Archivo de la categoría: Firma digital

Regulation on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market


Hace unos dias se ha publicado el Reglamento de Identificación Electrónica y Servicios de Confianza en el Mercado Interior, de lo que di cuenta en un post anterior.

Lo transcribo como recordatorio futuro, porque frecuenteemente, una vez pulicada una norma dejan de estar accesibles los borradores.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, XXX
COM(2012) 238/2

Proposal for a  REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal  market

(Text with EEA relevance)

{SWD(2012) 135}
{SWD(2012) 136}

 EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

This memorandum explains a proposed legal framework designed to enhance trust in electronic transactions in the internal market.

Building trust in the online environment is key to economic development. Lack of trust makes  consumers, businesses and administrations hesitate to carry out transactions electronically and to adopt new services.

The Digital Agenda for Europe identifies existing barriers to Europe’s digital development  and proposes legislation on e-signatures (Key Action 3) and the mutual recognition of e- identification and authentication (Key Action 16), establishing a clear legal framework so as  to eliminate fragmentation and the lack of interoperability, enhance digital citizenship and  prevent cybercrime. Legislation ensuring the mutual recognition of electronic identification  and authentication across the EU and review the Directive on Electronic Signatures is also a  key action in the Single Market Act2, for the realisation of the digital single market. The  Roadmap for Stability and Growth3 underlines the key role for the development of the digital  economy of the future common legal framework for the mutual recognition and acceptance of  electronic identification and authentication across borders.

The proposed legal framework, consisting of a ‘Regulation of the European Parliament and  of the Council on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the  internal market’, seeks to enable secure and seamless electronic interactions between  businesses, citizens and public authorities, thereby increasing the effectiveness of public and  private online services, e-business and electronic commerce in the EU.

The existing EU legislation, namely Directive 1999/93/EC on a ‘Community framework for  electronic signatures’ , essentially covers electronic signatures only. There is no  comprehensive EU cross-border and cross-sector framework for secure, trustworthy and easy- to-use electronic transactions that encompasses electronic identification, authentication and  signatures.

The aim is to enhance existing legislation and to expand it to cover the mutual recognition and  acceptance at EU level of notified electronic identification schemes and other essential related  electronic trust services.

2. RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH INTERESTED PARTIES AND  IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

This initiative is the result of extensive consultations on a review of the current legal  framework on electronic signatures in the course of which the Commission gathered feedback   from Member States, the European Parliament and other stakeholders . An online public  consultation was complemented by an ‘SME Test Panel’ to identify the specific views and  needs of SMEs; and other targeted consultations with stakeholders6,7. The Commission also  launched a number of studies in relation to electronic identification, authentication, signature  and related trust services (eIAS).

The consultations made clear that a large majority of stakeholders agreed on the need to  review the current framework to fill the gaps left by the electronic signature Directive. It was  felt that this would better respond to challenges posed by the rapid development of new  technologies (particularly online and mobile access) and by increased globalisation, while
maintaining the technological neutrality of the legal framework.

In line with its ‘Better Regulation’ policy, the Commission conducted an impact assessment  of policy alternatives. Three sets of policy options were assessed, dealing respectively with  (1) the scope of the new framework, (2) the legal instrument and (3) the level of supervision   required . The preferred policy option proved to be enhancing legal certainty, boosting  coordination of national supervision, ensuring mutual recognition and acceptance of electronic identification schemes and incorporating essential related trust services. The impact  assessment concluded that doing this would lead to considerable improvements to legal  certainty, security and trust in terms of cross-border electronic transactions, resulting in less  fragmentation of the market.

 3. LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1 Legal Basis

This proposal is based on Article 114 TFEU, which concerns the adoption of rules to remove  existing barriers to the functioning of the internal market. Citizens, businesses and  administrations will be able to benefit from the mutual recognition and acceptance of  electronic identification, authentication, signatures and other trust services across borders  when needed for the access and completion of electronic procedures or transactions.

A Regulation is considered to be the most appropriate legal instrument. The direct  applicability of a Regulation pursuant to Article 288 TFEU will reduce legal fragmentation  and provide greater legal certainty by introducing a harmonised set of core rules contributing  to the functioning of the internal market.

3.2 Subsidiarity and proportionality

In order for EU action to be justified, the subsidiarity principle must be respected:

a) Transnational nature of the problem (necessity test)

The transnational nature of eIAS requires EU action. Domestic (i.e. national) action alone  would not suffice to meet the objectives, nor achieve the targets set out in the Europe 2020   Strategy . Conversely, experience has shown that national measures have de facto created  barriers to the EU-wide interoperability of electronic signatures, and that they are currently  having the same effect on electronic identification, electronic authentication and related trust  services. It is therefore necessary for the EU to create an enabling framework to address  cross-border interoperability and to improve the coordination of national supervision schemes.

 However, electronic identification cannot be addressed in the proposed Regulation in the  same generic manner as the other trust electronic services because issuing means of  identification is a national prerogative. The proposal therefore focuses strictly on cross-border  aspects of electronic identification.

The proposed Regulation creates a level playing field for businesses providing trust services  where the currently existing differences in national legislation often lead to legal uncertainty  and additional burden. Legal certainty is significantly increased through clear acceptance  obligations by Member States of qualified trust services which will create additional incentive  for businesses to go abroad. For example a company will be able to participate electronically to a public call for tenders launched by the administration of a different Member State without  its electronic signature being blocked due to specific national requirements and  interoperability problems. Similarly, a company will have the opportunity to sign contracts  electronically with a counterpart based in a different Member State without fearing different  legal requirements for trust services such as electronic seals, electronic documents or time  stamping. Finally, a notice of default will be delivered from one Member State to another with  the certainty of its legal validity in both Member States. Finally, online commerce will be  more trustworthy when shoppers will have the means to verify that they indeed access the  website of the merchant of their choice instead of a possibly fake website.

Mutually recognised electronic identification means and widely accepted electronic signatures  will facilitate cross-border provision of numerous services in the internal market and enable  businesses to go cross-border without facing obstacles in interactions with public authorities.

 In practice this will mean significant efficiency improvements both for businesses and citizens  when complying with the administrative formalities. For example, giving the opportunity to a  student to enrol electronically in a university abroad, to a citizen to submit tax declaration  online to another Member State or to a patient to access his or her health data online. If there  is no such mutually recognised electronic identification means, a doctor will not be able to  access the patient medical data needed to treat him or her and the medical and laboratory tests  that the patient has already undertaken will have to be repeated.

b) Added value (effectiveness test)

The objectives outlined above are currently not being achieved by voluntary coordination  among Member States, nor is this reasonably likely to happen in the future. This leads to  duplication of efforts, setting different standards, transnational characteristics of the spill- overs generated by ICT, and administrative complexity of establishing such coordination by  way of bilateral and multilateral agreements.

In addition, the need to overcome such problems, as (a) an absence of legal certainty due to  heterogeneous national provisions stemming from divergent interpretations of the electronic  signature Directive and (b) a lack of interoperability of the electronic signature systems set up  at national level due to the non-uniformly application of technical standards, requires the kind  of coordination across EU Member States which can be done more effectively at the EU level.

3.3 Detailed explanation of the proposal

 3.3.1 CHAPTER I – GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1 defines the subject matter of the Regulation.

Article 2 defines the material scope of the Regulation.

Article 3 contains definitions of the terms used in the Regulation. While some definitions are  taken over from Directive 1999/93/EC, others are clarified, complemented with additional  elements, or newly introduced.

Article 4 determines the internal market principles with regard to the territorial application of  the Regulation. Explicit mention is made of the imposition of no restrictions on the freedom  to provide services and the free circulation of products.

3.3.2 CHAPTER II – ELECTRONIC IDENTIFICATION

Article 5 provides for the mutual recognition and acceptance of electronic identification  means falling under a scheme which will be notified to the Commission on the conditions laid  down in the Regulation. Most EU Member States have introduced some form of electronic  identification system. However, they differ in many aspects. The lack of a common legal basis  requiring each Member State to recognise and accept electronic identification means issued in  other Member States to access online services, along with the inadequate cross-border  interoperability of national electronic identifications, creates barriers which prevent citizens  and businesses from benefiting fully from the digital single market. The mutual recognition  and acceptance of any electronic identification means falling under a notified scheme under  this Regulation removes these legal barriers.

The Regulation does not oblige Member States to introduce or notify electronic identification  schemes, but to recognise and accept notified electronic identifications for those online  services where electronic identification is required to get access at national level. The  potential increase of economies of scale created through the cross-border use of notified electronic identification means and authentication systems may stimulate Member States to  notify to their electronic identification schemes.Article 6 sets out the five conditions for the  notification of electronic identification schemes:

Member States can notify the electronic identification schemes that they accept under their  jurisdiction where electronic identification is required for public services. A further  requirement is that the respective electronic identification means must be issued by, on behalf  of or at least under the responsibility of the Member State notifying a scheme.

Member States must ensure an unambiguous link between the electronic identification data  and the person concerned. This obligation does not mean that a person cannot have multiple  electronic identification means, but they must all link to the same person.

The reliability of an electronic identification depends on the availability of means of  authentication (i.e. the possibility to check the validity of the electronic identification data).  The Regulation obliges the notifying Member States to provide online authentication free of charge vis-à-vis third parties. The authentication possibility must be available without  interruption. No specific technical requirements, such as hardware or software can be imposed  on the parties relying on such authentication. This provision does not apply to any  requirements vis-à-vis the users (holders) of the electronic identification means that are  technically necessary for the use of the electronic identification means, such as card readers.

Member States must accept liability for the unambiguity of the link (i.e. that the identification  data attributed to the person are not linked to any other person) and the authentication  possibility (i.e. the possibility to check the validity of the electronic identification data). The  liability of Member States does not cover other aspects of the identification process or any  transaction that requires identification.

Article 7 contains rules on notifying the Commission of electronic identification schemes.

Article 8 aims to ensure the technical interoperability of the notified identification schemes  through a coordination approach, including delegated acts.

 3.3.3 CHAPTER III – TRUST SERVICES

3.3.3.1 Section 1 – General provisions

Article 9 sets out the principles relating to the liability of both non-qualified and qualified  trust service providers. It builds on Article 6 of Directive 1999/93/EC and extends entitlement  to compensation of damage caused by any negligent trust service provider for failure to  comply with security good practices which result in a security breach which has a significant  impact on the service.

Article 10 describes the mechanism for the recognition and acceptance of qualified trust  services provided by a provider established in a third country. It builds on Article 7 of  Directive 1999/93/EC but retains only the sole practically feasible option which is to allow  such recognition under an international agreement between the European Union and third  countries or international organisations.

Article 11 sets out the principles of data protection and minimisation. It builds on Article 8 of  Directive 1999/93/EC.

Article 12 makes trust services accessible to disabled people.

3.3.3.2 Section 2 – Supervision

Article 13 obliges Member States to establish supervisory bodies, based on Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/93/EC, clarifying and enlarging their remit with regard to both trust service providers and qualified trust service providers.

Article 14 introduces an explicit mechanism of mutual assistance between supervisory bodies in Member States to facilitate the cross-border supervision of trust service providers. It introduces rules on joint operations and supervisory authorities’ right to participate in such operations.

Article 15 introduces an obligation for both qualified and non-qualified trust service providers to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures for the security of their activities. Furthermore, the competent supervisory bodies and other relevant authorities must be informed of any security breaches. If appropriate, they will in turn inform other Member States’ supervisory bodies and will, directly or via the trust service provider concerned, inform the public.

Article 16 sets out the conditions for the supervision of qualified trust service providers and qualified trust services provided by them. It obliges qualified trust service providers to be audited on a yearly basis by a recognised independent body to confirm to the supervisory body that they fulfil the obligations laid down in the Regulation. Moreover, Article 16(2) gives the supervisory body the right to carry out on-the-spot audits of the qualified trust service providers at any time. The supervisory body is also empowered to issue binding instructions to qualified trust service providers to remedy, in a proportionate manner, any failure to meet an obligation revealed by a security audit.

Article 17 concerns the activity carried out by the supervisory body at the request of a trust service provider wishing to initiate a qualified trust service.

Article 18 provides for the establishment of trusted lists10 containing information on qualified trust service providers who are subject to supervision and to the qualified services they offer.

This information must be made publicly available through a common template in order to facilitate its automated use and ensure an appropriate level of detail.

Article 19 sets out the requirements the qualified trust service providers must meet in order to be recognised as such. It draws on Annex II of Directive 1999/93/EC.

3.3.3.3 Section 3 – Electronic signature

Article 20 enshrines the rules related to the legal effect of natural persons’ electronic signatures. It clarifies and expands Article 5 of Directive 1999/93/EC introducing an explicit obligation to give to qualified electronic signatures the same legal effect as handwritten signatures. Moreover, Member States must ensure the cross-border acceptance of qualified electronic signatures, in the context of the provision of public services, and they must not introduce any additional requirements which might result in barriers to the use of such signatures.

Article 21 sets out the requirements for qualified signature certificates. It clarifies Annex I of Directive 1999/93/EC and removes provisions which did not work in practice (e.g. limitations on transactions value).

Article 22 sets out the requirements for qualified electronic signature creation devices. It clarifies the requirements for secure signature creation devices laid down in Article 3(5) of Directive 1999/93/EC, which now have to be considered as qualified signature creation devices under this Regulation. It also makes it clear that the scope of a signature creation
device can be much wider than just something containing signature creation data. The Commission may also establish a list of reference numbers of standards for security requirements on devices.

Article 23, building on Article 3(4) of Directive 1999/93/EC, introduces the concept of certification of qualified electronic signature devices to determine their conformity with the security requirements laid down in Annex II. These devices must be recognised by all Member States as matching the requirements when a certification procedure is conducted by a certification body designated by a Member State. The Commission will publish a positive list of such certified devices according to Article 24. The Commission may also establish a list of reference numbers of standards for the security assessment of information technology products referenced in Article 23(1).

Article 24 concerns publication of a list of qualified electronic signature creation devices by the Commission after notification of conformity by the Member States.

Article 25 builds on the recommendations of Annex IV of Directive 1999/93/EC to lay down binding requirements for the validation of qualified electronic signatures with a view to increasing the legal certainty of such a validation.

Article 26 sets out the conditions for qualified validation services.

Article 27 sets out the condition for the long-term preservation of qualified electronic signatures. This is possible due to the use of procedures and technologies capable of extending the trustworthiness of the qualified electronic signature validation data beyond the time of their technological validity when forgery may become easy to do for cyber criminals.

3.3.3.4 Section 4 – Electronic seals

Article 28 concerns the legal effect of electronic seals of legal persons. A specific legal presumption is bestowed on a qualified electronic seal which guarantees the origin and integrity of electronic documents to which it is linked.

Article 29 sets out the requirements for qualified certificates for electronic seals.

Article 30 sets out the requirements for and certification and publication of list for the qualified electronic seal creation devices.

Article 31 sets out the condition of validation and preservation of qualified electronic seals.

3.3.3.5 Section 5 – Electronic time stamp

Article 32 concerns the legal effect of electronic time stamps. A specific legal presumption is bestowed on qualified electronic time stamps with regard to the certainty of the time.

Article 33 sets out the requirements for qualified electronic time stamps.

3.3.3.6 Section 6 – Electronic documents

Article 34 is related to the legal effects and the conditions of acceptance of electronic
documents. There is a specific legal presumption of the authenticity and integrity of any electronic document signed with a qualified electronic signature or bearing a qualified electronic seal. With regard to the acceptance of electronic documents, when an original document or a certified copy is required for the provision of a public service, at least electronic documents issued by the persons who are competent to issue the relevant documents and that are considered to be originals or certified copies in accordance with national law of the Member State of origin, shall be accepted in other Member States without additional requirements.

3.3.3.7 Section 7 – Electronic delivery services

Article 35 concerns the legal effect of data sent or received using an electronic delivery service. A specific legal presumption regarding the integrity of data which are sent or received and the accuracy of the time on which the data are sent or received is guaranteed for qualified electronic delivery services. It also ensures the mutual recognition of qualified electronic delivery services at EU level.

Article 36 sets out the requirements for qualified electronic delivery services.

3.3.3.8 Section 8 – Website authentication

This section is intended to ensure that the authenticity of a website with respect to the owner of the site will be guaranteed.

Article 37 sets out the requirements for qualified certificates for website authentication, which can be used to guarantee the authenticity of a website. A qualified certificate for website authentication will provide a minimal set of trustworthy information on the website and on the legal existence of its owner.

3.3.4 CHAPTER IV – DELEGATED ACTS

Article 38 contains the standard provisions for exercising the delegations in line with Article 290 TFEU (delegated acts). This allows the legislator to delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of a legislative act.

3.3.5 CHAPTER V – IMPLEMENTING ACTS

Article 39 contains the provision covering the Committee procedure needed to confer implementing powers on the Commission wherever, in accordance with Article 291 TFEU, uniform conditions for implementing legally binding acts of the Union are needed. The examination procedure applies.

3.3.6 CHAPTER VI – FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 40 obliges the Commission to evaluate the Regulation and report on its findings.

Article 41 repeals Directive 1999/93/EC and provides for the smooth transition of the existing electronic signature infrastructure to the new requirements of the Regulation.

Article 42 sets out the date of the entry into force of the Regulation.

4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS

The specific budgetary implications of the proposal relate to the tasks allocated to the European Commission as specified in the legislative financial statements accompanying this proposal.

The proposal has no implications on operational expenditure.

The legislative financial statement accompanying this proposal for a Regulation covers the budgetary impacts for the Regulation itself.

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal  market

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national Parliaments,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee11,

After consulting the European Data Protection Supervisor12,

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure,

Whereas:

(1) Building trust in the online environment is key to economic development. Lack of trust makes consumers, businesses and administrations hesitate to carry out transactions electronically and to adopt new services.

