Signed Abroad, Stuck at Border, or the Legal Status of Foreign E-Signatures in Moldova

As is often the case in legal matters, the answer is: it depends. The mere presence of an e-signature doesn’t guarantee that Moldovan authorities or courts will accept it without objections. Recognition and enforceability depend on several factors: the nature of the legal act (private vs. official document), and the form required for the act (written vs. authentic).

To be clear: Moldovan law is not allergic to foreign e-signatures. In fact, it has a fairly modern digital legal framework that recognizes both the electronic signature and the electronic document (i.e. any content stored in electronic form, in particular text or sound, visual or audiovisual recording, to which an electronic signature or electronic seal has been applied). The relevant legal framework is primarily established in 2 instruments: the Civil Code and Law No.124/2022 on Electronic Identification and Trust Services (“Law 124/2022”), which partially transposes the EU’s eIDAS Regulation (Regulation (EU) No.910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC).

Pursuant to Article 316 para.(1)-(2) of the Civil Code,

(1) A legal act may be concluded verbally, in writing or in authentic form.

(2) Form is a condition for the validity of a legal act only in cases expressly provided for by law.

Further, Article 318 para.(1) of the Civil Code clarifies that [a] written or authentic legal act is deemed to be in electronic form if it is contained in an electronic document that complies with legal requirements.

Documents requiring authentication - the legal door is open and the path is (almost) paved

• Can such documents be e-signed?

Under Article 323 of the Civil Code, [t]he authentic form of a legal act is mandatory:

1. a) when the act concerns the alienation of immovable property or the encumbrance of such property with limited real rights, unless expressly exempted by law;
2. b) when the parties have contractually agreed to use the authentic form, even if not required by law;
3. c) in other cases, expressly established by law.

In practice, documents requiring authentication are relatively common. And while Article 318(1) of the Civil Code does, in principle, allow such acts to be executed electronically, the absence of a functional implementation framework renders this possibility practically inoperative.

Why? Because in Moldova, authentication is the (almost) exclusive area of notaries. Even if both parties, the Moldovan entrepreneur and the foreign investor, digitally sign a contract, it’s not enough. A valid authentic act still needs the notary’s signature and stamp. And that’s where things get tricky.

Pursuant to Article 5(6) of Law No. 246/2018 on the Notarial Procedure, [n]otarial deeds and endorsements can be drawn up either on paper or in electronic form, both enjoying equal legal force. However, as of today, the electronic option remains largely unimplemented, in part due to the absence of specific procedures for remote identification and participation of parties.

That said, the expression "as of today" used earlier is not accidental. Starting from June 2026, major amendments to the Law No.246/2018 on the Notarial Procedure will come into effect, aimed at introducing a regulatory framework for electronic and remotely concluded notarial acts.

One of the key innovations will be the introduction of Article 5¹, which will establish the legal basis for electronic notarial deeds and remote authentication procedures. Once in force, if all parties, including the notary, agree to use real-time visual and audio communication, and provided that qualified electronic signatures (QES) are used, the document may be authenticated remotely. Only a narrow category of notarial acts, such as wills, will remain excluded from this possibility.

We can therefore now answer the first core question: starting from June 2026, documents requiring authentic form will, in principle, be capable of being electronically signed by the parties.

• Can such documents be signed using QES issued by foreign TSPs?

Assuming no further changes are made to the legal framework before June 2026, the answer lies in the provisions of Law 124/2022.

According to Article 2 of the law, ‘qualified electronic signature’ is defined as an advanced electronic signature that is created through a qualified electronic signature creation device, and which is based on a qualified certificate for electronic signatures.

Without delving into the full structure behind the above definition, which is based on related concepts such as ‘advanced electronic signature’, ‘qualified electronic signature creation device’, and ‘qualified certificate for electronic signatures’, one condition remains essential: to be deemed as a QES under Moldovan law, the signature shall be based on a qualified certificate for electronic signatures issued by a qualified trust service provider (QTSP).

