You are on page 1of 31

The European directive on electronic signatures

2 years after the directive
Patrick Van Eecke
ICRI, University of Leuven Attorney, Landwell, Brussels

Refresh your memory

Refresh your memory
1. Before the directive
– National initiatives: internal market obstacles

2. Directive 1999/93 on electronic signatures
– Entry into Force: 19 January 2000. – Implementation by Member States: 19 July 2001.

3. Main principles
– – – – Everybody is free to run a CSP (CA) Electronic signatures may not be denied legal effect Technology neutral legislation Rules not meant for closed user groups

What happened this year? • European level – EESSI standards – Report on value of EESSI standards – Commission decision on minimum criteria for SSCD (6-11-2000) – No publication of reference numbers for SSCD & Trustworthy systems – VAT directive referring to E-sign directive .

Germany. Austria.) – Ordinances with details still in drafting phase – Accreditation and supervision procedures not activated yet (exc. Lux.What happened this year? • National level – Most countries implemented (exc. Spain) – QC CSP„s ? – Public sector initiatives . France. Neth.Finland.

Country overview .

Adapt basic legislation (France)  Literal/non-literal transposition –Legal value articles / other articles –Copy of the directive (Austria) –Free interpretation of the directive (UK) .) 2. Specific ES legislation (Belgium. Draft new Electronic Signature legislation 1. Amend existing Electronic Signature legislation (Germany. Incorporated in broader framework (Ireland. etc. Greece. Italy) 2.Three ways of implementation 1. Luxembourg) 3.

Status of implementation .

Country overview • Austria – Act 1999. amended 2000 – Ordinance 2000 – Ordinance on 3(4) bodies 2000 – – – – Literal transposition Annex 4 transposed No public sector rules QC CSP‟s • Belgium – Act 2000 + Act 2001 – Draft ordinance 2002 – Literal transposition – No Annex 4 – Specific public sector rules – QC CSP‟s .

Country overview • Denmark – Act 2000 – Executive Order 2000 – Literal transposition – No Annex 4 – No specific public sector rules – QC CSP‟s? • Finland – Still draft bill (expected 12003) – ± literal transposition – No annex 4 – No specific public sector rules – QC CSP‟s .

Country overview • France – Act 2000 – Decree 2001 – Decree 2002 (on accreditation and SSCD) • Germany – Act & Ordinance 2001 – Acts on „legal form‟ • Civil (2001) • Public (draft) • Court proceedings – Literal transposition – No annex 4 – Specific public sector rules (e.g. taxes) – QC CSP‟s – ± literal transposition – Annex 4 transposed – Specific public sector rules (e.g. invoice) – Accredited QC CSP‟s .

/accred.) – – – – No literal transposition No annex 4 Public sector rules? QC CSP‟s? – Literal transposition – Annex 4 – Public sector rules (Act 1998: only digital signatures for C2G and G2G) – QC CSP‟s? .Country overview • Greece – Decree 2001 – Regulation 2002 • Ireland – Electronic Commerce Act 2000 – Still need for implementing decrees (superv.

10 2002 (implementing directive 99/93) – Regolamento (to be published) – ± literal transposition – Annex 4? (regolamento?) – Public sector rules (digital signature.Country overview • Italy – Testo Unico 2000 (“digital signature”) – Decree nr. etc) – QC CSP‟s (a lot) • Luxembourg – Law of 2000 on Ecommerce – Law of 2000 on accreditation – 3 Regulations of 2001 – – – – Literal transposition Annex 4 ± copied Public sector initiatives QC CSP‟s .

Country Overview • The Netherlands – Electronic Signature draft bill (in Parliament) – – – – Literal transposition No annex 4 Public sector initiatives QC CSP‟s? • Portugal – Law 1999! – No literal transposition – Requirements for CSP‟s similar to directive – Public sector initiatives? – QC CSP‟s? .