(2) This Regulation seeks to enhance trust in electronic transactions in the internal market by enabling secure and seamless electronic interactions to take place between businesses, citizens and public authorities, thereby increasing the effectiveness of public and private online services, electronic business and electronic commerce in the Union.

(3) Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures13, essentially covered electronic signatures without delivering a comprehensive cross-border and cross-sector framework for secure, trustworthy and easy-to-use electronic transactions. This Regulation enhances and expands the acquis of the Directive.

(4) The Commission’s Digital Agenda for Europe14 identified the fragmentation of the digital market, the lack of interoperability and the rise in cybercrime as major obstacles to the virtuous cycle of the digital economy. In its Citizenship Report 2010 the Commission further highlighted the need to solve the main problems which prevent European citizens from enjoying the benefits of a digital single market and cross-border digital services15.

(5) The European Council invited the Commission to create a digital single market by 2015 to make rapid progress in key areas of the digital economy and to promote a fully integrated digital single market17 by facilitating the cross-border use of online services, with particular attention to facilitating secure electronic identification and authentication.

(6) The Council invited the Commission to contribute to the digital single market by creating appropriate conditions for the mutual recognition of key enablers across borders, such as electronic identification, electronic documents, electronic signatures and electronic delivery services, and for interoperable eGovernment services across
the European Union.

(7) The European Parliament stressed the importance of the security of electronic services, especially of electronic signatures, and of the need to create a public key infrastructure at pan-European level, and called on the Commission to set up a European validation authorities gateway to ensure the cross-border interoperability of electronic signatures and to increase the security of transactions carried out using the internet.

(8) Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market20 requests Member States to establish ‘points of single contact’ (PSC) to ensure that all procedures and formalities relating to access to a service activity and to the exercise thereof can be easily completed, at a distance and by electronic means, through the appropriate point of single contact and with the appropriate authorities. Many online services accessible through PSCs require electronic identification, authentication and signature.

(9) In most cases service providers from another Member State cannot use their electronic identification to access these services because the national electronic identification schemes in their country are not recognised and accepted in other Member States. This electronic barrier excludes service providers from enjoying the full benefits of the internal market. Mutually recognized and accepted electronic identification means will facilitate cross-border provision of numerous services in the Internal Market and enable businesses to go cross-border without facing many obstacles in interactions
with public authorities

(10) Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare21 sets up a network of

national authorities responsible for eHealth. To enhance safety and the continuity of cross-border healthcare, the network is required to produce guidelines on cross-border access to electronic health data and services, including by supporting ‘common identification and authentication measures tofacilitate transferabili ty of data in cross-border healthcare’. Mutual recognition and acceptance of electronic identification and authentication is key to make cross border healthcare for European citizens a reality. When people travel for treatment, their medical data needs to be accessible in the country of treatment. This requires a solid, safe and trusted electronic identification framework.

(11) One of the objectives of this Regulation is to remove existing barriers to the cross-border use of electronic identification means used in the Member States to access at least public services. This Regulation does not aim at intervening on electronic identity management systems and related infrastructures established in the Member
States. The aim of this Regulation is to ensure that for the access to cross-border online services offered by the Member States, secure electronic identification and authentication is possible.

(12) Member States should remain free to use or introduce means, for electronic identification purposes, for accessing online services. They should also be able to decide whether to involve the private sector in the provision of these means. Member States should not be obliged to notify their electronic identification schemes. The choice to either notify all, some or none of the electronic identification schemes used at national level to access at least public online services or specific services is up to the Member States.

(13) Some conditions need to be set in the Regulation with regard to which electronic identification means have to be accepted and how the schemes should be notified. These should help Member States to build the necessary trust in each other’s electronic identification schemes and to mutually recognise and accept electronic identification means falling under their notified schemes. The principle of mutual recognition and acceptance should apply if the notifying Member State meets the conditions of notification and the notification was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. However, the access to these online services and their final delivery to the applicant should be closely linked to the right to receive such services under the conditions set by national legislation.

(14) Member States should be able to decide to involve the private sector in the issuance of electronic identification means and to allow the private sector the use of electronic identification means under a notified scheme for identification purposes when needed for online services or electronic transactions. The possibility to use such electronic identification means would enable the private sector to rely on electronic identification and authentication already largely used in many Member States at least for public services and to make it easier for businesses and citizens to access their online services across borders. In order to facilitate the use of such electronic identification means across borders by the private sector, the authentication possibility provided by the Member States should be available to relying parties without discriminating between public or private sector.

(15) The cross border use of electronic identification means under a notified scheme requires Member States to cooperate in providing technical interoperability. This rules out any specific national technical rules requiring non-national parties for instance to obtain specific hardware or software to verify and validate the notified electronic
identification. Technical requirements on users, on the other hand, stemming from the inherent specifications of whatever token is used (e.g. smartcards) are inevitable.

(16) Cooperation of Member States should serve the technical interoperability of the notified electronic identification schemes with a view to foster a high level of trust and security appropriate to the degree of risk. The exchange of information and the sharing of best practices between Member States with a view to their mutual recognition
should help such cooperation.

(17) This Regulation should also establish a general legal framework for the use of electronic trust services. However, it should not create a general obligation to use them. In particular, it should not cover the provision of services based on voluntary agreements under private law. Neither should it cover aspects related to the conclusion and validity of contracts or other legal obligations where there are requirements as regards form prescribed by national or Union law.

(18) In order to contribute to the general cross-border use of electronic trust services, it should be possible to use them as evidence in legal proceedings in all Member States.

(19) Member States should remain free to define other types of trust services in addition to those making part of the closed list of trust services provided for in this Regulation, for the purpose of recognition at national level as qualified trust services.

(20) Because of the pace of technological change, this Regulation should adopt an approach which is open to innovations.

(21) This Regulation should be technology-neutral. The legal effects it grants should be achievable by any technical means provided that the requirements of this Regulation are met.

(22) To enhance people’s trust in the internal market and to promote the use of trust services and products, the notions of qualified trust services and qualified trust service provider should be introduced with a view to indicating requirements and obligations to ensure high-level security of whatever qualified trust services and products are used
or provided.

(23) In line with the obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that has entered into force in the EU, persons with disabilities should be able to use trust services and end user products used in the provision of those services on equal bases with other consumers.

(24) A trust service provider is a controller of personal data and therefore has to comply with the obligations set out in Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data22. In particular the collection of data should be minimised as much as possible taking into account the purpose of the service provided.

(25) Supervisory bodies should cooperate and exchange information with data protection authorities to ensure proper implementation of data protection legislation by service providers. The exchange of information should in particular cover security incidents and personal data breaches.

(26) It should be incumbent on all trust service providers to apply good security practice appropriate to the risks related to their activities so as to boost users’ trust in the single market.

(27) Provisions on the use of pseudonyms in certificates should not prevent Member States from requiring identification of persons pursuant to Union or national law.

(28) All Member States should follow common essential supervision requirements to ensure a comparable security level of qualified trust services. To ease the consistent application of these requirements across the Union, Member States should adopt comparable procedures and should exchange information on their supervision activities and best practices in the field.

(29) Notification of security breaches and security risk assessments is essential with a view to providing adequate information to concerned parties in the event of a breach of security or loss of integrity.

(30) To enable the Commission and the Member States to assess the effectiveness of the breach notification mechanism introduced by this Regulation, supervisory bodies should be requested to provide summary information to the Commission and to European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA).

(31) To enable the Commission and the Member States to assess the impact of this Regulation, supervisory bodies should be requested to provide statistics on and the use of qualified trust services.

(32) To enable the Commission and the Member States to assess the effectiveness of the enhanced supervision mechanism introduced by this Regulation, supervisory bodies should be requested to report on their activities. This would be instrumental in facilitating the exchange of good practices between supervisory bodies and would ensure the verification that essential supervision requirements are implemented consistently and efficiently in all Member States.

(33) To ensure sustainability and durability of qualified trust services and to boost users’ confidence in the continuity of qualified trust services, supervisory bodies should ensure that the data of qualified trust service providers are preserved and kept accessible for an appropriate period of time even if a qualified trust service provider ceases to exist.

(34) To facilitate the supervision of qualified trust services providers, for example when a provider is providing its services in the territory of another Member State and is not subject to supervision there, or when the computers of a provider are located in the territory of another Member State than the one where it is established, a mutual assistance system between supervisory bodies in the Member States should be set up.

(35) It is the responsibility of trust service providers to meet the requirements set out in this Regulation for the provisioning of trust services, in particular for qualified trust services. Supervisory bodies have the responsibility to supervise how trust service providers meet these requirements.

(36) In order to allow an efficient initiation process, which should lead to the inclusion of qualified trust service providers and the qualified trust services they provide into trusted lists, preliminary interactions between prospective qualified trust service providers and the competent supervisory body should be encouraged with the view of facilitating the due diligence leading to the provisioning of qualified trust services.

(37) Trusted lists are essential elements to build trust among market operators as they indicate the qualified status of the service provider at the time of supervision, on the other hand they are not a prerequisite for achieving the qualified status and providing qualified trust services which results from respecting the requirements of this Regulation.

(38) Once it has been subject to a notification, a qualified trust service cannot be refused for the fulfilment of an administrative procedure or formality by the concerned public sector body, for not being included in the trusted lists established by the Member States. For the present purpose a public sector body refers to any public authority or
other entity entrusted with the provision of eGovernment services such as online tax declaration, request for birth certificates, participation to electronic public procurement procedures, etc.

(39) While a high level of security is needed to ensure mutual recognition of electronic signatures, in specific cases, such as in the context of Commission Decision 2009/767/EC of 16 October 2009 setting out measures facilitating the use of
procedures by electronic means through the ‘points of single contact’ under Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on services in the internal market23, electronic signatures with a lower security assurance should also be accepted.

(40) It should be possible to entrust qualified electronic signature creation devices to the care of a third party by the signatory, provided that appropriate mechanisms and procedures are implemented to ensure that the signatory has sole control over the use of his electronic signature creation data, and the qualified signature requirements are met by the use of the device.

(41) To ensure legal certainty on the validity of the signature it is essential to detail which components of a qualified electronic signature must be assessed by the relying party carrying out the validation. Moreover, defining the requirements of qualified trust service providers that can provide a qualified validation service to relying parties not
willing or unable to carry out themselves the validation of qualified electronic signatures, should stimulate the private or public sector to invest in such services. Both elements should make qualified electronic signature validation easy and convenient for all parties at Union level.

(42) When a transaction requires a qualified electronic seal from a legal person, a qualified electronic signature from the authorised representative of the legal person should be equally acceptable.

(43) Electronic seals should serve as evidence that an electronic document was issued by a legal person, ensuring certainty of the document’s origin and integrity.

(44) This Regulation should ensure the long-term preservation of information, i.e. the legal validity of electronic signature and electronic seals over extended periods of time, guaranteeing that they can be validated irrespective of future technological change.

(45) In order to enhance the cross-border use of electronic documents this Regulation should provide for the legal effect of electronic documents which should be considered as equal to paper documents dependent on the risk assessment and provided the authenticity and integrity of the documents are ensured. It also important for further development of cross-border electronic transactions in the internal market that original electronic documents or certified copies issued by relevant competent bodies in a Member State under their national law are accepted as such also in other Member States. This Regulation should not affect Member States’ right to determine what constitutes an original or a copy at a national level but ensures that these can be used as such also across borders.

(46) As competent authorities in the Member States currently use different formats of advanced electronic signatures to sign their documents electronically, it is necessary to ensure that at least a number of advanced electronic signature formats can be technically supported by Member States when they receive documents signed electronically. Similarly, when competent authorities in the Member States use advanced electronic seals, it would be necessary to ensure that they support at least a number of advanced electronic seal formats.

(47) In addition to authenticating the document issued by the legal person, electronic seals can be used to authenticate any digital asset of the legal person, e.g. software code, servers.

(48) Making it possible to authenticate websites and the person owning them would make it harder to falsify websites and thus reduce fraud.

(49) In order to complement certain detailed technical aspects of this Regulation in a flexible and rapid manner, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of interoperability of electronic identification; security measures required of trust service providers; recognised independent bodies responsible for auditing the service providers; trusted lists; requirements related to the security levels of electronic signatures; requirements of qualified certificates for electronic signatures their validation and their preservation; the bodies responsible for the certification of qualified electronic signature creation devices; and the requirements related to the security levels of electronic seals and to qualified certificates for electronic seals; the interoperability between delivery services. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.

(50) The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.

(51) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission, in particular for specifying reference numbers of standards which use would give a presumption of compliance with certain requirements laid down in this Regulation or defined in delegated acts. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers24.

(52) For reasons of legal certainty and clarity, Directive 1999/93/EC should be repealed.

(53) To ensure legal certainty to the market operators already using qualified certificates issued in compliance with Directive 1999/93/EC, it is necessary to provide for a sufficient period of time for transitional purposes. It is also necessary to provide the Commission with the means to adopt the implementing acts and delegated acts before that date.

(54) Since the objectives of this Regulation cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective, especially regarding the Commission’s role as coordinator of national activities,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

 CHAPTER I

 GENERAL PROVISIONS

 Article 1

Subject matter

1. This Regulation lays down rules for electronic identification and electronic trust services for electronic transactions with a view to ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market.

2. This Regulation lays down the conditions under which Member States shall recognise and accept electronic identification means of natural and legal persons falling under a notified electronic identification scheme of another Member State.

3. This Regulation establishes a legal framework for electronic signatures, electronic seals, electronic time stamps, electronic documents, electronic delivery services and website authentication.

4. This Regulation ensures that trust services and products which comply with this Regulation are permitted to circulate freely in the internal market.

Article 2

Scope

1. This Regulation applies to electronic identification provided by, on behalf or under the responsibility of Member States and to trust service providers established in the Union.

2. This Regulation does not apply to the provision of electronic trust services based on voluntary agreements under private law.

3. This Regulation does not apply to aspects related to the conclusion and validity of contracts or other legal obligations where there are requirements as regards form prescribed by national or Union law.

Article 3

Definitions

For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) ‘electronic identification’ means the process of using person identification data in electronic form unambiguously representing a natural or legal person;

(2) ‘electronic identification means’ means a material or immaterial unit containing data as referred to in point 1 of this Article, and which is used to access services online as referred to in Article 5;

(3) ‘electronic identification scheme’ means a system for electronic identification under which electronic identification means are issued to persons as referred to in point 1 of this Article;

(4) ‘authentication’ means an electronic process that allows the validation of the electronic identification of a natural or legal person; or of the origin and integrity of an electronic data;

(5) ‘signatory’ means a natural person who creates an electronic signature;

(6) ‘electronic signature’ means data in electronic form which are attached to or logically associated with other electronic data and which are used by the signatory to sign;

(7) ‘advanced electronic signature’ means an electronic signature which meets the following requirements:

(a) it is uniquely linked to the signatory;

(b) it is capable of identifying the signatory;

(c) it is created using electronic signature creation data that the signatory can, with high level of confidence, use under his sole control; and

(d) it is linked to the data to which it relates in such a way that any subsequent change in the data is detectable;

(8) ‘qualified electronic signature’ means an advanced electronic signature which is created by a qualified electronic signature creation device, and which is based on a qualified certificate for electronic signatures;

(9) ‘electronic signature creation data’ means unique data which are used by the signatory to create an electronic signature;

(10) ‘certificate’ means an electronic attestation which links electronic signature or seal validation data of a natural or a legal person respectively to the certificate and confirms those data of that person;

(11) ‘qualified certificate for electronic signature’ means an attestation which is used to support electronic signatures, is issued by a qualified trust service provider and meet the requirements laid down in Annex I;

(12) ‘trust service’ means any electronic service consisting in the creation, verification, validation, handling and preservation of electronic signatures, electronic seals, electronic time stamps, electronic documents, electronic delivery services, website authentication, and electronic certificates, including certificates for electronic signature and for electronic seals;

(13) ‘qualified trust service’ means a trust service that meets the applicable requirements provided for in this Regulation;

(14) ‘trust service provider’ means a natural or a legal person who provides one or more trust services;

(15) ‘qualified trust service provider’ means a trust service provider who meets the requirements laid down in this Regulation;

(16) ‘product’ means hardware or software, or relevant components thereof, which are intended to be used for the provision of trust services;

(17) ‘electronic signature creation device’ means configured software or hardware used to create an electronic signature;

(18) ‘qualified electronic signature creation device’ means an electronic signature creation device which meets the requirements laid down in Annex II;

(19) ‘creator of a seal’ means a legal person who creates an electronic seal;

(20) ‘electronic seal’ means data in electronic form which are attached to or logically associated with other electronic data to ensure the origin and the integrity of the associated data;

(21) ‘advanced electronic seal’ means an electronic seal which meets the following requirements:

(a) it is uniquely linked to the creator of the seal;

(b) it is capable of identifying the creator of the seal;

(c) it is created using electronic seal creation data that the creator of the seal can, with a high level of confidence under its control, use for electronic seal creation; and

(d) it is linked to the data to which it relates in such a way that any subsequent change in the data is detectable;

(22) ‘qualified electronic seal’ means an advanced electronic seal which is created by a qualified electronic seal creation device, and which is based on a qualified certificate for electronic seal;

(23) ‘electronic seal creation data’ means unique data which are used by the creator of the electronic seal to create an electronic seal;

(24) ‘qualified certificate for electronic seal’ means an attestation which is used to support an electronic seal, is issued by a qualified trust service provider and meet the requirements laid down in Annex III;

(25) ‘electronic time stamp’ means data in electronic form which binds other electronic data to a particular time establishing evidence that these data existed at that time;

(26) ‘qualified electronic time stamp’ means an electronic time stamp which meets the requirements laid down in Article 33;

(27) ‘electronic document’ means a document in any electronic format;

(28) ‘electronic delivery service’ means a service that makes it possible to transmit data by electronic means and provides evidence relating to the handling of the transmitted data, including proof of sending or receiving the data, and which protects transmitted data against the risk of loss, theft, damage or any unauthorised alterations;

(29) ‘qualified electronic delivery service’ means an electronic delivery service which meets the requirements laid down in Article 36;

(30) ‘qualified certificate for website authentication’ means an attestation which makes it possible to authenticate a website and links the website to the person to whom the certificate is issued, which is issued by a qualified trust service provider and meets the requirements laid down in Annex IV;

(31) ‘validation data’ means data which are used to validate an electronic signature or an electronic seal.

