Reader question: Does the received electronic termination meet the statutory formal requirements?
You receive a PDF file by e‑mail with the heading Kündigung. A signature can be seen at the bottom. From that alone the validity of the form cannot be determined with certainty. Distinguish the content of the declaration, its actual form and the receipt. All three points can be important for further examination.
Which form the law requires
For the termination of a residential tenancy relationship § 568 paragraph 1 BGB requires written form. § 126 describes the statutory written form with a handwritten signature or the alternatives stated there. The written form can in principle be replaced by the electronic form, unless the law provides otherwise. [BGB568] [BGB126]
§ 126a requires for this electronic form the added name and a qualified electronic signature. [BGB126a] A normal message with a typed name and a mere image of a signature are therefore not automatically to be equated with the electronic form regulated by law. The article does not assess any specific file as valid or invalid.
Secure the received file unchanged
Our editorial recommendation: Keep the original message including the attachment. A printout or a screenshot can show the content, but does not necessarily contain everything that is required to check an electronic signature. For a professional examination therefore work with the original received file.
Do not upload private contractual documents indiscriminately to unknown verification sites. Clarify a suitable verification method with your advisor or the secure technology intended for that purpose. A graphical seal in the document is not the signature quality you have established yourself.
Keep covering letter and later post separate
Note whether only a single file arrived or whether a signed paper subsequently arrived by post. Record the actual receipt data separately. A message can be preliminary information, while the later declaration may be made by another means. Do not subsequently change both dates in your chronology to an allegedly single date.
Whether and when legal receipt exists you have examined according to the actual means of transmission. This article neither derives a blanket deadline from the sent date nor claims that opening the file cures every formal issue.
A hypothetical case with two different documents
Yasin first receives a scanned termination by e‑mail and a few days later a letter. He preserves both versions and compares content, signatories and the purported end date. He does not only ask whether the PDF is readable, but which declaration in which form actually exists and which receipt is decisive for the examination.
If instead an originally qualified signed file were present, this would have to be examined accordingly. The example shows different paths of examination and does not automatically declare every e‑mail effective or meaningless.
Substantive objections remain additionally important
Even a formally correct termination can raise further questions: contractual parties, entitlement, reason, date and possible objections. Conversely, a suspected formal defect does not make it sensible to leave the entire letter unconsidered. Bring urgent data and all versions to the housing law advice in good time.
Your result is an unaltered collection of documents with a clear timeline and a stated formal question. This allows the specific declaration to be assessed without confusing a visible signature image with a technically and legally verified signature.