500 "Guiding Rules for the Formulation of Digital Arrangements" (hereinafter: the Attorney General's Directive or Directive 1.2500), and emphasized that the State should not speak with two voices. According to her, the instructions of the Enforcement and Collection Authority that is the subject of this proceeding, which do not view the digitally signed deed as a deed, are inconsistent with the Advisor's directive, which states that where there may be different interpretations of the law, and its purposes will also be realized with the digital arrangement, the digital arrangement can be upheld within the framework of the applicable law.
The Applicant further added that even the State admits in its responses that there is no impediment to recognizing the "file" as a deed for all intents and purposes, but that this is conditional on finding a suitable digital arrangement, and therefore, where there is no restriction in law, there is no basis for the position of the Enforcement and Collection Authority as submitted to the Registrar of Execution and in the present proceeding.