Article 4

Internal market principle

1. There shall be no restriction on the provision of trust services in the territory of a Member State by a trust service provider established in another Member States for reasons which fall within the fields covered by this Regulation.

2. Products which comply with this Regulation shall be permitted to circulate freely in the
internal market.

CHAPTER II

ELECTRONIC IDENTIFICATION

Article 5

Mutual recognition and acceptance

When an electronic identification using an electronic identification means and authentication is required under national legislation or administrative practice to access a service online, any electronic identification means issued in another Member State falling under a scheme included in the list published by the Commission pursuant to the procedure referred to in Article 7 shall be recognised and accepted for the purposes of accessing this service.

Article 6

Conditions of notification of electronic identification schemes

1. Electronic identification schemes shall be eligible for notification pursuant to Article 7 if all the following conditions are met:

(a) the electronic identification means are issued by, on behalf of or under the responsibility of the notifying Member State;

(b) the electronic identification means can be used to access at least public services requiring electronic identification in the notifying Member State;

(c) the notifying Member State ensures that the person identification data are attributed unambiguously to the natural or legal person referred to in Article 3 point1;

(d) the notifying Member State ensures the availability of an authentication possibility online, at any time and free of charge so that any relying party can validate the person identification data received in electronic form. Member States shall not impose any specific technical requirements on relying parties established outside of their territory intending to carry out such authentication. When either the notified identification scheme or authentication possibility is breached or partly compromised, Member States shall suspend or revoke without delay the notified  identification scheme or authentication possibility or the compromised parts concerned and inform the other Member States and the Commission pursuant to Article 7;

(e) the notifying Member State takes liability for:

– (i) the unambiguous attribution of the person identification data referred to in point (c), and

– (ii) the authentication possibility specified in point (d).

2. Point (e) of paragraph 1 is without prejudice to the liability of parties to a transaction in which electronic identification means falling under the notified scheme are used.

Article 7

Notification

1. Member States which notify an electronic identification scheme shall forward to the Commission the following information and without undue delay, any subsequent changes thereof:

(a) a description of the notified electronic identification scheme;

(b) the authorities responsible for the notified electronic identification scheme;

(c) information on by whom the registration of the unambiguous person identifiers is managed;

(d) a description of the authentication possibility;

(e) arrangements for suspension or revocation of either the notified identification scheme or authentication possibility or the compromised parts concerned.

2. Six months after the entry into force of the Regulation, the Commission shall publish in the Official Journal of the European Union the list of the electronic identification schemes which were notified pursuant to paragraph 1 and the basic information thereon.

3. If the Commission receives a notification after the period referred to in paragraph 2 expired, it shall amend the list within three months.

4. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, define the circumstances, formats and procedures of the notification referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2).

Article 8

Coordination

1. Member States shall cooperate in order to ensure the interoperability of electronic identification means falling under a notified scheme and to enhance their security.

2. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish the necessary modalities to facilitate the cooperation between the Member States referred to in paragraph 1 with a view to fostering a high level of trust and security appropriate to the degree of risk. Those implementing acts shall concern, in particular, the exchange of information, experiences and good practice on electronic identification schemes, the peer review of notified electronic identification schemes and the examination of relevant developments arising in the electronic identification sector by the competent authorities of the Member States. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2).

3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 38 concerning the facilitation of cross border interoperability of electronic identification means by setting of minimum technical requirements.

CHAPTER III

TRUST SERVICES

Section 1

General provisions

Article 9

Liability

1. A trust service provider shall be liable for any direct damage caused to any natural or legal person due to failure to comply with the obligations laid down in Article 15(1), unless the trust service provider can prove that he has not acted negligently.

2. A qualified trust service provider shall be liable for any direct damage caused to any natural or legal person due to failure to meet the requirements laid down in this Regulation, in particular in Article 19, unless the qualified trust service provider can prove that he has not acted negligently.

Article 10

Trust services providers from third countries

1. Qualified trust services and qualified certificates provided by qualified trust service providers established in a third country shall be accepted as qualified trust services and qualified certificates provided by a qualified trust service providers established in the territory of the Union if the qualified trust services or qualified certificates originating from the third country are recognised under an agreement between the Union and third countries or international organisations in accordance with Article 218 TFUE.

2. With reference to paragraph 1, such agreements shall ensure that the requirements applicable to qualified trust services and qualified certificates provided by qualified trust service providers established in the territory of the Union are met by the trust service providers in the third countries or international organisations, especially with regard to the
protection of personal data, security and supervision.

Article 11

Data processing and protection

1. Trust service providers and supervisory bodies shall ensure fair and lawful processing in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC when processing personal data.

2. Trust service providers shall process personal data according to Directive 95/46/EC. Such processing shall be strictly limited to the minimum data needed to issue and maintain a certificate or to provide a trust service.

3. Trust service providers shall guarantee the confidentiality and integrity of data related to a person to whom the trust service is provided.

4. Without prejudice to the legal effect given to pseudonyms under national law, Member States shall not prevent trust service providers indicating in electronic signature certificates a pseudonym instead of the signatory’s name.

Article 12

Accessibility for persons with disabilities

Trust services provided and end user products used in the provision of those services shall be made accessible for persons with disabilities whenever possible.

Section 2

Supervision

Article 13

Supervisory body

1. Member States shall designate an appropriate body established in their territory or, upon mutual agreement, in another Member State under the responsibility of the designating Member State. Supervisory bodies shall be given all supervisory and investigatory powers that are necessary for the exercise of their tasks.

2. The supervisory body shall be responsible for the performance of the following tasks:

(a) monitoring trust service providers established in the territory of the designating Member State to ensure that they fulfil the requirements laid down in Article 15;

(b) undertaking supervision of qualified trust service providers established in the territory of the designating Member State and of the qualified trust services they provide in order to ensure that they and the qualified trust services provided by them meet the applicable requirements laid down in this Regulation;

(c) ensuring that relevant information and data referred to in point (g) of Article 19(2), and recorded by qualified trust service providers are preserved and kept accessible after the activities of a qualified trust service provider have ceased, for an appropriate time with a view to guaranteeing continuity of the service.

3. Each supervisory body shall submit a yearly report on the last calendar year’s supervisory activities to the Commission and Member States by the end of the first quarter of the following year. It shall include at least:

(a) information on its supervisory activities;

(b) a summary of breach notifications received from trust service providers in accordance with Article 15(2);

(c) statistics on the market and usage of qualified trust services, including information on qualified trust service providers themselves, the qualified trust services they provide, the products they use and the general description of their customers.

4. Member States shall notify to the Commission and other Member States the names and the addresses of their respective designated supervisory bodies.

5. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 38, concerning the definition of procedures applicable to the tasks referred to in paragraph 2.

6. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, define the circumstances, formats and procedures for the report referred to in paragraph 3. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2).

Article 14

Mutual assistance

1. Supervisory bodies shall cooperate with a view to exchange good practice and provide each other, within the shortest possible time, with relevant information and mutual assistance so that activities can be carried out in a consistent manner. Mutual assistance shall cover, in particular, information requests and supervisory measures, such as requests to carry out inspections related to the security audits as referred to in Articles 15, 16 and 17.

2. A supervisory body to which a request for assistance is addressed may not refuse to comply with it unless:

(a) it is not competent to deal with the request; or

(b) compliance with the request would be incompatible with this Regulation.

3. Where appropriate, supervisory bodies may carry out joint investigations in which staff from other Member States’ supervisory bodies is involved.

The supervisory body of the Member State where the investigation is to take place, in compliance with its own national law, may devolve investigative tasks to the assisted supervisory body’s staff. Such powers may be exercised only under the guidance and in the presence of staff from the host supervisory body. The assisted supervisory body’s staff shall be subject to the host supervisory body’s national law. The host supervisory body shall assume responsibility for the assisted supervisory body staff’s actions.

4. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, specify the formats and procedures for the mutual assistance provided for in this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2).

Article 15

Security requirements applicable to trust service providers

1. Trust service providers who are established in the territory of the Union shall take appropriate technical and organisational measures to manage the risks posed to the security of the trust services they provide. Having regard to state of the art, these measures shall ensure that the level of security is appropriate to the degree of risk. In particular, measures shall be taken to prevent and minimise the impact of security incidents and inform stakeholders of adverse effects of any incidents.

Without prejudice to Article 16(1), any trust service provider may submit the report of a security audit carried out by a recognised independent body to the supervisory body to confirm that appropriate security measures have been taken.

2. Trust service providers shall, without undue delay and where feasible not later than 24 hours after having become aware of it, notify the competent supervisory body, the competent national body for information security and other relevant third parties such as data protection authorities of any breach of security or loss of integrity that has a significant impact on the trust service provided and on the personal data maintained therein.

Where appropriate, in particular if a breach of security or loss of integrity concerns two or more Member States, the supervisory body concerned shall inform supervisory bodies in other Member States and the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA).

The supervisory body concerned may also inform the public or require the trust service provider to do so, where it determines that disclosure of the breach is in the public interest.

3. The supervisory body shall provide to ENISA and to the Commission once a year with a summary of breach notifications received from trust service providers.

4. In order to implement paragraphs 1 and 2, the competent supervisory body shall have the power to issue binding instructions to trust service providers.

5. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 38, concerning the further specification of the measures referred to in paragraph 1.

6. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, define the circumstances, formats and procedures, including deadlines, applicable for the purpose of paragraphs 1 to 3. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2).

Article 16

Supervision of qualified trust service providers

1. Qualified trust service providers shall be audited by a recognised independent body once a year to confirm that they and the qualified trust services provided by them fulfil the requirements set out in this Regulation, and shall submit the resulting security audit report to the supervisory body.

2. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, the supervisory body may at any time audit the qualified trust service providers to confirm that they and the qualified trust services provided by them still meet the conditions set out in this Regulation, either on its own initiative or in response to a request from the Commission. The supervisory body shall inform the data protection authorities of the results of its audits, in case personal data protection rules appear to have been breached.

3. The supervisory body shall have the power to issue binding instructions to qualified trust service providers to remedy any failure to fulfil the requirements indicated in the security audit report.

4. With reference to paragraph 3, if the qualified trust service provider does not remedy any such failure within a time limit set by the supervisory body, it shall lose its qualified status and be informed by the supervisory body that its status will be changed accordingly in the trusted lists referred to in Article 18.

5. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 38 concerning the specification of the conditions under which the independent body carrying out the audit referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article and in Article 15(1) and in Article 17(1) shall be recognised.

6. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, define the circumstances, procedures and formats applicable for the purpose of paragraphs 1, 2 and 4. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2).

Article 17

Initiation of a qualified trust service

1. Qualified trust service providers shall notify the supervisory body of their intention to start providing a qualified trust service and shall submit to the supervisory body a security audit report carried out by a recognised independent body, as provided for in Article 16(1). Qualified trust service providers may start to provide the qualified trust service after they have submitted the notification and security audit report to the supervisory body.

2. Once the relevant documents are submitted to the supervisory body according to paragraph 1, the qualified service providers shall be included in the trusted lists referred to in Article 18 indicating that the notification has been submitted.

3. The supervisory body shall verify the compliance of the qualified trust service provider and of the qualified trust services provided by it with the requirements of the Regulation.

The supervisory body shall indicate the qualified status of the qualified service providers and the qualified trust services they provide in the trusted lists after the positive conclusion of the verification, not later than one month after the notification has been done in accordance with paragraph 1.

If the verification is not concluded within one month, the supervisory body shall inform the qualified trust service provider specifying the reasons of the delay and the period by which the verification shall be concluded.

4. A qualified trust service which has been subject to the notification referred to in paragraph 1 cannot be refused for the fulfilment of an administrative procedure or formality by the concerned public sector body for not being included in the lists referred to in paragraph 3.

5. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, define the circumstances, formats and procedures for the purpose of paragraphs 1, 2 and.3 Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2).

Article 18

Trusted lists

1. Each Member State shall establish, maintain and publish trusted lists with information related to the qualified trust service providers for which it is competent together with information related to the qualified trust services provided by them.

2. Member States shall establish, maintain and publish, in a secure manner, electronically signed or sealed trusted lists provided for in paragraph 1 in a form suitable for automated processing.

3. Member States shall notify to the Commission, without undue delay, information on the body responsible for establishing, maintaining and publishing national trusted lists, and details of where such lists are published, the certificate used to sign or seal the trusted lists and any changes thereto.

4. The Commission shall make available to the public, through a secure channel, the information, referred to in paragraph 3 in electronically signed or sealed form suitable for automated processing.

5. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 38 concerning the definition of the information referred to in paragraph 1.

6. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, define the technical specifications and formats for trusted lists applicable for the purposes of paragraphs 1 to 4. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2).

Article 19

Requirements for qualified trust service providers

1. When issuing a qualified certificate, a qualified trust service provider shall verify, by appropriate means and in accordance with national law, the identity and, if applicable, any specific attributes of the natural or legal person to whom a qualified certificate is issued.

Such information shall be verified by the qualified service provider or by an authorised third party acting under the responsibility of the qualified service provider:

(a) by a physical appearance of the natural person or of an authorised representative of the legal person, or

(b) remotely, using electronic identification means under a notified scheme issued in compliance with point (a).

2. Qualified trust service providers providing qualified trust services shall:

(a) employ staff who possess the necessary expertise, experience, and qualifications and apply administrative and management procedures which correspond to European or international standards and have received appropriate training regarding security and personal data protection rules;

(b) bear the risk of liability for damages by maintaining sufficient financial resources or by an appropriate liability insurance scheme;

(c) before entering into a contractual relationship, inform any person seeking to use a qualified trust service of the precise terms and conditions regarding the use of that service;

(d) use trustworthy systems and products which are protected against modification and guarantee the technical security and reliability of the process supported by them;

(e) use trustworthy systems to store data provided to them, in a verifiable form so that:

– they are publicly available for retrieval only where the consent of the person to whom the data has been issued has been obtained,

– only authorised persons can make entries and changes,

– information can be checked for authenticity;

(f) take measures against forgery and theft of data;

(g) record for an appropriate period of time all relevant information concerning data issued and received by the qualified trust service provider, in particular for the purpose of providing evidence in legal proceedings. Such recording may be done electronically;

(h) have an up-to-date termination plan to ensure continuity of service in accordance with arrangements issued by the supervisory body under point (c) of Article 13(2);

(i) ensure lawful processing of personal data in accordance with Article 11.

3. Qualified trust service providers issuing qualified certificates shall register in their certificate database the revocation of the certificate within ten minutes after such revocation has taken effect.

4. With regard to paragraph 3, qualified trust service providers issuing qualified certificates shall provide to any relying party information on the validity or revocation status of qualified certificates issued by them. This information shall be made available at any time at least on a certificate basis in an automated manner which is reliable, free of charge and efficient.

5. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, establish reference numbers of standards for trustworthy systems and products. Compliance with the requirements laid down in Article 19 shall be presumed where trustworthy systems and products meet those standards. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2). The Commission shall publish those acts in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Section 3

Electronic signature

Article 20

Legal effects and acceptance of electronic signatures

1. An electronic signature shall not be denied legal effect and admissibility as evidence in legal proceedings solely on the grounds that it is in an electronic form.

2. A qualified electronic signature shall have the equivalent legal effect of a handwritten signature.

3. Qualified electronic signatures shall be recognised and accepted in all Member States.

4. If an electronic signature with a security assurance level below qualified electronic signature is required, in particular by a Member State for accessing a service online offered by a public sector body on the basis of an appropriate assessment of the risks involved in such a service, all electronic signatures matching at least the same security assurance level shall be recognised and accepted.

5. Member States shall not request for cross-border access to a service online offered by a public sector body an electronic signature at a higher security assurance level than qualified electronic signature.

6. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 38 concerning the definition of the different security levels of electronic signature referred to in paragraph 4.

7. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, establish reference numbers of standards for the security levels of electronic signature. Compliance with the security level defined in a delegated act adopted pursuant to paragraph 6 shall be presumed when an electronic signature meets those standards. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in
accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2). The Commission shall publish those acts in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 21

Qualified certificates for electronic signature

1. Qualified certificates for electronic signature shall meet the requirements laid down in Annex I.

2. Qualified certificates for electronic signature shall not be subject to any mandatory requirement exceeding the requirements laid down in Annex I.

3. If a qualified certificate for electronic signature has been revoked after initial activation, it shall lose its validity, and its status shall not in any circumstances be reverted by renewing its validity.

4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 38 concerning the further specification of the requirements laid down in Annex I.

5. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, establish reference numbers of standards for qualified certificates for electronic signature. Compliance with the requirements laid down in Annex I shall be presumed where a qualified certificate for electronic signature meets those standards. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2). The Commission shall publish those acts in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 22

Requirements for qualified electronic signature creation devices

1. Qualified electronic signature creation devices shall meet the requirements laid down in Annex II.

2. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, establish reference numbers of standards for qualified electronic signature creation devices. Compliance with the requirements laid down in Annex II shall be presumed where a qualified electronic signature creation device meets those standards. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2). The Commission shall publish those acts in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 23

Certification of qualified electronic signature creation devices

1. Qualified electronic signature creation devices may be certified by appropriate public or private bodies designated by Member States provided that they have been submitted to a security evaluation process carried out in accordance with one of the standards for the security assessment of information technology products included in a list that shall be established by the Commission by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2). The Commission shall publish those acts in the Official Journal of the European Union.

2. Member States shall notify to the Commission and other Member States the names and addresses of the public or private body designated by them as referred to in paragraph 1.

3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 38 concerning the establishment of specific criteria to be met by the designated bodies referred to in paragraph 1.

Article 24

Publication of a list of certified qualified electronic signature creation devices

1. Member States shall notify to the Commission without undue delay, information on qualified electronic signature creation devices which have been certified by the bodies referred to in Article 23. They shall also notify to the Commission, without undue delay, information on electronic signature creation devices that would no longer be certified.

2. On the basis of the information received, the Commission shall establish, publish and maintain a list of certified qualified electronic signature creation devices.

3. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, define circumstances, formats and procedures applicable for the purpose of paragraph 1. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2).

Article 25

Requirements for the validation of qualified electronic signatures

1. A qualified electronic signature shall be considered as valid provided that it can be established with a high level of certainty, that at the time of signing:

(a) the certificate, that supports the signature, is a qualified electronic signature certificate complying with the provisions laid down in Annex I;

(b) the qualified certificate required is authentic and valid;

(c) the signature validation data correspond to the data provided to the relying party;

(d) the set of data unambiguously representing the signatory is correctly provided to the relying party;

(e) the use of any pseudonym is clearly indicated to the relying party if a pseudonym is used;

(f) the electronic signature was created by a qualified electronic signature creation device;

(g) the integrity of the signed data has not been compromised;

(h) the requirements provided for in Article 3 point7 are met;

(i) the system used for validating the signature provides to the relying party the correct result of the validation process and allows the relying party to detect any security relevant issues.

2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 38 concerning the further specification of the requirements laid in down in paragraph 1.

3. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, establish reference numbers of standards for the validation of qualified electronic signatures. Compliance with the requirements laid down in paragraph 1 shall be presumed where the validation of qualified electronic signatures meets those standards. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2). The Commission shall publish those acts in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 26

Qualified validation service for qualified electronic signatures

1. A qualified validation service for qualified electronic signatures shall be provided by a qualified trust service provider who:

(a) provides validation in compliance with Article 25(1), and

(b) allows relying parties to receive the result of the validation process in an automated manner which is reliable, efficient and bearing the advanced electronic signature or advanced electronic seal of the provider of the qualified validation service.

2. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, establish reference numbers of standards for qualified validation service referred to in paragraph 1. Compliance with the requirements laid down in point (b) of paragraph 1 shall be presumed where the validation service for qualified electronic signature meets those standards. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2). The Commission shall publish those acts in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 27

Preservation of qualified electronic signatures

1. A qualified electronic signature preservation service shall be provided by a qualified trust service provider who uses procedures and technologies capable of extending the trustworthiness of the qualified electronic signature validation data beyond the technological validity period.

2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 38 concerning the further specification of the requirements laid down in paragraph 1.

3. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, establish reference numbers of standards for the preservation of qualified electronic signatures. Compliance with the requirements laid down in paragraph 1 shall be presumed where the arrangements for the preservation of qualified electronic signatures meet those standards. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2). The Commission shall publish those acts in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Section 4

Electronic seals

Article 28

Legal effects of electronic seal

1. An electronic seal shall not be denied legal effect and admissibility as evidence in legal proceedings solely on the grounds that it is in electronic form.

2. A qualified electronic seal shall enjoy the legal presumption of ensuring the origin and integrity of the data to which it is linked.

3. A qualified electronic seal shall be recognised and accepted in all Member States.

4. If an electronic seal security assurance level below the qualified electronic seal is required, in particular by a Member State for accessing a service online offered by a public sector body on the basis of an appropriate assessment of the risks involved in such a service, all electronic seals matching at a minimum the same security assurance level shall be accepted.

5. Member States shall not request for accessing a service online offered by a public sector body an electronic seal with higher security assurance level than qualified electronic seals.

6. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 38 concerning the definition of different security assurance levels of electronic seals referred to in paragraph 4.

7. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, establish reference numbers of standards for the security assurance levels of electronic seals. Compliance with the security assurance level defined in a delegated act adopted pursuant to paragraph 6 shall be presumed when an electronic seal meets those standards. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2). The Commission shall publish those acts in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 29

Requirements for qualified certificates for electronic seal

1. Qualified certificates for electronic seal shall meet the requirements laid down in Annex III.

2. Qualified certificates for electronic seal shall not be subject to any mandatory requirements exceeding the requirements laid down in Annex III.

3. If a qualified certificate for an electronic seal has been revoked after initial activation, it shall lose its validity, and its status shall not in any circumstances be reverted by renewing its validity.

4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 38 concerning the further specification of the requirements laid down in Annex III.

5. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, establish reference numbers of standards for qualified certificates for electronic seal. Compliance with the requirements laid down in Annex III shall be presumed where a qualified certificate for electronic seal meet those standards. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2). The Commission shall publish those acts in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 30

Qualified electronic seal creation devices

1. Article 22 shall apply mutatis mutandis to requirements for qualified electronic seal creation devices.

2. Article 23 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the certification of qualified electronic seal creation devices.

3. Article 24 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the publication of a list of certified qualified electronic seal creation devices.

Article 31

Validation and preservation of qualified electronic seals

Articles 25, 26 and 27 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the validation and preservation of qualified electronic seals.

Section 5

Electronic time stamp

Article 32

Legal effect of electronic time stamps

1. An electronic time stamp shall not be denied legal effect and admissibility as evidence in legal proceedings solely on the grounds that it is in electronic form.

2. Qualified electronic time stamp shall enjoy a legal presumption of ensuring the time it indicates and the integrity of the data to which the time is bound.

3. A qualified electronic time stamp shall be recognised and accepted in all Member States.

Article 33

Requirements for qualified electronic time stamps

1. A qualified electronic time stamp shall meet the following requirements:

(a) it is accurately linked to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) in such a manner as to preclude any possibility of the data being changed undetectably;

(b) it is based on an accurate time source;

(c) it is issued by a qualified trust service provider;

(d) it is signed using an advanced electronic signature or an advanced electronic seal of the qualified trust service provider, or by some equivalent method.

2. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, establish reference numbers of standards for the accurate linkage of time to data and an accurate time source. Compliance with the requirements laid down in paragraph 1 shall be presumed where an accurate linkage of time to data and an accurate time source meets those standards. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2). The Commission shall publish those acts in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Section 6

Electronic documents

Article 34

Legal effects and acceptance of the electronic documents

1. An electronic document shall be considered as equivalent to a paper document and admissible as evidence in legal proceedings, having regard to its assurance level of authenticity and integrity.

2. A document bearing a qualified electronic signature or a qualified electronic seal of the person who is competent to issue the relevant document, shall enjoy legal presumption of its authenticity and integrity provided the document does not contain any dynamic features capable of automatically changing the document.

3. When an original document or a certified copy is required for the provision of a service online offered by a public sector body, at least electronic documents issued by the persons who are competent to issue the relevant documents and that are considered to be originals or certified copies in accordance with national law of the Member State of origin, shall be accepted in other Member States without additional requirements.

4. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, define formats of electronic signatures and seals that shall be accepted whenever a signed or sealed document is requested by a Member State for the provision of a service online offered by a public sector body referred to in paragraph 2. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2).

Section 7

Qualified electronic delivery service

Article 35

Legal effect of an electronic delivery service

1. Data sent or received using an electronic delivery service shall be admissible as evidence in legal proceedings with regard to the integrity of the data and the certainty of the date and time at which the data were sent to or received by a specified addressee.

2. Data sent or received using a qualified electronic delivery service shall enjoy legal presumption of the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the date and time of sending or receiving the data indicated by the qualified electronic delivery system.

3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 38 concerning the specification of mechanisms for sending or receiving data using electronic delivery services, which shall be used with a view to fostering interoperability between electronic delivery services.

Article 36

Requirements for qualified electronic delivery services

1. Qualified electronic delivery services shall meet the following requirements:

(a) they must be provided by one or more qualified trust service provider(s);

(b) they must allow the unambiguous identification of the sender and if appropriate, the addressee;

(c) the process of sending or receiving of data must be secured by an advanced electronic signature or an advanced electronic seal of qualified trust service provider in such a manner as to preclude the possibility of the data being changed undetectably;

(d) any change of the data needed for the purpose of sending or receiving the data must be clearly indicated to the sender and addressee of the data;

(e) the date of sending, receipt and any change of data must be indicated by a qualified electronic time stamp;

(f) in the event of the data being transferred between two or more qualified trust service providers, the requirements in points (a) to (e) shall apply to all the qualified trust service providers.

2. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, establish reference numbers of standards for processes for sending and receiving data. Compliance with the requirements laid down in paragraph 1 shall be presumed where the process for sending and receiving data meets those standards. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2). The Commission shall publish those acts in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Section 8

Website authentication

Article 37

Requirements for qualified certificates for website authentication

1. Qualified certificates for website authentication shall meet the requirements laid down in Annex IV.

2. Qualified certificates for website authentication shall be recognised and accepted in all Member States.

3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 38 concerning the further specification of the requirements laid down in Annex IV.

4. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, establish reference numbers of standards for qualified certificates for website authentication. Compliance with the requirements laid down in Annex IV shall be presumed where a qualified certificate for website authentication meets those standards. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 39(2). The Commission shall publish those acts in the Official Journal of the European Union.

CHAPTER IV

DELEGATED ACTS

Article 38

Exercise of the delegation

1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 8(3), 13(5), 15(5), 16(5), 18(5), 20(6), 21(4), 23(3), 25(2), 27(2), 28(6), 29(4), 30(2), 31, 35(3) and 37(3) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from the entry into force of this Regulation.

3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 8(3), 13(5), 15(5), 16(5), 18(5), 20(6), 21(4), 23(3), 25(2), 27(2), 28(6), 29(4), 30(2), 31, 35(3) and 37(3) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 8(3), 13(5), 15(5), 16(5), 18(5), 20(6), 21(4), 23(3), 25(2), 27(2), 28(6), 29(4), 30(2), 31, 35(3) and 37(3) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.

CHAPTER V

IMPLEMENTING ACTS

Article 39

Committee procedure

1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.

2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation 182/2011 shall apply.

CHAPTER VI

FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 40

Report

The Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Regulation. The first report shall be submitted no later than four years after the entry into force of this Regulation. Subsequent reports shall be submitted every four years thereafter.

Article 41

Repeal

1. Directive 1999/93/EC is repealed.

2. References to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Regulation.

3. Secure signature creation devices of which the conformity has been determined in accordance with Article 3(4) of Directive 1999/93/EC shall be considered as qualified signature creation devices under this Regulation.

4. Qualified certificates issued under Directive 1999/93/EC shall be considered as qualified certificates for electronic signatures under this Regulation until they expire, but for no more than five years from the entry into force of this Regulation.

Article 42

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels,

For the European Parliament For the Council
The President The President

ANNEX I

Requirements for qualified certificates for electronic signatures

Qualified certificates for electronic signatures shall contain:

(a) an indication, at least in a form suitable for automated processing, that the certificate has been issued as a qualified certificate for electronic signature;

(b) a set of data unambiguously representing the qualified trust service provider issuing the qualified certificates including at least, the Member State in which that provider is established and

– for a legal person: the name and registration number as stated in the official records,

– for a natural person: the person’s name;

(c) a set of data unambiguously representing the signatory to whom the certificate is issued including at least the name of the signatory or a pseudonym, which shall be identified as such;

(d) electronic signature validation data which correspond to the electronic signature creation data;

(e) details of the beginning and end of the certificate’s period of validity;

(f) the certificate identity code which must be unique for the qualified trust service provider;

(g) the advanced electronic signature or advanced electronic seal of the issuing qualified trust service provider;

(h) the location where the certificate supporting the advanced electronic signature or advanced electronic seal referred to in point (g) is available free of charge;

(i) the location of the certificate validity status services that can be used to enquire about the validity status of the qualified certificate;

(j) where the electronic signature creation data related to the electronic signature validation data are located in a qualified electronic signature creation device, an appropriate indication of this, at least in a form suitable for automated processing.

 ANNEX II

 Requirements for qualified signature creation devices

1. Qualified electronic signature creation devices shall ensure, by appropriate technical and procedural means, that at least:

(a) the secrecy of the electronic signature creation data used for electronic signature generation is assured;

(b) the electronic signature creation data used for electronic signature generation can occur only once;

(c) the electronic signature creation data used for electronic signature generation cannot, with reasonable assurance, be derived and the electronic signature is protected against forgery using currently available technology;

(d) the electronic signature creation data used for electronic signature generation can be reliably protected by the legitimate signatory against use by others.

2. Qualified electronic signature creation devices shall not alter the data to be signed or prevent such data from being presented to the signatory prior to signing.

3. Generating or managing electronic signature creation data on behalf of the signatory shall be done by a qualified trust service provider.

4. Qualified trust service providers managing electronic signature creation data on behalf of the signatory may duplicate the electronic signature creation data for back-up purposes provided the following requirements are met:

(a) the security of the duplicated datasets must be at the same level as for the original datasets;

(b) the number of duplicated datasets shall not exceed the minimum needed to ensure continuity of the service.

ANNEX III

Requirements for qualified certificates for electronic seals

Qualified certificates for electronic seals shall contain:

(a) an indication, at least in a form suitable for automated processing, that the certificate has been issued as a qualified certificate for electronic seal;

(b) a set of data unambiguously representing the qualified trust service provider issuing the qualified certificates including at least the Member State in which that provider is established and

– for a legal person: the name and registration number as stated in the official records,

– for a natural person: person’s name;

(c) a set of data unambiguously representing the legal person to whom the certificate is issued, including at least name and registration number as stated in the official records;

(d) electronic seal validation data which correspond to the electronic seal creation data;

(e) details of the beginning and end of the certificate’s period of validity;

(f) the certificate identity code which must be unique for the qualified trust service provider;

(g) the advanced electronic signature or advanced electronic seal of the issuing qualified trust service provider;

(h) the location where the certificate supporting the advanced electronic signature or advanced electronic seal referred to in point (g) is available free of charge;

(i) the location of the certificate validity status services that can be used to enquire the validity status of the qualified certificate;

(j) where the electronic seal creation data related to the electronic seal validation data are located in a qualified electronic seal creation device, an appropriate indication of this, at least in a form suitable for automated processing.

ANNEX IV

Requirements for qualified certificates for website authentication

Qualified certificates for website authentication shall contain:

(a) an indication, at least in a form suitable for automated processing, that the certificate has been issued as a qualified certificate for website authentication;

(b) a set of data unambiguously representing the qualified trust service provider issuing the qualified certificates including at least the Member State in which that provider is established and

– for a legal person: the name and registration number as stated in the official records,

– for a natural person: person’s name;

(c) a set of data unambiguously representing the legal person to whom the certificate is issued, including at least name and registration number as stated in the official records;

(d) elements of the address, including at least city and Member State, of the legal person to whom the certificate is issued as stated in the official records;

(e) the domain name(s) operated by the legal person to whom the certificate is issued;

(f) details of the beginning and end of the certificate’s period of validity;

(g) the certificate identity code which must be unique for the qualified trust service provider;

(h) the advanced electronic signature or advanced electronic seal of the issuing qualified trust service provider;

(i) the location where the certificate supporting the advanced electronic signature or advanced electronic seal referred to in point (h) is available free of charge;

(j) the location of the certificate validity status services that can be used to enquire the validity status of the qualified certificate.

Publicado el borrador de reglamento comunitario para hacer posible la firma electrónica transfronteriza


La Comisión Europea prepara nuevas normas para facilitar las transacciones electrónicas transfronterizas seguras en Europa. El Reglamento cuyo borrador acaba de publicar, garantizará que las personas y las empresas puedan usar sus propios sistemas de identificación electrónica nacionales en otros países de la UE en que exista la identificación electrónica. También crea un mercado único de la firma electrónica y los servicios de confianza en línea afines más allá de las fronteras, asegurando que esos servicios funcionan a través de las fronteras y gozan del mismo estatuto jurídico que los trámites tradicionales en papel.

Así se dará pleno efecto a los posibles ahorros propiciados por la contratación electrónica. La propuesta respeta totalmente los sistemas de identificación nacionales, así como las preferencias de los Estados miembros que no tienen sistemas nacionales de identificación. Permite a los países con sistemas de identificación electrónica optar por quedar fuera del sistema paneuropeo. Si un Estado miembro notifica que desea sumarse a este sistema paneuropeo, debe ofrecer el mismo acceso a los servicios públicos mediante la identificación electrónica que a sus propios ciudadanos.

Neelie Kroes, Vicepresidenta de la Comisión Europea, ha declarado lo siguiente:

«Las personas y las empresas deberían poder realizar transacciones dentro de un mercado único digital sin fronteras, lo que constituye el valor de Internet. La seguridad jurídica y la confianza son esenciales, por lo que resultan necesarios un Reglamento sobre la firma electrónica y la identificación electrónica más amplio. Esta propuesta supondrá que se podrá aprovechar mejor la identificación electrónica de cada uno, si se tiene. Gracias al reconocimiento recíproco de las identificaciones electrónicas nacionales y a unas normas comunes sobre los servicios de confianza y la firma electrónica, podremos prevenir unas divisorias nacionales de Internet y de los servicios públicos en línea y facilitar la vida a millones de empresas y a un número aún mayor de ciudadanos».

