Can a Lawsuit Be Served Electronically?

Recently, Chamber I of the Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals of Moron affirmed the constitutionality of the electronic domicile regime established by Agreements 3989/2020 and 4113/2021 of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires. It also affirmed  the validity of serving the complaint at the electronic domicile constituted during mandatory pre-trial mediation.
 

1. Background of the case

On August 5, 2024, Carlos Alberto La Torre filed an action for conveyance of title against Madox Investment SA and German Issel, initiating the case “La Torre Carlos Alberto c/ Issel German y otro/a s/Escrituración” (Nro. MO - 20638 – 2024), pending before Civil and Commercial Court 1 of the City of Moron.

On August 13, 2024, the Plaintiff requested—based on article 7, paragraph 6 of Agreement 3989 and article 3 of Agreement 4113—that the complaint be served to the defendants at the electronic domicile declared during the mandatory pre-trial mediation. The Court authorized the request on August 15, 2024, and the complaint was served electronically on August 16, 2024.

After the statutory deadline elapsed without any response from the defendants, the plaintiff sought to have them declared in default. However, on September 18, 2024, the defendants appeared, challenged the validity of service of the complaint, raised the unconstitutionality of Agreement 3989 and Agreement 4113 alleging violations of due process and the right to defense, and filed their answer to the complaint.

During the nullity proceedings, the Undersecretariat of Information Technology of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires (SCBA) confirmed that the electronic notice had been properly deposited and that the holder of the electronic domicile had accessed it multiple times.
 

2. Decision of the first instance court

On April 23, 2025, the first instance court rejected the defendants’ constitutional challenge and their motion to nullify the serving. Among the most relevant grounds, the Court:

1. Noted that Agreement 3989 created the Registry of Electronic Addresses of the Judiciary of the Province of Buenos Aires to foster technological advancement of judicial proceedings and to allow serving the complaint (and similar procedural acts) at registered electronic domiciles.
2. Clarified the scope of the obligation to register electronic domiciles at the pre-trial mediation stage, pursuant to articles 6 and 18 to 23 of Provincial Law 13951, and articles 6, 13, and related provisions of Decree 43/2019. Along the same lines, article 7 of Agreement 3989—amended by article 3 of Agreement 4113—provides that, in pre-trial mediations, the parties must declare and register an electronic domicile in the Registry.
3. Stated that the mediation record showed that the mediator informed the parties of their obligation to register an electronic domicile in the Registry.
4. Added that information provided by the SCBA’s Undersecretariat of Information Technology confirmed that the defendants’ right to due process had not been violated.

 

3. Decision of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals affirmed the first instance court’s decision in full. Its main findings were:

1. Article 12 of Law 15230 expressly provides that the electronic domicile regime applicable to proceedings before the Judiciary of the Province of Buenos Aires is governed by Agreement 3989 and its amendments, and that these domiciles will be used for all types of servings, even those that under current legislation must be carried out at the defendant’s real domicile.
2. The existence of a statutory rule supporting the electronic notification system defeated the defendants’ objections to the validity of the regulatory framework established by Agreements 3989 and 4113.
3. Law 15230 prevails over the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code of the Province of Buenos Aires (CPCC) because it was passed later in time.
4. Agreements 3989 and 4113 are neither unreasonable nor arbitrary, as replacing physical service with electronic service is consistent with the framework established by the Legislature and regulated by the SCBA. It also aligns with principles of reasonability, efficiency, and modernization of judicial services.
5. Agreements 3989 and 4113 do not violate the right to defense since, at the mediation stage, parties are represented by attorneys who ensure compliance with the procedural obligations imposed.
6. Agreements 3989 and 4113 merely anticipate—in an earlier procedural stage—the obligation to declare an electronic domicile already provided in articles 40 and 41 of the CPCC. Thus, if a party wished to use an electronic domicile other than that of its attorney, it could have registered a different one before the Registry.
7. Finally, if the party or its attorney failed to comply with the obligation imposed by the applicable regulations at the mediation stage, any adverse consequences come as a result from their own omission and do not give rise to constitutional grievances.
    

4. Conclusion

This ruling reaffirms that complaints and other similar procedural acts may validly be served at the electronic domicile declared during the mandatory pre-trial mediation stage in the Province of Buenos Aires.

In this context, maintaining an updated electronic domicile in the Registry and complying with the procedural obligations associated with its use are essential responsibilities for parties and their attorneys, in line with the principles of efficiency, access to justice, and modernization, which underly the current regulatory framework.