Under Article 8 of Law 124/2022, foreign or local non-qualified TSPs intending to provide qualified trust services in Moldova shall first obtain official recognition as a ‘qualified’ TSP. Here’s how this works in practice:

• the TSP shall submit to the Security and Intelligence Service of the Republic of Moldova (SIS) a notification of intent, together with a conformity assessment report issued by a conformity assessment body;
• if, following verification, SIS confirms compliance with the applicable legal and technical criteria, it shall grant the TSP a qualified status and shall add it in the official trusted list, published on SIS’s website;
• EU-based TSPs get a shortcut: they are not required to obtain a Moldovan license, nor are they subject to a full conformity audit by SIS. Instead, SIS will verify the provider’s status in the EU’s trusted list and, if confirmed, include it in the Moldovan trusted list.

So, a QES issued by a foreign TSP will be accepted for authentic acts in Moldova only if that TSP is included in Moldova’s trusted list.

If a foreign QES provider isn’t on it, notaries are legally barred from authenticating any document signed with that provider’s signature. No recognition means no authentication, and that, in turn, means the act simply can’t be concluded in authentic form.

Bottom line? Without a recognized QES, it’s not just a dead end – it’s a no-entry zone.

Documents requiring written form – flexibility, with boundaries

• Can such documents be e-signed?

Yes. Moldovan law embraces electronic signatures for most documents that require written form.

Pursuant to Article 321 para.(1) of the Civil Code, Legal acts between legal entities, between legal entities and individuals, and between individuals shall be concluded in writing if the value of the object of the legal act exceeds MDL 1,000 [ca. EUR 50], and in the cases provided for by law, regardless of the value of the object.

Further, Article 318 para.(3) of the Civil Code provides that A written legal act is concluded in electronic form if it is signed with the advanced qualified electronic signature of the person concluding the act, unless the parties’ agreement or the law requires the use of another type of electronic signature.

So, a QES remains the “golden standard.” But the law is not rigid. Parties are free to use other types of electronic signatures, provided they agree in advance and the legal context allows it. The underlying principle? Party autonomy, within the limits of the law.

• Can such documents be signed using QES issued by foreign TSPs?

Yes, they can, but the legal effects, probative value, and in some cases even the validity of such documents will depend on the foreign TSP’s status in Moldova.

Two scenarios shall be considered:

1. Scenario 1 – the foreign TSP is included in Moldova’s trusted list

Here, things are straightforward. If the foreign TSP is officially listed as a QTSP in Moldova, its QES enjoys full legal recognition. In such a case, the signed document shall qualify as an ‘electronic document’ within the meaning of the Law 124/2022, and shall enjoy the same legal effects as a traditional paper-based document, namely:

• the written form requirement is deemed fulfilled;
• public authorities in Moldova shall accept the document in administrative proceedings; and
• in court, the document shall benefit from the same probative value as a hard-copy original bearing a handwritten signature.

In other words, no risks, no questions asked.

2. Scenario 2 – the foreign TSP is not included in Moldova’s trusted list

In this case, the QES does not enjoy full legal recognition under Moldovan law. The following legal consequences apply:

• the written form requirement is not deemed fulfilled, except where the special laws or a prior agreement between private parties (executed via handwritten signature or QES) expressly allow non-qualified electronic signatures to be treated as equivalent to handwritten ones. Such law or agreement shall also include signature verification methods and define each party’s obligations regarding confidentiality and liability (Article 40 para.(2) and (3) of the Law 124/2022);
• public authorities in Moldova are unlikely to accept such documents in administrative proceedings. Although the Administrative Code refers generally to ‘electronic signature’ without specifying that a QES is mandatory, the lack of implementing rules for accepting non-qualified e-signatures leaves the default rule under Article 40 para.(1) of the Law 124/2022 as operative, i.e. only electronic documents signed with a QES are legally equivalent to paper-based originals, and such documents cannot be rejected; and
• in court, the document may be submitted as evidence, but if the signatories’ identity consent, or the document’s content is challenged, additional proof, excluding witness testimony, may be required.

Bottom line? For documents that require written form, Moldovan law offers more flexibility. But stray too far from the qualified signature path, and you risk losing legal certainty, especially when dealing with state authorities or courtrooms.

By Irina Cernei, Senior Associate, and Tatiana Mocanu, Associate, Gladei & Partners