El Reglamento propuesto:

  • No obligará a los Estados miembros de la UE a introducir documentos nacionales de identidad, tarjetas de identidad electrónicas u otras soluciones de identificación electrónica, ni tampoco a los particulares a obtenerlos
  • No introducirá una identificación electrónica europea ni ninguna clase de base de datos europea
  • No facilitará ni exigirá compartir información personal con otras partes.

Los principales beneficiarios de los diversos aspectos del Reglamento serán los siguientes:

  • Los estudiantes, que podrán matricularse en una universidad extranjera en línea, sin tener que viajar fuera para cumplimentar los papeles en persona.
  • Los ciudadanos que preparen su mudanza a otro país de la UE, una boda en el extranjero o múltiples declaraciones fiscales.
  • Los pacientes que requieran asistencia médica en el extranjero podrán controlar o autorizar de forma segura a un médico para que acceda a su historial médico en línea.
  • Las empresas podrán presentar ofertas en línea para contratos públicos en línea en cualquier lugar de la UE. Podrán firmar y sellar sus ofertas, además de indicar su fecha y hora, por vía electrónica en lugar de imprimir y enviar múltiples copias en papel de las ofertas mediante servicios de mensajería.
  • Las personas que deseen hacer negocios en otro país de la UE podrán crear empresas a través de Internet y presentar informes anuales en línea, todo ello con facilidad.
  • Las administraciones podrán reducir las cargas administrativas y aumentar la eficiencia, con lo que ofrecerán un mejor servicio a sus ciudadanos y ahorrarán dinero a los contribuyentes.

Antecedentes

Los dos elementos del Reglamento (la identificación electrónica y la firma electrónica) darán lugar a un entorno regulador previsible al efecto de unas interacciones electrónicas seguras y sin soluciones de continuidad entre las empresas, los ciudadanos y los poderes públicos. Esto aumentará la eficacia de los servicios en línea tanto del sector público como del privado, el negocio electrónico y el comercio electrónico en la UE.

El planteamiento sobre la firma electrónica, que se basa en que la Directiva sobre la firma electrónica vigente (Directiva 1999/93/CE), ha propiciado cierto grado de armonización de las prácticas en Europa, aunque no el suficiente.

Todos los países de la UE tienen marcos jurídicos en materia de firma electrónica, aunque esos marcos son distintos y hacen imposible en la práctica realizar transacciones electrónicas transfronterizas. Lo mismo puede decirse de servicios de confianza como lo sellos de tiempo,  los sellos electrónicos de empresa y la autenticación de sitios de Internet, que carecen de interoperabilidad europea. Por lo tanto, este Reglamento propone unas normas y prácticas comunes para esos servicios.

Seminario «Adaptación a los cambios de la Ley de Sociedades de Capital» – Gestión Societaria Electrónica


Logo Atenea InteractivaAtenea Interactiva organiza un seminario que resuelve dudas técnicas y jurídicas de administradores de sociedades y de especialistas en relación con los accionistas, respecto a los nuevos requisitos de servicios electrónicos en relación con las Juntas de Accionistas, introducidos en la Ley de Sociedades de Capital.

A lo largo de los 3 últimos años, la normativa de Sociedades de Capital ha sufrido repetidos cambios orientados a aumentar la relación electrónica entre las Sociedades y sus accionistas o partícipes.

En algunos casos, cuando las empresas cotizan en bolsa, las nuevas obligaciones incluyen la creación de un Foro Electrónico de Accionistas que permita la toma de contacto entre accionistas previa a la Junta e incluso promover propuestas que se traten en ella.

La normativa comunitaria de necesario traslado al ordenamiento jurídico español promueve entre otras cosas la participación transfronteriza de los accionistas en las empresas en las que invierten, lo que incluye la posibilidad de retransmitir la Junta de forma online y de proporcionar medios de participación en ella que puedan ser utilizables a distancia. De entre estos, destaca el uso del Voto Electrónico, que parece estar entre las preferencias del legislador.

El Voto Electrónico ya existe como opción en la normativa societaria en España desde el año 2003 y muchas sociedades adaptaron sus estatutos entre el año 2004 y el año 2005 para dar cobertura a esta previsión legal. Desgraciadamente, la filosofía de copiar artículos de estatutos y convocatorias de Juntas, típica entre Sociedades cotizadas, ha llevado a la generalización de modelos de gestión de identidades en relación con la participación a distancia (y singularmente el voto electrónico) que arrastra errores de concepto desde las primeras implementaciones.

En un país tan avanzado en términos de gestión de identidades como España, que cuenta además con más de 25 millones de DNIs electrónicos, sorprende la baja calidad en la redacción de estatutos y convocatorias en relación con el voto electrónico y los certificados electrónicos admitidos.

Desde agosto de 2011 la normativa societaria cuenta con el nuevo concepto de “Sede Electrónica” que permite desarrollar entre otros aspectos, el de la Publicación Fehaciente de acuerdos, convocatorias y otros documentos de interés para el accionista, sin requerir de la publicación de anuncios en periódicos de alcance regional o nacional. Este concepto ha vuelto a desaparecer en marzo de 2012 retornando al concepto de página web de la Sociedad, pero con la exigencia de la autenticidad de los documentos publicados en ella.

Este cambiante marco jurídico exige ciertas medidas tecnológicas que permitan al consejo certificar el cumplimiento de las obligaciones societarias adoptando algún mecanismo que garantice la fehaciencia de las declaraciones del órgano de administración.

Todos estos retos plantean dudas a los departamentos de Relación con el Accionista de las Sociedades, a los Secretarios de Consejo, a los Presidentes, a muchos Consejeros, a Accionistas mayoritarios y minoritarios, e incluso a notarios y registradores.

Por ello Atenea Interactiva ha definido un seminario que ayuda a gestionar adecuadamente los medios TIC (Tecnologías de la Información y las Telecomunicaciones) en el marco de la gestión societaria, lo que se denomina «Gestión Societaria Electrónica» o «Gestión Societaria Digital» . En una sesión se tratarán todos los servicios electrónicos de relación con los accionistas que pueden implantar tanto las sociedades cotizadas como el resto de sociedades de capital (anónimas y limitadas), de forma que sean capaces de redactar estatutos, convocatorias, reglamentos relacionados con estas actividades (foro electrónico de accionistas, voto y participación a distancia) de forma coherente y sensata e implementar estos servicios sin incurrir en elevados dispendios.

La asistencia a este evento ayuda a aclarar conceptos, y, además, por las características de los asistentes es un buen contexto para intercambiar experiencias y anécdotas.

Este es el resumen de los temas que se tratarán:

  1. Resumen de las principales normativas relacionadas con la Gestión Electrónica Societaria
  2. Resumen de los sistemas de acreditación de la identidad a distancia.
  • Sistemas de certificación y firma electrónica.
  • Firma avanzada y cualificada.
  • Prestadores de Servicios de Certificación
  1. Identificación de la cualidad de accionista en el caso de acciones nominativas y al portador.
  • Fichero X25 de Iberclear
  1. La evolución del concepto de Sede Electrónica Societaria y página web de la Sociedad.
  2. Notificación fehaciente.
  3. Publicación Fehaciente de Convocatorias de Juntas de Accionistas en página web.
  4. El foro electrónico de accionistas
  5. El voto electrónico en Juntas y en Consejos.
  • La delegación electrónica de voto
  1. Aspectos cuya implantación es recomendable u obligatoria.
  2. Orientaciones para la redacción de Estatutos, Convocatorias y Reglamentos en relación con el Foro Electrónico de Accionistas y el Sistema de Voto Electrónico.
  3. Coloquio: comentarios y experiencias

Cambios legales recientes:

Firma electrónica con el DNI electrónico en BlackBerry


El Mobile World Congress (MWC) acaba de cerrar sus puertas, tras cuatro días en los que Barcelona se convirtió en la capital del mundo de la movilidad. Según cifras de la organización, 67.000 visitantes de 205 países visitaron el evento.

Albalia ha estado presente, anunciando su solución de firma electrónica en dispositivos BlackBerry, mediante el DNI electrónico gracias al dispositivo SCR (Smart Card Reader) de RIM.

La aplicación de firma electrónica genera firmas XAdES-XL (y otras variantes de la norma TS 101 903) y en el caso del ejemplo que se muestra en el siguiente video, permite firmas de facturas electrónicas codificadas en formato facturae.

.

.

Pido disculpas por la calidad del vídeo, ya que ha sido una grabación improvisada. Próximamente prepararemos uno mejor

El desarrollo se ha realizado con total fidelidad a los criterios definidos en los perfiles del protección  (los requisitos que especifican una solución de seguridad, en este caso de creación y verificación de firma electrónica) del DNI electrónico en el marco de la certificación Common Criteria.

El desarrollo acometido es uno más entre la serie de dispositivos para los que ha desarrollado drivers de DNIe Albalia Interactiva. De esta forma Albalia Interactiva se consolida como la entidad que ha logrado implementar drivers de DNIe y sistemas de firmas en más plataformas: Móviles con Windows CE, Kioskos de Autoservicio, Cajeros Automáticos, Set Top Boxes de TDT interactiva, Smartphones con BlackBerry OS, entornos Linux con Tomcat y Websphere, entornos .net, entornos VSTO (extensiones de Office),  entornos Mainframe (zLinux y z/OS).

Otros artículos relacionados:

Hardware as a Service


Desde hace unos años EADTrust proporciona servicios DSS en modalidad SaaS (Software as a Service), o computación en la nube (Cloud Trust Services), actividad en la que ha sido pionera. Uno de los servicios prestados era el de sello de tiempo mediante el DSS Time-stamp profile, junto al más habitual servicio basado en el RFC 3161 .

El servicio funciona muy bien en usos esporádico de gestión de sellos de tiempo (por ejemplo, en el marco de la generación de firmas CAdES-XL y XAdES-XL en programas de escritorio), pero las entidades que hacen un uso intensivo del sellado de tiempo demandaron ya hace algo más de 2 años el suministro de hardware específico, instalado en sus centros de proceso de datos (equipos denominados TSU, time Stamping Unit), para disminuir la latencia de la red y manejar picos de transacciones con mejores garantías de disponibilidad. Aquellas TSU fueron las primeras unidades que concretaron el concepto de Hardware as a Service dentro de los servicios de EADTrust: Equipos desplegados en las instalaciones de los clientes pero gestionados bajo la responsabilidad del PSC (Prestador de Servicios de Certificación), en este caso la sección de TSA (Time Stamping Authority). 

Ahora, el resto de los servicios de OASIS Digital Signature Services (DSS) de EADTrust están también disponibles en modalidad DSSU (Digital Signature Services Unit), como equipamiento en las instalaciones de grandes consumidores de servicios de confianza, con funciones como VSU (Validation Service Unit), DSU (Digital Signature Unit) o EEMU (Electronic Evidence Management Unit). Ya es posible instalar una o más unidades de este tipo por centro de proceso de datos, con las ventajas de ser servicios gestionados de muy bajo impacto en la gestión de infraestructura de la entidad. Y con la ventaja de no tener que invertir en la adquisición de equipamiento y licencias, ya que se paga mediante reducidas cuotas mensuales, como corresponde a la filosofía de servicio.

Y sin riesgo de obsolescencia, ya que el prestador va renovando los equipos según evoluciona la tecnología, sin que la entidad usuaria deba preocuparse de nada.

Normas técnicas relativas a la firma electrónica


En el marco de ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) se han desarrollado diferentes normas técnicas relacionadas con la firma electrónica que conviene conocer.

Las incluyo en la siguiente tabla:

Standard Título del Standard
TS 101 733 CMS Advanced Electronic Signatures (CAdES)
TS 102 734 Profiles of CMS Advanced Electronic Signatures based on TS 101 733 (CAdES)
TS 101 903 XML Advanced Electronic Signatures (XAdES)
TS 102 904 Profiles of XML Advanced Electronic Signatures based on TS 101 903 (XAdES)
TS 102 778-1 PDF Advanced Electronic Signature Profiles;
Part 1: PAdES Overview – a framework document for PAdES
TS 102 778-2 PDF Advanced Electronic Signature Profiles;
Part 2: PAdES Basic – Profile based on ISO 32000-1
TS 102 778-3 PDF Advanced Electronic Signature Profiles;
Part 3: PAdES Enhanced – PAdES-BES and PAdES-EPES Profiles
TS 102 778-4 PDF Advanced Electronic Signature Profiles;
Part 4: PAdES Long Term – PAdES LTV Profile
TS 102 778-5 PDF Advanced Electronic Signature Profiles;
Part 5: PAdES for XML Content – Profiles for XAdES signatures
TR 102 047 International Harmonization of Electronic Signature Formats
TR 102 438 Application of Electronic Signature Standards in Europe
TR 102 605 Registered E-Mail
TS 102 640-1 Registered Electronic Mail (REM); Architecture, Formats and Policies;
Part 1: Architecture
TS 102 640-2 Registered Electronic Mail (REM); Architecture, Formats and Policies;
Part 2: Data Requirements and Formats for Signed Evidences for REM
TS 102 640-3 Registered Electronic Mail (REM); Architecture, Formats and Policies;
Part 3: Information Security Policy Requirements for REM Management Domains
TS 102 231 Provision of harmonized Trust-service status information
TS 101 861 Time stamping profile
TS 101 862 Qualified Certificate profile
TR 102 272 ASN.1 format for signature policies
TS 102 280 X.509 V.3 Certificate Profile for Certificates Issued to Natural Persons
TS 101 456 Policy requirements for certification authorities issuing qualified certificates
TR 102 437 Guidance on TS 101 456 (Policy Requirements for certification authorities issuing qualified certificates)
TR 102 458 Mapping Comparison Matrix between the US Federal Bridge CA Certificate Policy and the European Qualified Certificate Policy (TS 101 456)
TS 102 023 Policy requirements for time-stamping authorities
TR 102 040 International Harmonization of Policy Requirements for CAs issuing Certificates
TS 102 042 Policy requirements for certification authorities issuing public key certificates
TS 102 158 Policy requirements for Certification Service Providers issuing attribute certificates usable with Qualified certificates
TR 102 572 Best Practices for handling electronic signatures and signed data for digital accounting
TS 102 573 Policy requirements for trust service providers signing and/or storing data for digital accounting
TS 102 176-1 Algorithms and Parameters for Secure Electronic Signatures;
Part 1: Hash functions and asymmetric algorithms
TS 102 176-2 Algorithms and Parameters for Secure Electronic Signatures;
Part 2: Secure channel protocols and algorithms for signature creation devices
 
 

El seguro obligatorio de los PSC


La Ley 59/2003, de 19 de diciembre, de firma electrónica establece en su artículo 20.2:

Los prestadores de servicios de certificación que expidan certificados reconocidos deberán constituir un seguro de responsabilidad civil por importe de al menos 3.000.000 de euros para afrontar el riesgo de la responsabilidad por los daños y perjuicios que pueda ocasionar el uso de los certificados que expidan.

La citada garantía podrá ser sustituida total o parcialmente por una garantía mediante aval bancario o seguro de caución, de manera que la suma de las cantidades aseguradas sea al menos de 3.000.000 de euros.

Las cuantías y los medios de aseguramiento y garantía establecidos en los dos párrafos anteriores podrán ser modificados mediante real decreto.

Este apartado, es una reminiscencia del existente en el derogado Real Decreto-ley 14/1999, de 17 de septiembre, sobre firma electrónica. (Vigente hasta el 20 de marzo de 2004) en su artículo 12.g:

Disponer de los recursos económicos suficientes para operar de conformidad con lo dispuesto en este Real Decreto-ley y, en particular, para afrontar el riesgo de la responsabilidad por daños y perjuicios. Para ello, habrán de garantizar su responsabilidad frente a los usuarios de sus servicios y terceros afectados por éstos. La garantía a constituir podrá consistir en un afianzamiento mercantil prestado por una entidad de crédito o en un seguro de caución.

Inicialmente, la garantía cubrirá, al menos, el 4 % de la suma de los importes limite de las transacciones en que puedan emplearse el conjunto de los certificados que emita cada prestador de servicios de certificación. Teniendo en cuenta la evolución del mercado, el Gobierno, por Real Decreto, podrá reducir el citado porcentaje, hasta el 2 %.

En caso de que no se limite el importe de las transacciones en las que puedan emplearse al conjunto de los certificados que emita el prestador de servicios de certificación, la garantía a constituir, cubrirá, al menos, su responsabilidad por un importe de 1.000.000.000 de pesetas (6.010.121,04 euros). El Gobierno, por Real Decreto, podrá modificar el referido importe.

Ambas consideraciones proceden de la Directiva 1999/93/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de 13 de diciembre de 1999 por la que se establece un marco común para la firma electrónica, en particular del apartado h de su Anexo II:

disponer de recursos económicos suficientes para operar de conformidad con lo dispuesto en la presente Directiva, en particular para afrontar el riesgo de responsabilidad por daños y perjuicios, por ejemplo contratando un seguro apropiado;

Está clara la desproporción entre lo exigido en la Directiva y lo reflejado en ambas normas españolas.

Por otro lado, ni el aval ni el seguro de caución son instrumentos adecuados para  afrontar el riesgo de responsabilidad por daños y perjuicios, ya que exigen designar un beneficiario (no se me ocurre otro que el MITyC, pero de ser así debería indicarse explícitamente) y la ejecución del aval o de la caución implica la recaudación de la cuantía total a favor del beneficiario, sin relación con el damnificado ni con el importe que suponga la compensación del daño.

Es curioso que, al parecer, nadie haya reflexionado sobre este tema y no se haya cambiado la redacción de la norma desde 1999.