Country Overview • Spain – Law 14/99 of 1999 – Orden of 2000 – NEW DRAFT law – No literal transposition (additional requirements!) – Annex 4 – Public initiatives (CERES) – QC CSP‟s (Feste. Camerfirma. electronic signatures of 2001 – Act on technical conformity assessment of 2001 – ± literal transposition (less stringent) – No annex 4 – Public initiatives – One QC CSP (PKI partner) . … • Sweden – Act on Q.

Country overview • United Kingdom – Electronic Communications Act (2000) – E-sign regulations (2002) – ± literal (discussion on 5.1 a) – No annex 4 – Public sector? – QC CSP‟s? .

Legal value of electronic signatures (article 5) .

wills.g. Typical exceptions: transfer or land. etc:  still need for handwritten signature 4. Contracts do not need a signature in order to be valid 2. Need to implement is questioned (e. UK) 6. Literal/non-literal transposition . ‘Super’ signatures (Italy) 5. an electronic (qualified) signature will do 3.Legal value of ES 1. If a signature is needed.

2001) – Germany (BVerfG .2002) – France (2001) – Belgium (2002) • Interesting: no electronic signature necessary at all! .Case law • First cases on electronic signatures – Italy (High Court .

Supervision & Accreditation (article 3) .

Sw) or economic affairs (B. FR) – Spain: All CSP‟s need to register! • Annual report (DK. D. Lux) or special technology/security division (Fr. GR. GR) or basic information (B. DK – Court (B) .Supervision  More or less same procedures in the MS • Notification – to telecom ministry (A. DK. It) or independent telecom authority (NL) – Technical information (A. DK. Sp. Gr) • Continuous control or after complaint (all) • Sanction – Obligation to correct (all) – Fine (Fi. Sw) – Withdrawal of right to issue QC (A.

FR) – Spain: All CSP‟s need to register! • Annual report (DK. GR) or basic information (B. It) or independent telecom authority (NL) – Technical information (A. DK. D. DK – Court (B) . DK. Sp. GR. Lux) or special technology/security division (Fr. Sw) – Withdrawal of right to issue QC (A. Gr) • Continuous control or after complaint (all) What about self-regulation schemes ??? • Sanction – Obligation to correct (all) – Fine (Fi. Sw) or economic affairs (B.Supervision  More or less same procedures in the MS • Notification – to telecom ministry (A.

Ir) No accreditation (Fin) 1. Drafting of accreditation guidelines – Germany – France (drafting phase) – Belgium (drafting phase) 3. Appointing of accreditation bodies . D.Voluntary Accreditation • • • Close to Supervision procedures Same body as Supervision (A. DK. B. Drafting of accreditation body designation 2.

4 & Annex III .Secure Signature Creation Device (SSCD) Article 3.

Decision on minimum criteria used in Austria. or – Use the published EU criteria  nothing published yet ..Secure SCD • Conformity with Annex III • HOW? – Conformity test in one Member State enough for whole of Europe  Comm. .. Greece.

Concerns .

Concerns • Misuse of the directive – Example: E-invoicing directive – See next slide • Directive technology neutral? – Obstacle for new technologies not making use of certificates. not making use of decentralised key storage  directive not that technology neutral at all .

) but a technical requirement (i. – Problem: in some MS a handwritten signature is not required for a paper invoice – Reaction Commission: the requirement of the AES is not a legal requirement (alternative for h-wr sign.Example of problematic use The E-invoicing directive (december 2001) • E-invoicing is allowed under the condition that an Advanced Electronic Signature is used or EDI.e. enhancing the security of electronic invoice) – Member States are allowed to require a qualified electronic signature (See Germany) .

Future • Review of the directive: 2 years after implementation. july 2003. • Prepare your comments! . i.e.

U.be or www.Leuven • Visit www.landwell.icri.be . K.Further reading • Report “The implementation of the European directive on electronic signatures” • Status report: September 2002 • Prepared by Landwell law firms and ICRI.

eecke@landwell.69 patrick.710.be .vaneecke@law.van.78.ac.kuleuven.54.32.Questions If you would have further questions.be Patrick Van Eecke Landwell law firms +32-2. please do not hesitate to contact: Patrick Van Eecke ICRI.University of Leuven +32-16.11 patrick.