Electronic Signatures Regulation in the European Union Jos Dumortier K.U.Leuven University Belgium Roundtable on Electronic Documents and Electronic Signatures Sophia – 7 April 2004

Overview 1.Electronic signatures law : what happened in Europe? National signature laws (Germany, Italy, …) 1997 European Commission's reaction: Directive Situation in Europe in Conclusions and forecast

PART I Electronic Signatures: What happened in Europe ?

➢ First “digital signature laws” in the US ➢ Utah ➢ California ➢ … ➢ Europe: ➢ Germany: “Signaturgesetz” 1997 ➢ Italy: “Legge Bassannini” 1997

First European Signature Laws ➢ Not yet “technology-neutral” ➢ Terminology used: “digital signatures” ➢ Based on licensing schemes

Terminology digital signatures electronic signatures

Reaction of the EU ➔ National licensing schemes conflict with the European internal market ➔ What we need is: ONE open European market for e-signature products and services

The Directive No licensing schemes, please ! One European market for “certification services” (all kinds) Open European market for electronic signature products

The Directive ➢ Legal recognition of electronic signatures All kinds of electronic signatures recognized Qualified e-signatures: equivalent of hand- written signatures in all Member States But: NO DISCRIMINATION PLEASE!!

Qualified signatures: attention! ➢ This is only meant as a (temporary) means to get more legal security ➢ Therefore “qualified e-signatures” refer to the paper-based environment ➢ As soon as the reference to the “paper world” is no longer necessary, the concept will disappear

Supervision / Accreditation ➢ Supervision should never result in prior authorization ➢ Service providers should be left free to adhere to accreditation schemes ➢ It has to be ensured that accreditation schemes do not reduce competition

Public Sector Exception ➢ For electronic signatures in the context of e- government: possibility of extra-requirements ➢ Examples: public procurement, e-justice, social security, e-identity cards, etc. ➢ Governments can impose specific tools and work with designated providers ➢ But it has to be justified, objective and non- discriminatory!

PART II Electronic Signatures: Situation in Europe 2004

Transposition of the Directive  ± 30 countries adopted the Directive or used it as a blueprint! All Candidate countries Bulgaria, Romania All Accession countries  except Cyprus All EEA countries Iceland (2001), Norway (2001), Liechtenstein (2003) All EU member states  2003: Finland, Portugal, Netherlands, Spain

Promotion of interoperability Results of EC-funded projects have not been visible or used E-signature interoperability only promoted in a few countries: Germany, Italy, Estonia, Sweden, Denmark, Finland Algorithms and parameters only specified in some countries: Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Switzerland

Market for Qualified Signatures Only Germany and Italy have many certification authorities (>6) Most countries have 0 or 1 certification authorities No large issuing of qualified certificates - except Italy (InfoCamera) and Estonia (EID card) No real market demand for qualified certificates Currently mostly driven by e-government - e-tax and EID cards

Summary of Market Aspects E-Banking is the dominating e-signature application in the EU Member States Slow market uptake of digital signature-based signatures complexity of digital signature technology lack of common technical solutions The situation may change: Deployment of Electronic ID cards New technological developments

PART III Conclusions

Please do not misunderstand! ➢ Security for network services in VERY important ➢ State has certainly its role to play! ➢ Preferably no state-imposed security framework that refers to “the paper world” ➢ Security requirements should be based on a functional perspective

Forecast ➢ “Business model” underlying many national laws in Europe, will be less successful than expected ➢ Large variety of electronic signatures will be used with different security levels ➢ Commercial strategy of the global players dominating the Internet will be crucial ➢ It is extremely important to keep the market (and the law) open for new developments

Questions? Jos Dumortier K.U.Leuven University Faculty of Law – ICRI