También es curioso que ninguna aseguradora española cuente con este servcicio. Durante el año 2003 y 2004, en la época en la que estaba en Camerfirma, solicité por escrito a todas las aseguradoras españolas censadas en la Dirección General de Seguros y Fondos de Pensiones una cotización por el seguro obligatorio indicado en la Ley 59/2003. Muchas no contestaron. Las que lo hicieron indicaron que no contaban con ese tipo de seguro.

Al solicitar a la Dirección General de Seguros y Fondos de Pensiones la identificación de una aseguradora que prestara este tipo de seguros, contestaron indicando que pudiera no ser necesario al existir otras vías de cumlimiento del mandato legal (los ya mencionados aval y seguro de caución, que, como he indicado, realmente no sirven para el fin dictado por la Directiva). 

Ya expliqué hace unos años, en el artículo   (y en el relacionado con este,  ) que la solución es acudir a una aseguradora extranjera.

En todo caso, ya va siendo hora de modificar la norma y dejar el artículo 20.2 de Ley 59/2003, de 19 de diciembre, de firma electrónica con una redacción más adecuada:

Los prestadores de servicios de certificación que expidan certificados reconocidos deberán constituir un seguro de responsabilidad civil adecuado para afrontar el riesgo de la responsabilidad por los daños y perjuicios que pueda ocasionar el uso de los certificados que expidan. Alternativamente, deberán elaborar una valoración actuarial que justifique que pueden responder por sus propios medios ante culquier incidente que afecte a su actividad de prestador de servicios de certificación, indicando el análisis de riesgos efectuado. La documentación que recoja esta valoración se comunicará al Ministerio de igual forma que la especificada en el artículo 30 apartado 2.

En caso de que se contrate el seguro, al no indicarse una cuantía concreta, el coste de la prima se ajustará al análisis actuarial que realice la entidad aseguradora, y será, por tanto, más barato.

Por otro lado, los PSC que expiden certificados reconocidos, deberían identificar en su web el seguro que han contratado y la forma de realizar reclamaciones, tanto por parte de los titulares de los certificados como por parte de los terceros que confían en los certificados. Es un requisito legal de la Directiva y de la Ley de Firma Electrónica que muy pocos prestadores de servicios de certificación cumplen.

Otros artículos relacionados:

Firma electrónica en EDITRAN, Pelican, SwiftNet


Aunque las versiones de PC de EDITRAN permiten desde hace varios años generar y comprobar firmas PKCS#7 (la forma primitiva de las firmas CMS avanzadas que hoy en dia se extienden desde la CAdES-BES hasta la CAdES-A), en la actualidad los estándares de firma electrónica han evolucionado y se han consolidado especialmente en torno a las especificaciones CAdES y XAdES, y no existe soporte del fabricante de EDITRAN para estos tipos de firma.

Esto lo vemos en Albalia como una oportunidad para nuestras soluciones de firma electrónica multiplataforma (BackTrust)  que funcionan en entornos Mainframe (zLinux y z/OS, con soporte de la última versión de la arquitectura de IBM: zEnterprise), en entornos Solaris, HP-UX, AIX y diferentes variantes de Linux y BSD en diferentes plataformas, en entornos Windows Server (con una implementación .net nativa, o con un porting java, a aelegir por el cliente).

Efectivamente, sea cual sea la versión del sistema de intercambio de ficheros (ftp, sftp, ftps, EDITRAN, Pelican /Inter.Pel / XFB / CFT, SwiftNet-FileAct) o de los sistemas de mensajería (MQ-Series, SwiftNet-InterAct), la gestión multiplataforma de la firma electrónica avanzada (AdES) se resuelve mejor con la versión de BackTrust apropiada.

Además, la posibilidad de utilizar protocolos como OASIS DSS, APIs (Aplication program Interface) y Wrappers, permite gestionar las firmas electrónicas desde diferentes lenguajes de programación.

Otros artículos relacionados:

CAdES y XAdES en los ficheros de la TGSS


Las entidades que utilizan EDITRAN y que reciben ficheros de la TGSS (Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social) ya tienen la posibilidad de comprobarlos cuando están firmados en base a los formatos CAdES (TS 101 733) y XAdES (TS 101 903).

La solución zBackTrust es la adecuada para implementaciones en Mainframe IBM, la solución BackTrust se instala en sistemas medios y el appliance xBackTrust permite un depliegue rápido.

Además los servicios de Albalia permiten resolver rápidamente los retos de despliegue. Todo ello con la garantía de INSA e IBM.

Conviene valorar si en la entidad financiera existen dispositivos HSM (Hardware Security Module) porque en ese caso, pueden reprovecharse, para uniformizar la gestión de claves, certificados y firmas electrónicas.

Internet y transparencia empresarial.Eficiencia del mercado y buen gobierno societario


Internet y transparencia empresarial.
Eficiencia del mercado y buen gobierno societario

Autor: Javier W. Ibáñez Jiménez

Este artículo fue publicado en la Revista TELOS de la Fundación Telefónica  en el número de enero-marzo 2006 y corresponde a la Ponencia presentada en la Universidad Internacional de Andalucía (Sede Antonio Machado), Seminario «Internet y transparencia empresarial» (VI Foro José de la Vega–DIEM sobre transparencia y responsabilidad social corporativa) a finales de 2004. Figura también como autor el coordinador de las ponencias, el  profesor Ibáñez Jiménez. Las referencias legislativas han cambiado y en la actualidad (2011) la legislación vigente recoge la mayor parte de los aspectos que se vaticinaban en este artículo, especialmente tras el Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2010, de 2 de julio, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de Sociedades de Capital.

El presente artículo se plantea las posibles contribuciones de la Red Internet a la transparencia empresarial. Asimismo, su autor se detiene a reflexionar acerca de los nuevos problemas y contradicciones agrupados en torno al ejercicio de los derechos políticos o de participación en la vida del accionista
This article considers the possible contributions of Internet to corporate transparency. Its author pauses to reflect on the new problems and contradictions associated with the exercise of political rights and that of shareholder participation.

La implantación social de las nuevas herramientas tecnológicas de comunicación cobra toda su fuerza en el terreno de la comunicación corporativa, tanto interna como externa

Internet facilitaría la comunicación ordinaria entre accionistas, y, para las juntas generales, la elaboración de campañas electorales previas

La duplicidad entre conectados y desconectados genera a su vez sus propios costes y problemas, por la asimetría informativa implícita en el dual uso de las instituciones

Internet ha sido el vehículo seleccionado tanto para publicar el informe de gobierno corporativo anual, como para posibilitar el derecho general de información del accionista

El ejercicio del derecho de información alcanza a una dimensión activa, superadora del ámbito pasivo de la recepción de datos

Bankinter usó en sus últimas cuatro juntas generales de accionistas el voto electrónico

Un gobierno más eficiente de las sociedades pasa por la informatización de sus mecanismos de comunicación intraorgánica e interorgánica

Las grandes corporaciones caminan irreversiblemente hacia su democratización, con el acicate de la desmaterialización de los soportes comunicativos

Gobiernos, legisladores, sociedades cotizadas e inversores parecen asumir en los últimos años, sigilosa pero acaso irreversiblemente, el reemplazo del paradigma clásico de la empresa como organización creadora de valor para sus dueños, los accionistas, por una visión de las empresas (corporaciones, en la terminología angloamericana, bien distinta de nuestra tradición jurídica, donde el vocablo se reserva a entes públicos) como núcleos originarios de generación de valor (económico) uti universi.

El nuevo paradigma considera que la empresa, además de desempeñar una función primaria de atención o subvención a las necesidades de crecimiento económico de sus socios o propietarios, también cumple, por sus relaciones múltiples con la comunidad social, una función complementaria de atención a las necesidades de crecimiento o expansión social, de promoción del bienestar social, considerado en sus multiformes vertientes.

De ahí que quienes esto sostienen, propugnando la necesidad de depurar una cierta responsabilidad social corporativa o empresarial frente a la sociedad en su conjunto, amplíen ilimitadamente el círculo de personas capaces de exigir esa responsabilidad, hasta coincidir con el propio espectro social, más allá de los dueños de la empresa (accionistas), sus acreedores, o los mercados donde operan, en su caso, de forma organizada (inversores, intermediarios, supervisor de mercado).

La extensión del precitado círculo entiende como potenciales beneficiarios (o, en su caso, damnificados) de la actuación empresarial a la ciudadanía lato sensu (global, si la empresa es multinacional); a la comunidad política nacional y local de la sede donde opera; a las Administraciones territoriales e institucionales que a dicha comunidad representan; también, singularmente, al conjunto de competidores en el mercado de la empresa, a sus proveedores y suministradores, a sus clientes y a otros centros sociales de poder fáctico y comunicador, desde los movimientos sindicales, ONG y lobbies mediáticos, hasta las asociaciones y fundaciones de varia función y orientación social, con tal de que operen como actores sociales de manera significativa.

Bajo esa nueva creencia, o cuando menos apariencia, del acervo colectivo de Occidente, que considera a empresarios y negocios como agentes indeclinablemente comprometidos con el desarrollo sostenible, o por decirlo con el modismo al uso, socialmente responsables, las organizaciones, en particular las que asumen formas corporativas societarias, van concretando ese compromiso en sistemas y modalidades eficientes y, en ocasiones, innovadores, de actuación gerencial. Y, asimismo, en estructuras internas progresivamente más transparentes, capaces de comunicar el estilo y el contenido de las actuaciones directivas a la comunidad social.

La llamada Sociedad de la Información no es, ni puede ser, ajena al fenómeno descrito. La implantación social de las nuevas herramientas tecnológicas de comunicación cobra toda su fuerza en el terreno de la comunicación corporativa, tanto interna, entre administradores, directivos y trabajadores, como externa, con los agentes públicos y privados. En la medida en que las herramientas aludidas se componen de sistemas de teletransmisión de datos, la comunicación corporativa que encuentra cauce a través de las mismas podrá denominarse cibercomunicación societaria, no exenta de los riesgos genéricos que asumen los usuarios de la comunicación telemática, incluidos los riesgos legales inherentes a la imposible asimilación por los jueces de los cambios en los sistemas de comunicación, o a la falta de globalización jurisdiccional (nota 1).

No puede ponerse en duda que, si lo que intenta este cúmulo de técnicas de transporte de datos en tiempo real, y particularmente el uso de la red Internet, es propiciar en todos los ámbitos una mejor comunicación corporativa (con el propósito último de fortalecer la transparencia, en aras del eficiente funcionamiento de los órganos sociales, del proceso de creación de valor, y del control por la propiedad de la empresa de aquel funcionamiento y de este proceso), las aplicaciones informáticas y el empleo generalizado de la propia red Internet como vehículo de comunicación masiva cobran ahora, y cobrarán en lo sucesivo, un protagonismo decisivo e irreversible, favorecedor, en primera instancia, de un gobierno corporativo más sólido, por el lado de la gestión; y, de parte de la propiedad de la empresa, de una nueva democracia participativa del accionariado en las grandes decisiones adoptadas por quienes administran su patrimonio mobiliario (nota 2).

Un tipo nuevo y singular de democracia corporativa que bien cabría calificar como la ciberdemocracia del accionariado, constitutiva de una auténtica revolución de poder en el seno de las sociedades: el accionista minoritario, pequeño o desinteresado del control de las participaciones significativas de la sociedad (que no de la gestión social), comunicado eficientemente por herramientas ágiles con otros miles o millones para la salvaguarda de sus específicos intereses, podrá organizarse en asociaciones, generalmente con el apoyo de inversores institucionales (fondos de inversión, bancos, otras sociedades), salvando las barreras de distancia física que le impedían tradicionalmente votar en junta general, delegar en otro accionista, criticar o rechazar las decisiones del Consejo de Administración traducidas en propuestas del orden del día de la propia junta, orden impuesto de hecho al accionariado minoritario por los administradores y directivos (nota 3).

Empleando los mecanismos cibernéticos de comunicación para el cruce de datos entre socios y los de éstos con la sociedad, el sentido originario de la propiedad de una acción podría recobrarse prácticamente en su integridad, retornando en buena medida su significación primigenia de poder de disposición; no tanto de poder de enajenación sobre el título, que ha permanecido casi incólume hasta nuestros días, sino, sobre todo, de poder de control de gestión o control de decisión sobre el destino o aplicación de los fondos arriesgados en la empresa, cuestión crucial del derecho de sociedades contemporáneo y aspiración legítima común de los sistemas modernos de administración y dirección última de los negocios conocidos por best governance practices.

Y el gobierno de las sociedades, a su estado originario de servicio a los intereses del accionariado en su conjunto, aunque éste esté disperso en Bolsa. Naturalmente, la mayor responsabilidad que acecha a los administradores actualmente deberá ser compensada de forma justa; a mayores exigencias y riesgos, habrán de corresponder superiores rendimientos, o de lo contrario se resentirá la calidad de la gestión.

Pero, por otro lado, es cabal pensar que la gestión y su control mejorarán, constituyéndose esas acrecentadas exigencias y responsabilidades, derivadas del fortalecido control del accionista, en revulsivo inicial, y a la postre en signo y prueba, de un buen gobierno corporativo (el que maximiza el valor de la empresa commodis omnium), y en su caso, de una remodelación depuradora de los equipos directivos y de administración. Las grandes sociedades precisan de gobernantes eficientes, no sólo en interés de los inversores, sino de los propios mercados, tanto de capitales como de los bienes y servicios reales que aquéllas generan.

Posibles contribuciones de Internet a la transparencia corporativa

En particular, el uso de Internet, del correo electrónico, de la firma digital y otras herramientas tecnológicas disponibles por las grandes corporaciones, ha arrancado en España, como en otros países de nuestro entorno, con pertrecho legal consistente (nuevos artículos 116 y 117 de la Ley del Mercado de Valores (LMV), introducidos en julio de 2003 por la Ley para la Transparencia de las sociedades cotizadas, y desarrollados por Circular 1/2004 de la Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores) (nota 4).

¿Qué posibilidades brinda la técnica en este campo? Casi ilimitadas. Veamos algunas de ellas:

  1. Mejor comunicación corporativa interna entre administradores (por ejemplo, vía ciberconsejos donde los consejeros puedan preparar el orden del día e informarse a distancia, e incluso votar y confirmar sus votos telemáticamente en línea), redundante en un mejor sistema de gobierno corporativo y, por consiguiente, en un fortalecimiento del interés social.
  2. Más fluida y frecuente comunicación entre accionistas; tanto entre los mayoritarios o de control y los minoritarios, en aras del interés social, como entre minoritarios, quienes podrían organizarse para preparar eventuales acuerdos en junta general contrarios o confrontados con el interés de los tenedores de participación significativa; para obstaculizar, diferir la aplicación o, incluso, impugnar eventuales acuerdos adoptados por la mayoría contra el interés social. Internet facilitaría la comunicación ordinaria entre accionistas, y, para las juntas generales, la elaboración de campañas electorales previas aglutinadoras de eventuales nuevas mayorías o participaciones significativas, coyunturales o estables.
  3. Una comunicación estable, eficiente (y pacificadora, en muchos casos), entre sociedad y socios, fundamentalmente por conducto de los administradores. Internet facilita extraordinariamente la comunicación corporativa entre la sociedad y el socio, ampliando las posibilidades de las juntas como vehículos efectivamente canalizadores de la voluntad real de los socios (nota 5). Sea vía ciberjuntas en las que se permita asistir y debatir al socio en tiempo real, a la par que se celebran las juntas presenciales clásicas (la junta virtual sin junta presencial no parece realista ni posible); sea recogiendo, antes o durante la junta, junto al voto presencial de los asistentes, el cibervoto o voto virtual también recogido, como modalidad lícita de voto a distancia, por Internet u otro cauce electrónico; sea incluyendo en el cómputo el voto delegado por vía telemática, o voto ciberdelegado (id est, e-proxies), que permite potenciar la figura de la representación en junta hasta el punto de servir de cauce para la expresión de la voluntad de millones de accionistas en poco tiempo, constituyéndose en eficaz vía de control de gobierno corporativo (nota 6).
  4. Una más sólida proyección externa de la sociedad. Internet y las cibercomunicaciones facilitan extraordinariamente la implementación, más allá de las obligaciones formales de información periódica corporativa, que en todo caso constituyen mínimos imperativos irrenunciables para el accionista, de canales habituales de información recíproca integral entre sociedades emisoras, sus inversores, las Administraciones públicas (incluido el organismo de control de los mercados) y la sociedad en general (nota 7) . No en vano está proliferando el uso de Internet para cumplir no sólo la nueva normativa sobre transparencia de mercados, sino además para informar voluntariamente sobre medidas, parámetros, sistemas y contenidos de responsabilidad social corporativa (sirva de ejemplo la publicación periódica en Internet de informes voluntarios, medioambientales o sobre inversión socialmente responsable, más allá de las obligaciones de comunicación legalmente impuestas).

La nueva regulación sobre e-transparencia y algunos de sus problemas, paradojas y contradicciones

En las sociedades anónimas, las relaciones entre los socios y la sociedad se modelan en buena medida dependiendo de la configuración positiva del estatuto del socio en cuanto posición jurídica que ostenta éste en el contrato de sociedad, y que le vincula con la persona jurídica y con sus órganos (junta y consejo).

Tradicionalmente, los socios disponen de un elenco de derechos ejercitables frente a la sociedad que caracterizan su estatuto, entre los cuales, si tradicionalmente en la gran sociedad cotizada contaban con una superior consideración subjetiva los denominados de orden económico (derecho al dividendo, derecho de enajenación, derecho de suscripción preferente de nuevas acciones, derecho de asignación, derechos de conversión de valores, entre otros), hoy la balanza de las preferencias parece inclinarse por los de orden político (asistencia, representación y voto en junta general, impugnación de acuerdos sociales, información sobre las vicisitudes que presenta la vida social, por citar algunos de los más característicos del régimen societario en los países de nuestro entorno jurídico), merced sobre todo al nuevo paradigma societario de la transparencia informativa, defendido abiertamente por nuestro legislador en la Ley de Transparencia de 2003, cuyo destinatario son las grandes sociedades cotizadas.

La nueva regulación propiciatoria de la transparencia, en su vertiente societaria, presenta un problema general: es innovadora, y por tanto topa con las rémoras de un ordenamiento jurídico pensado para un mundo documental sobre soporte papel. No se trata simplemente de ampliar el marco jurídico y extender las reglas preexistentes al caso de la cibercomunicación. Ésta, paradójicamente, plantea problemas nuevos de seguridad jurídica, y de asimetría. Para empezar, no todos los socios tienen capacidad económica y/o voluntad de comunicarse por estas vías. Ni la sociedad podría obligar a ello al socio; lo cual genera duplicidad en el funcionamiento de las comunicaciones. Duplicidad que conlleva a su turno la coexistencia de dos regímenes legales, uno para el funcionamiento tradicional, y otro para el funcionamiento telemático, en cada institución societaria concernida (por ejemplo, sistema de representación para votar, preparación y funcionamiento de las sesiones de la junta general de accionistas). Y la duplicidad genera a su vez sus propios costes y problemas, por causa de la asimetría informativa implícita en el dual uso de las instituciones. Paradójicamente de nuevo, los costes, de no controlarse o relegarse suficientemente a su ámbito racional por el legislador, pueden generar nuevas ineficiencias, inutilizando las ventajas de la informatización.

Sirvan como muestra de los nuevos problemas y contradicciones algunos de los que, agrupados en torno al ejercicio de los derechos políticos o de participación en la vida social del accionista, presentamos sumariamente:

a) Derecho (societario) de información

Precisamente fue esta Ley de Transparencia, 26/2003, de 17 de julio, la que modificó los dos textos básicos reguladores de las sociedades cotizadas (Ley 24/1988, de 28 de julio, del Mercado de Valores, y el Texto Refundido de la Ley de Sociedades Anónimas, aprobado por Real Decreto Legislativo 1.564/1989, de 22 de diciembre) con el fin de reforzar la transparencia de las sociedades anónimas cotizadas, el cuerpo normativo que procura fomentar la disponibilidad de la información por parte de sus socios, en relación con los datos que éstos puedan conocer sobre su sociedad, con una doble función: por una parte, reforzar los niveles de transparencia exigibles a las entidades emisoras de valores admitidos a negociación en mercados secundarios oficiales, para una mayor eficiencia de los propios mercados y una mayor racionalidad en la toma de decisiones por inversores o compradores de títulos y desinversores o vendedores; por otra parte, perfeccionar las posibilidades de recto ejercicio del derecho a informarse sobre la vida social que corresponde, como una extensión natural del derecho de propiedad, a todos los tenedores legítimos de las acciones representativas del capital.

Entre las medidas propiciatorias de la transparencia destacan, en el ámbito que ahora nos ocupa, la obligación que se impone a las sociedades de presentar un informe anual de gobierno corporativo, por una parte; por otra, la obligación de que las sociedades anónimas cotizadas cuenten con una página web para atender el ejercicio del derecho de información de los accionistas (nota 8).

La generalidad y profusión de los datos servidos en dicho informe anual bastarían por sí solos para enjuiciar la obligatoriedad de su confección y publicidad por parte de las sociedades como medida extraordinariamente benéfica para mejorar el ejercicio y aun el contenido real del derecho de información del accionista. Máxime cuando la normativa de desarrollo (por ejemplo, art. 2.a Circular CNMV 1/2004 (nota 9) ) obliga a clarificar el contenido de cada uno de los datos sobre los que es preciso informar, redundando para desembocar en una suerte de sobreabundante transparencia de la transparencia, esto es, en una clarificación sistemática y plena de datos ya de suyo exhaustivos, orientados a dar la mejor información posible.

Pues bien: Internet ha sido el vehículo seleccionado tanto para publicar el informe de gobierno corporativo anual, obligatorio para las sociedades cotizadas, como para, en general, posibilitar el encauzamiento eficiente del derecho general de información del accionista en cuanto accionista, y particularmente cara al conocimiento de los asuntos sociales que se ventilan en junta general (artículo 112 LMV), y no tanto (que también) en cuanto inversor en el mercado de valores.

Una vez que el órgano de administración de la entidad emisora de éstos apruebe el informe anual de gobierno corporativo lo ha de comunicar a la CNMV como hecho relevante (art. 82 LMV y Norma 4.a de la precitada Circular) en la medida en que su contenido puede incidir en el juicio de los inversores, y por tanto, en las cotizaciones futuras. La sociedad debe remitir dicho informe precisamente por vía telemática, pero no Internet, sino la vía especial del sistema Cifradoc/CNMV u otro análogo que determine la propia Comisión Nacional, la cual lo publicará a su vez como hecho relevante, esta vez sí vía Internet, en la página web del organismo supervisor. Mas, por otra parte, e incurriendo ciertamente en duplicidad publicitaria, las sociedades han de publicar en su propia website el mismo informe anual. Y además han de hacerlo, según la normativa de la CNMV, inmediatamente después de recibido por la entidad el mensaje de incorporación correcta del informe en la CNMV; de este modo, cuando la sociedad conoce que la CNMV ha recibido el informe correctamente, y que por tanto va a ser comunicado a los inversores, ella misma debe ponerlo a disposición de los accionistas a través, entre otros medios, de la página web de la entidad.

Con todo, la indicada duplicidad informativa parece hasta cierto punto justificable: el objetivo de la publicidad telemática del informe de gobierno corporativo, en la Ley del Mercado de Valores, es la toma racional de decisiones por los inversores; el objetivo de la publicidad telemática de dicho informe, en cambio, desde la perspectiva de la Ley de Sociedades Anónimas, es la información correcta del propietario de los valores, el accionista, por más que éste sea, a un tiempo, necesariamente, inversor del mercado. Cosa que a la inversa no sucede: el destinatario natural de la página de Internet de la CNMV no tiene por qué ser, y no es de hecho, desde el punto de vista de la tutela legal, un inversor actual (socio), sino más bien el inversor potencial, o el inversor pretérito, o, en suma, quien puede operar u opera en el mercado de capitales, donde los bienes jurídicos protegidos son la eficiencia, así como la integridad, del mercado mismo.

En modo alguno es casual que el legislador haya decidido no posponer la difusión del informe anual de gobierno corporativo como hecho relevante allende el día en que se publique el primer anuncio de la convocatoria de la junta general ordinaria o del órgano que resulte competente para aprobar las cuentas anuales de la entidad correspondientes al mismo ejercicio. De lo contrario, el socio no podría informarse adecuadamente del contenido del informe anual con vistas a preparar adecuadamente las juntas, ni los propios administradores enjuiciar y revisar el contenido del informe.

Ciertamente, la nueva legislación española sobre transparencia, incidente así en la modificación del derecho societario como en la del derecho del mercado de valores, promueve un ámbito extensísimo a favor de una mejora substancial de la información del accionista, y no sólo en el ámbito de la transparencia sobre la estructura de propiedad societaria y sobre el sistema de administración o facilitación del conocimiento de las reglas y medidas de buen gobierno corporativo (nuevo capítulo IV, titulado «de la información societaria», que precisamente es presidida por el informe anual de gobierno, expresión favorita del significado de la transparencia para nuestro legislador).

Puede afirmarse que, hoy, el derecho de información del accionista adquiere una dimensión objetiva totalizadora y globalizada que alcanza a cualquier asunto atinente a su interés como propietario; así lo prueba el tenor de preceptos recién introducidos en la LMV como el 117, cuyo párrafo 2 erige a Internet en vehículo por excelencia de comunicación corporativa bidireccional (sociedad-socio y socio-sociedad), y que impone este vehículo a la anónima cotizada y su órgano de administración no tanto ni sólo con una finalidad de cumplimiento normativo o cobertura de las exigencias legales en materia de transparencia, sino además y de forma destacada como vía para una justa y eficiente opción de ejercicio por parte del accionista de su derecho político y participativo fundamental de información.

En efecto, la página de Internet societaria se ha de disponer «para atender el ejercicio, por parte de los accionistas, del derecho de información», y no sólo para «difundir la información relevante» para las cotizaciones, difusión exigible a los administradores ex 82.5 LMV. El ejercicio del derecho de información alcanza a una dimensión activa, superadora del ámbito pasivo de la recepción de datos. Internet no está sólo para divulgar datos, sino para recibirlos. Sólo así cabe interpretar la expresión «atender el ejercicio del derecho de información» (117.2 LMV).

Esta dimensión activa es superadora de la tradicional circunscripción del derecho de información al ámbito preparatorio y de desenvolvimiento crítico de las juntas generales (art. 112 LSA), respecto de cuyo contenido típico (orden del día, preparado por los administradores) el socio puede recabar los datos precisos, pidiendo aclaraciones antes de terminar la semana anterior a su celebración. Este plazo puede y debe entenderse limitativo de los derechos de información del socio, en un entorno tecnológico donde los administradores podrían contestar hasta el instante anterior a la junta (nota 10).

Resulta criticable que la Ley de Transparencia no haya modificado la redacción del art. 112.1 extendiendo el deber de respuesta de los administradores hasta el día de la junta, exigible por los socios para el caso de las informaciones públicas facilitadas por la sociedad a la CNMV (típicamente, hechos relevantes) a las informaciones sobre el orden del día, cruciales para el debate en junta y para la orientación del sentido del voto. Como criticable parece el silencio legal sobre los mecanismos cibernéticos de respuesta, que obviamente inutilizarían el plazo semanal concedido a los administradores para elaborarla, en aras de la transparencia.

Igualmente habría bastado una referencia al correo electrónico o a la página web corporativa para inutilizar el plazo de respuesta de una semana posterior a la junta previsto para responder a las preguntas que durante la sesión formulen los socios y los administradores no sepan o no puedan responder (112.2, a salvo el derecho de éstos de invocar la excepción de secreto en interés social, siempre que los socios peticionarios no representen más del 25 por ciento del capital, caso en que primará la transparencia sobre el secreto, igualmente en interés social). Parece inadecuado, en fin, haber desperdiciado la ocasión de exigir, o al menos facilitar, el empleo de Internet o del correo electrónico para equiparar a las comunicaciones verbales de socios intervinientes durante la junta las que puedan formular a distancia los cibervotantes o los delegantes por vía telemática debidamente legitimados, en aras de un correcto ejercicio del derecho de información para todos los socios (cf. 112.2).

b) Derecho de voto

El eficiente ejercicio de este derecho involucra problemas jurídicos relativos al itinerario preparatorio de la junta general de accionistas, en particular la convocatoria, acto jurídico relacionado igualmente con el derecho de información (para votar rectamente hay que disponer de información completa en tiempo oportuno). Pero también, desde luego, concierne a otras cuestiones relacionadas propiamente con el desenvolvimiento de la propia junta: entre otras, con la legitimación para asistir a ésta, con la posibilidad de celebrar junta disponiendo de asistencia virtual o telemática de socios en coexistencia con la junta presencial clásica (ciberjunta, que sólo es propiamente tal si se carece de conexión física entre los votantes, lo que no sucede en caso de videoconferencia, pero sí en el de teleasistencia informática, ciberdebate o deliberación electrónica, y cibervoto habilitado por tiempo durante la sesión presencial), y con los problemas de implementación técnica del voto a distancia, en particular los referentes a los estándares de seguridad jurídica en la legitimación para votar (aseguramiento de la personalidad del votante y actualidad de la titularidad), en la transmisión y recepción válida de votos por la secretaría y la presidencia de la junta, y en el cómputo de los votos válidamente emitidos.

Según estudio publicado en 2003 por el IESE, Bankinter usó en sus últimas cuatro juntas generales de accionistas el voto electrónico; en 2002, el 98 por ciento de los socios que eran empleados emitió su voto telemáticamente; en total, lo hicieron 1.700 accionistas que eran clientes. Experiencias semejantes llevadas a cabo durante 2004 en las sociedades cotizadas cuyas juntas se han celebrado en el territorio español ponen de relieve las dificultades de implementación técnica y jurídica que plantea la consolidación y generalización del voto electrónico en las sociedades cotizadas.

Para superarlos, parece imprescindible adoptar las siguientes medidas:

  1. Una reconfiguración racional de las normas internas societarias: estatutos y reglamento de funcionamiento de la junta, que deben proveer los mecanismos necesarios para integrar el sistema tradicional de información y voto con los nuevos medios a distancia habilitados ya legalmente.
  2. La disposición efectiva de medios tecnológicos capaces de superar las barreras informativas existentes en la comunicación tradicional, con suficiente seguridad jurídica y a coste razonable, tanto para facilitar la asistencia, como para votar, como para computar el voto.
  3. Un análisis coste-beneficio que permita seleccionar sólo la tecnología eficiente en este terreno, esto es, la que satisfaga las exigencias del accionariado en el marco legal, pero a un coste razonable para la sociedad y sin perjudicar la posición jurídica de ésta, y el correcto desenvolvimiento de las actividades del órgano de administración en interés social. No siempre aparece claro en este análisis si basta, por ejemplo, la acreditación de la personalidad del votante vía claves personales, o si es preciso asegurarla mediante firma avanzada; la opción de la firma electrónica parece dispendiosa a los expertos (nota 11).
  4. Combinar la actuación societaria con la de los sistemas de compensación y liquidación, que a fecha de hoy no parecen disponer de tecnología que pueda certificar la titularidad en tiempo real. En su defecto, los reglamentos corporativos están optando por introducir periodos razonables para presumir la vigencia de la posición jurídica del televotante, mediante sistemas de doble legitimación (por ejemplo, tarjeta de asistencia más certificación de Iberclear expedida con la mínima antelación posible) (nota 12). El vetusto sistema actual de certificación de Iberclear (hoy sociedad compensadora y liquidadora de valores en España), llamado «X 25», permite al emisor de acciones cotizadas electrónicas (anotaciones) informarse sobre quiénes son los accionistas el quinto día previo al de la sesión de la junta (cf. art. 22.2 Decreto 116/1992, de 14.02, sobre anotaciones), pero no quiénes lo son después, por ejemplo el mismo día o la víspera. Por eso el art. 104 LSA legitima para asistir a los socios que tengan anotaciones hasta el quinto día anterior al de la junta. Tras comprobar los datos de convocatoria de la junta y solicitar provisión de fondos al emisor que la celebrar, Iberclear recaba información a esa fecha de sus entidades participantes (bancos y demás depositarios), la integra en un fichero ´X-25´ (que procesa y valida) y la canaliza al emisor, quien la usa para controlar la asistencia a la Junta cotejando el contenido del fichero con las tarjetas de asistencia emitidas por las entidades adheridas a Iberclear, es decir, por los intermediarios depositarios de anotaciones (nota 13).
  5. Detallar minuciosamente y con absoluto rigor jurídico el sistema de funcionamiento de la sesión, precisando en caso de ciberjunta, entre otros extremos, algunos tan elementales como: el instante de formación de la lista de asistentes a distancia, su compatibilidad con la asistencia presencial, el instante de apertura de la sesión electrónica, el tiempo y límites racionales de contenido del debate, incluido el electrónico eventualmente concomitante, la legitimación para debatir, el sistema de intercalación del debate presencial y del electrónico en su caso, el sistema de turnos de intervención en el debate electrónico, y el mecanismo de cómputo de las participaciones de capital asistentes (y su control, vía certificaciones registrales o de depósito bancario) y del número de votos y capital representado por éstos a favor de cada acuerdo sujeto a aprobación (nota 14).
  6. los oportunos mecanismos de transparencia interna (por ejemplo, comunicación al los departamentos de relaciones con inversores u oficinas del accionariado) para difundir con la mayor brevedad los resultados de la sesión, y los correlativos mecanismos de publicidad externa (página web, prioritariamente, ex 117.2 LMV).

c) Derecho de representación

Por cuanto concierne a la delegación del voto y asistencia en junta general, baste aquí apuntar que la posición de los interesados hoy legalmente involucrados en los procesos representativos (cf. 107 LSA) puede cambiar sustancialmente si tanto inversores institucionales como pequeños inversores, en solitario o a través de asociaciones eficientes, aglutinan el voto a través de sistemas electrónicos de delegación (e-proxies) capaces de batallar críticamente en el propio campo del orden del día servido por los administradores de la sociedad.

El papel de los depositarios de valores en el futuro seguirá resultando crucial en la medida en que sigan sirviendo de cauce al sistema representativo a través del doble mecanismo de notificación de la convocatoria de junta unido a las cartas o documentos de delegación estándar. Los depositarios, no se olvide, son directamente, o a través de terceros con quienes contraten el servicio registral de las anotaciones en cuenta, entes adheridos a los sistemas de compensación y liquidación de valores e instrumentos negociados en bolsas y demás mercados secundarios. Por esta razón no podrá nunca ignorarse la trascendencia de su intervención a la hora de configurar y canalizar cibernéticamente nuevos sistemas de delegación a distancia del voto, donde se presentan problemas del calado de:

  1. La organización del calendario que permita anticipar la delegación con tiempo suficiente. Obviamente los administradores notifican la convocatoria de junta apurando los breves plazos legales, y si las entidades depositarias no cooperan en la previa organización de las delegaciones, cualquier campaña de delegación de voto o cualquier grupo de políticas de voto en sentido diverso al prefigurado por el órgano de administración será difícil de llevar a buen puerto (nota 15). Sólo las asociaciones de accionistas podrían preorganizar y preparar una campaña de voto en sentido distinto al favorable a todos los puntos del orden del día que suele comunicarse a través de los documentos de delegación habitualmente servidos por las entidades depositarias cuando notifican la convocatoria de junta.
  2. La organización del sentido del voto de forma homogénea para muchos votantes en caso de solicitud pública de representación; y, naturalmente, en sentido distinto, incluso no meramente abstentivo, sino opuesto, a operaciones corporativas o estrategias de negocio contrapuestas al interés de los accionistas delegantes, cuya voluntad queda dispersa habitualmente merced al conocido fenómeno disociativo entre propiedad y control característico de las empresas cotizadas.
  3. La ejecución de la campaña de delegación mediante redacción de instrucciones estandarizadas de voto en sentido alternativo, de producirse en junta (eventualmente también telemática) acontecimientos diferentes a los previstos por representados y representantes en el documento de apoderamiento o representación.
  4. La coordinación eficaz entre representantes que sean solicitantes públicos, cuando estén conformes entre sí para votar de modo distinto al predeterminado por el órgano de administración, o cuando se deseen formular instrucciones de voto concertadas. Tal coordinación sólo es pensable empleando Internet y correos electrónicos, cuando se trata de empresas multinacionales. Y podría aglutinar las voluntades, por ejemplo, de determinados accionistas de referencia; de institucionales con vocación transitoria de control o con determinación para hacer valer sus exigencias con la dirección social de forma crítica y eficaz; de sindicados para el voto, o para la delegación, o para ambos menesteres, que de otro modo no podrían afrontar con éxito el reto de plasmar la fuerza de sus intereses en la junta; y, en igual sentido, de los asociados en agrupaciones legales de accionistas pequeños o minoritarios.

Los documentos concernidos (tarjeta de delegación, carta de delegación, poder, comunicaciones previas y posteriores a la documentación del apoderamiento, instrucciones para cada punto del orden del día, instrucciones extraordinarias para la atención de circunstancias sobrevenidas en junta) son susceptibles de configuración y circulación telemática; no sólo el poder de representación mismo, sino toda la documentación informativa estándar anexa (orden del día e instrucciones de voto), habitualmente cursada a través del propio consejo de administración o de las entidades adheridas al sistema de compensación (banca depositaria).

La configuración de tarjetas de delegación y de asistencia a junta por medios digitales asegurará la identidad, capacidad y legitimación del apoderado, y los medios telemáticos de transferencia de datos, la vigencia y contenido del poder.

Conclusiones

Primera. Un gobierno más eficiente de las sociedades pasa por la informatización de sus mecanismos de comunicación intraorgánica e interorgánica. Entre los órganos sociales, en particular, supone una más fluida, puntual y completa información recibida por los socios (particularmente durante el periodo de convocatoria y preparación de la junta general de accionistas) y proveniente del consejo de administración. Entre miembros de cada órgano, la informatización de las comunicaciones incrementa también el eficiente funcionamiento de cada uno de los órganos. En el caso del consejo de administración, el empleo de consejos o reuniones virtuales mediante redes locales parece una solución adecuada. Los reglamentos internos de funcionamiento del consejo deben regular en el futuro los pormenores de estos mecanismos de trasvase de información entre consejeros (y, en su caso, entre comisiones delegadas del órgano de administración) de manera que no se entorpezca, sino antes bien se propicie un mejor desempeño de las labores de control de gestión que le son inherentes. En el caso de la junta general de accionistas cabe afirmar lo mismo, salvando las distancias, respecto al reglamento de funcionamiento de la junta. La comunicación telemática entre accionistas, en efecto, tanto durante el periodo preparatorio y de celebración de las juntas ordinarias o extraordinarias, como a lo largo del desenvolvimiento ordinario de la vida social, resulta una vía idónea para cumplir la finalidad que persigue el ejercicio del derecho de información reconocido por la legislación societaria, particularmente en el caso de sociedades cotizadas, donde se ve involucrado adicionalmente un elemento crucial trascendente para el orden público: la transparencia hacia los inversores.

Segunda. Buen gobierno también significa, en el campo de la e-transparencia, comply or explain. Esto es: lo que la Ley exija imperativamente, se debe cumplir; asimismo ha de publicarse su cumplimiento; aquí, vía Internet. Lo que no exija la Ley pero los supervisores recomienden seguir, debe seguirse, pero de no hacerse ahí debe explicarse por qué, a través de las webs de la CNMV y a través de la propia página corporativa de Internet, detallando los motivos de desviación respecto a los estándares generales de buen gobierno corporativo, dando así cuenta y razón de las políticas por las que se conducen las decisiones empresariales a los propietarios actuales (accionistas) y también a los potenciales (inversores).

Tercera. Las grandes corporaciones caminan irreversiblemente hacia su democratización. Proceso al que no sólo no resulta ajeno, sino que constituye un acicate insustituible y un elemento técnico de referencia, el propio proceso de espiritualización o desmaterialización de los soportes comunicativos. Merced a esa democratización todos los accionistas adquieren mayores oportunidades de reconfigurar la voluntad social expresada orgánicamente (junta y órgano de administración) en consonancia con su interés. Es más, el desinterés político se puede tornar renovado interés, allí donde la masa accionarial inconexa pueda interconectarse para formar una voluntad autónoma de la gestión social; este cambio de actitud bien puede tildarse de revolucionario, de giro copernicano silencioso en la estructura y en la gobernación de las empresas.

Cuarta. Democratización societaria en el sentido expuesto y eficiencia deben ir de la mano. Fortalecer la voluntad del mandante social (socio) es correlativo con una más eficiente conducción del mandatario social (administrador) según esa voluntad. Eficiencia que ha de redundar en aras del interés social, concebido, en primera y fundamental instancia, como interés del mandante (accionariado, de nuevo), vale decir, como creación o generación de valor sostenible para el accionista. Acogiendo el paradigma de responsabilidad social corporativa, además, la creación de valor ha de ser compatible con los intereses de la sociedad considerada en su conjunto, lo que supone respetar los derechos humanos, el medio ambiente y fomentar la cohesión social. Internet por sí no supone la adscripción a este paradigma, que va gozando de mayor predicamento entre las grandes corporaciones, pero sí ha de servir como elemento difusor de sus propósitos y de una nueva cultura social de creación de valor. No en vano las páginas web societarias divulgan los avances de cada sociedad experimentados en sus políticas de avance social, respeto medioambiental e inversión sostenible.

Notas al pie
 [1] Paradoja que planteó Marta Fernández en su artículo «La nueva Economía llega a los tribunales» (Expansión, 20 de marzo de 2003) expresando que, «por un lado… las nuevas tecnologías… son cada vez más rápidas. Por otro, la aprobación de nuevas leyes y la aplicación de las ya existentes tardan mucho más (…) El resultado es que, mientras las leyes tardan en aprobarse y los tribunales son lentos en la resolución de conflictos, los negocios tecnológicos van a un ritmo tan rápido que, a veces, pueden incluso llegar a desaparecer antes de que un problema legal se resuelva». Cf. Santacana, R., Internet, legislación y tribunales, abogando por «un nuevo concepto de jurisdicción que no descanse sobre la territorialidad» (Observatorio digital, Boletín 130, 12 de marzo de 2001, http://www.observatoriodigital.net/bol130.htm).
[2] Conformes, Bernáldez, A. / Conde, A. / Gallifa, A. / Díaz, N., La comunicación con el pequeño accionista y la responsabilidad social corporativa: nuevas tendencias en la comunicación financiera, estudio de investigación, Iese Business School/Irco/ Inforpress/Apie, 2003, disponible en http://www.observatoriodigital.net/bol130.htm. Fijan posición acorde, en un marco de aproximación europea a las prácticas estadounidenses en la materia, Baums y Wymeersch, Shareholder Voting Rights and Practices in Europe and in the United States, Londres 1999.
[3] Tuvimos ya ocasión de acuñar la expresión «revolución del accionariado» para designar el cambio desde una actitud pasiva y resignada del accionista minoritario en el seno de accionariados dispersos, hacia otra proactiva y comprometida con la creación de valor, en el seminario «La revolución del accionariado» (IV Foro José de la Vega-Diem sobre transparencia y responsabilidad corporativa, El Escorial, 30 de junio al 1 de julio de 2003, dir. Ibáñez), en la ponencia «La revolución del accionariado: sentido político-legal, económico y ético social»; en ese mismo foro matizaban que la revolución debía significar “tránsito pacífico”. F. San Sebastián, en su ponencia «El ejercicio de los derechos de voto y representación en junta: tutela accionarial y presupuestos para las buenas prácticas gubernativas»; y asimismo el entonces Vicepresidente de la CNMV, J. J. Roldán, en su intervención «El papel de la CNMV en la consolidación de los derechos del accionariado». En Alemania preocupa la transición hacia la democracia accionarial ya antes del fracaso de Enron, que impulsó los esfuerzos de reforma del gobierno societario culminantes en la autorregulación intraorgánica societaria que propugna el Cromme Kodex (v. Gregor Bachmann, Verwaltungsvollmacht und Aktionärsdemokratie: Selbstregulative Ansätze für die Hauptversammlung, Die Aktiengesellschaft (AG) 1999, 635–637; ÍD., Die Geschäftsordnung der Hauptversammlung, AG 1999, 210–211; Baums, T. / Schmitz, R.: Shareholder Voting in Germany, Arbeitspapier Nr. 76 der Universität Osnabrück (jetzt Universität Frankfurt), 2000, 9–22.
[4] En Alemania la reforma ha venido de la mano de la Namensaktie und zur Erleichterung der Stimmrechtsausübung (NaStraG), como expone Hanloser, S., Proxy–Voting, Remote–Voting und Online HV: 134 III 3AktG nach dem NaStraG, Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht (NZG) 2001, 355.
[5] Las juntas son caras, ineficientes y ajenas al interés real del accionariado (Ulrich Noack, Zukunft der Hauptversammlung–Hauptversammlung der Zukunf, en Zetzsche, D. (ed.), Die Virtuelle Hauptversammlung, Berlín 2002, Rn.2, 13.
[6] Friedman, H. M.: Proxy Solicitation and the Cyberspace Revolution, 11 Insights 9; ÍD., How far have we travelled in Cyberspace by this proxy season?, 12 Insights 19; Purcell, New Technology: Some Strategic Benefits of Electronic Proxy Voting, www.jura.uni–duesseldorf.de/HV/.

[7] V. Weiss, H. J. / Heiden, M., Elektronische Kapitalmarktkommuninkation. Der Einsatz des Internet als Instrument der IR, Betrieb und Rechnungswesen 2000, 981–983.

[8] En desarrollo de la Ley 26/2003, la Orden ECO/3722/2003, de 26 de diciembre, explicitaba el contenido del informe anual de gobierno corporativo y demás instrumentos de información de las sociedades anónimas cotizadas y otras entidades, profundizando la regulación del contenido y estructura del informe anual de gobierno corporativo de las sociedades anónimas cotizadas y otras entidades con valores admitidos a negociación en mercados secundarios oficiales –que no revistan el estatuto de caja de ahorros–, y regulando el contenido mínimo que habrá de tener la página web de las sociedades anónimas cotizadas en orden a cumplir con las exigencias de transparencia que derivan de la propia Ley 26/2003. A su vez, la Circular de la CNMV 1/2004, de 17 de marzo, desciende al máximo nivel de detalle en la configuración estándar del informe, sin impedir a las entidades la adición voluntaria de datos, aclaraciones o matices sobre sus propias prácticas de governance «en la medida que resulten relevantes para la comprensión del informe», tal como se indica en el apartado G de los anexos I y II incluidos en esta Circular.

[9] A cuyo tenor cumplir el «principio transparencia» significa que la «información ha de ser clara, íntegra, correcta y veraz» y nunca «sesgada, abarcar un espacio temporal insuficiente, no ser contrastable, no incluir las oportunas advertencias», ni ser de tal naturaleza que «por cualquier otro motivo, pueda inducir a error o confusión o no permita al inversor hacerse un juicio fundado de la entidad».

[10] El Reglamento de la Junta de Unión Fenosa (2004) permite a los administradores rehacer las propuestas ya aprobadas hasta la fecha de la junta «si fuere legalmente posible», y facilita a los socios el «acceso a dichas propuestas y modificaciones» en todo momento (art. 7.2). De nuevo, Internet y el cibercorreo serán herramientas clave para facilitar la transparencia en este ámbito. Por lo demás, los administradores tienen que responder a las preguntas de los socios hasta el día anterior a la junta (art. 7.3), con los límites del art. 112.3 (excepción de secreto, limitada en el caso de agrupación de la cuarta parte del capital, según exige el 112.4 LSA).

[11] Con todo, algunos Reglamentos la prefieren como vía típica (cf. art. 19.2 RJUF).

[12] Razonablemente, el art. 9.1. RJUF presume la titularidad del accionista registrado en Iberclear, actual gestor de los sistemas de compensación, el quinto día anterior a la celebración de la junta. La legitimación se controla de modo dual, pero alternativo: se exige la tarjeta de asistencia o bien la certificación de esa entidad (art. 9.3), lo que no parece mermar la seguridad siempre que la configuración de las tarjetas presuponga un control efectivo de la propiedad. A lo que coadyuva la disposición del art. 13.2, según la cual la admisión de tarjetas de asistencia y delegación se abre horas antes de la sesión y se cierra justo antes de formarse la lista de asistentes, incluyendo a los cibervotantes (el art. 13.5 permite formar la lista en cibersoporte, limitando el tiempo una posible comisión de irregularidades).

[13] Algunos emisores tienen por costumbre pedir varios ´X–25´ desde la convocatoria de la junta, teniendo siempre en cuenta los datos del último formulario expedido, por ser los más recientes y, por tanto, acordes con la realidad. De este modo, resulta de la Ley que: Iberclear sólo puede informar sobre el accionariado votante/asistente (o legitimado para asistir y votar) a la sociedad emisora de valores no nominativos sí y sólo cuando haya convocado una junta, y no con ningún otro motivo; que sólo están legitimados los que consten 5 días antes; que para controlar la legitimación para ejercer voto electrónico emitido antes de la sesión, y computarlo válidamente, sería necesario que el emisor solicitase un ´X–25´ diario desde la convocatoria de la Junta (siempre hasta 5 días antes); y que el contenido del ´X–25´ es únicamente informativo (sin responsabilidad para Iberclear), debiendo tenerse en cuenta que la condición de accionista no se tiene en su virtud, sino del contenido del registro contable, como dispone la Ley (arts. 5 a 12 LMV y Decreto precitado).

[14] El presidente de la junta debe anunciar el número de ciberasistentes y el capital que éstos representan, de forma separada (no lo prevé así el art. 14 RJUF), y dirigir todo el debate, fijando turnos de intervención, y permitiendo en su caso un tiempo razonable para la comunicación telemática. Asimismo, debe cotejar la fidelidad de la transcripción de las ciberintervenciones en el acta. Y controlar adecuadamente el cómputo de los votos, separando los nulos por defecto de legitimación o indebida ejecución de las instrucciones sobre procedimiento de voto. Sorprendentemente, el art. 19 del citado Reglamento traslada ex post la prueba de una correcta ejecución al socio; como compensación, hace al Consejo pechar con la carga ex ante de arbitrar los medios necesarios para eludir problemas de identificación personal, de transmisión de datos, y de duplicidad de voto.

[15] La Ley ha tratado siempre de respetar la voluntad de las partes. Y en lo sucesivo debe seguir siendo respetuosa con la autonomía de la voluntad. Pero también debe intervenir en la composición de intereses enfrentados, facilitando información acerca de conductas potencialmente peligrosas para el interés social, que no es el de los administradores, ni siquiera el de la mayoría, como reiteradamente pone de relieve nuestra mejor doctrina (sería tan prolijo como inútil reiterarla aquí). Los conflictos de intereses son inherentes al mercado de valores; pero es necesario que el mercado esté informado de su existencia, para que pueda expresar una voluntad informada, síntoma de funcionamiento eficiente y expresión de justicia y racionalidad. No estamos ante una guerra contra los gestores de las sociedades cotizadas, sino desarrollando medios de defensa (también la técnica servirá aquí a la justicia) frente a determinadas actividades o conductas de gestores que antepongan sus intereses a los de la sociedad. Administradores y directores de las sociedades cotizadas están al servicio de los propietarios de la empresa, quienes tienen derecho como inversores a disponer con tiempo bastante de los asuntos y negocios que se les propondrá para emitir un voto racional, y en su caso, organizar un voto eventualmente alternativo. En ese campo han de jugar las recientes y lúcidas iniciativas privadas que están surgiendo en Francia y otros países para agrupar a los accionistas minoritarios, defender sus intereses y representarlos en las juntas. Sea mediante empresas que aúnan fuerzas en el campo de la inversión institucional (caso del ISS o Servicios para Inversores Institucionales norteamericano), o sea, como en el caso español de ACCTER, mediante creación de ONG tipo asociación, normalmente global y al servicio exclusivo de socios minoritarios o pequeños inversores (en el precitado supuesto, los de Terra en España y Estados Unidos, principalmente). Con esta y otras iniciativas de este tipo, surge un nuevo sujeto en el mercado de valores, los accionistas minoritarios asociados; o, mejor dicho, los pequeños inversores asociados, pues el conflicto se suele dar más entre pequeños y grandes inversores que entre minoría y mayoría, que pueden estar de uno u otro lado circunstancialmente), legalmente organizados, lo que hacen principalmente vía Internet, medio que por su velocidad y universalidad es el idóneo para aglutinar voluntades numerosas y dispersas.

Otros artículos relacionados: