Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on a common framework for electronic signatures'
Date: 1999-01-14
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: Community certification, contract, data processing, electronic mail, electronic money, electronics industry

6.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93/33

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament and
Council Directive on a common framework for electronic signatures’

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

(1999/C 93/06)

having regard to the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on a common
framework for electronic signatures (COM(1998) 297 final — 98/0191 COD) (1);

having regard to the Council’s decision of 30 July 1998 to consult the Committee of the
Regions on this subject in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 198c of the Treaty
establishing the European Community;

having regard to the decision of its Bureau of 16 September 1998 to instruct Commission 3 for
Trans-European Networks, Transport and Information Society to draw up the relevant
opinion;

having regard to its Opinion (CdR 350/97 fin) (2) on the Communication from the Commission
to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions on a European initiative in electronic commerce (COM(97) 157
final);

having regard to the Draft Opinion (CdR 332/98 rev.) adopted by Commission 3 on
27 November 1998 (rapporteur: Mr Koivisto),

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 27th plenary session on 13 and 14 January
1999 (meeting of 14 January).

1.

Introduction

The Committee of the Regions

of electronic commerce, although electronic signatures
and certification services are also of great importance
for the development of new services provided by public
administrations at local and regional level;

1.1.
welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a direc-
tive and notes that the proposal takes into account the
general principles set out by the Committee in, inter
alia, its opinion on the initiative in electronic commerce;

emphasizes the need, with regard to both the
1.2.
internal market and the regions, to work towards
procedures which are as uniform as possible on a global
level;

endorses the Commission’s view that the pro-
1.3.
vision of certification services should not be subject to
prior authorization;

underlines, in particular, the need to develop
1.4.
legislation governing services provided by public admin-
istrations in such a way that electronic signatures are
accepted in the same manner as hand written signatures;

1.5.
agrees with the Commission that it is important
that laws on electronic signatures are neutral with
respect to the technology used;

1.6.
notes that the explanatory memorandum in the
Commission proposal focuses exclusively on the needs

(1) OJ C 325, 23.10.1998, p. 5.
(2) OJ C 180, 11.6.1998, p. 19.

1.7.
feels that, for the time being, the freedom to
provide certification services and the possibility to use
closed systems will nevertheless secure the development
of public services based on electronic signatures at local
and regional level;

1.8.
considers that it is necessary for the development
of services provided by public administrations to exam-
ine and define in more detail the relation between the
general scope of the directive and the closed systems
referred to in the proposal;

1.9.
hopes that the Commission will take appropriate
steps should the methods used in applying electronic
signatures in public administration in Europe diverge
to the extent that citizens’ freedom of movement is
hampered;

calls on the Commission to monitor the situ-
1.10.
ation and, where necessary, take appropriate action, if
the easier use of electronic signatures leads to increasingly
frequent demands for precise recognition in the public
and private sectors even though this is not necessary
from the point of view of the transaction or service
concerned;

C 93/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.1999

1.11.
considers it essential for the adoption of elec-
tronic signatures within a suitably short time frame that
Commission resources are used specifically to increase
awareness of the opportunities offered by electronic
signatures and to implement applications and services
based upon them.

2. Aim and scope of the proposed directive

2.1.
The proposed directive aims at ensuring the
proper functioning of the internal market in the field of
electronic signatures by creating a harmonized and
appropriate legal framework for the use of electronic
signatures within the European Community and estab-
lishing a set of criteria which form the basis for the legal
recognition of electronic signatures.

2.2.
According to the proposal, global electronic
communication and commerce are dependent upon the
progressive adaptation of national and international
laws to the rapidly evolving technological infrastructure.
Even though in many cases application of existing laws
could provide satisfactory solutions, it may be necessary
to adapt these laws in response to new technologies in
order to avoid inappropriate and undesirable effects.
Although digital signatures produced using crypto-
graphic techniques are currently regarded as an
important type of electronic signature, the Commission
believes that a European regulatory framework must be
flexible enough to cover other techniques that may be
used to provide authentication.

Electronic signature technology has obvious
2.3.
applications in closed environments as well, e.g. in firms’
local area networks or bank systems. Certificates and
electronic signatures are also used for authorization
purposes, e.g. to access a private account. In national law,
the principle of contractual freedom enables contracting
parties to agree among themselves on the terms and
conditions under which they do business, e.g. on whether
or not they accept electronic signatures. There is no
obvious need for regulation in these areas.

2.4.
Given the range of services and their potential
application, the Commission feels that certification
service providers should be allowed to offer their services
without being required to obtain prior authorization.
Service providers may, however, wish to benefit from
the legal validity associated with electronic signatures
by participating in voluntary accreditation schemes
linked to common requirements. According to the
Commission, accreditation should be seen as a public
service which is available to certification service pro-
viders who wish to offer high quality services. Under
no circumstances, however, should this imply that a
non-accredited service is automatically less secure.

2.5.
A certification service provider may offer a
wide range of services. The proposed directive focuses
particularly on certification services in connection with
electronic signatures. Certificates can be used for a
variety of purposes and can contain different items of
information. They may contain conventional identifiers
such as name, address, registration number or social
security number, VAT or tax identification number, or
specific attributes of the signatory, e.g. authority to act
on behalf of a company, creditworthiness, the existence
of payment guarantees or the holding of specific permits
or licences. Thus a wide variety of certificates may exist
and be used for many different purposes. However, a
legal framework is needed mainly so that certificates
can be used for authentication of electronic signatures.

2.6.
The legal effects of electronic signatures are a
key element in an open but trustworthy system for
electronic signatures. In the view of the Commission,
application of the proposed directive would contribute
to the harmonization of the legal framework within the
Community by ensuring that an electronic signature is
not denied legal validity solely on the grounds that it is
in electronic form, or not based upon a qualified
certificate, or not based upon a certificate issued by an
accredited certification service provider. It would also
ensure that electronic signatures are recognized legally
in the same way as hand written signatures. Moreover,
national arrangements concerning the admission of
evidence in legal proceedings would be required to
recognize the use of electronic signatures.

The legal recognition of electronic signatures
2.7.
should be based upon objective, transparent, non-
discriminatory and proportional criteria and not be
linked to any authorization or accreditation of the
service provider involved. Common requirements for
certification service providers would support the cross-
border recognition of signatures and certificates within
the European Community. According to the proposal,
these requirements must be applicable to certification
service providers, irrespective of the type of accreditation
scheme employed in individual Member States. Since
technological progress or market development might
call for adaptations, the requirements may need to be
revised from time to time. The Commission may propose
revised sets of requirements on the basis of advice it
receives in the future.

Common liability rules would support the trust-
2.8.
building process for both consumers and businesses that
rely on certificates and for service providers, and
thus would promote the wide acceptance of electronic
signatures.

2.9.
Cooperative mechanisms supporting the cross-
border recognition of signatures and certificates with
third countries are important for the development

6.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93/35

of international electronic commerce. In particular,
enabling certification service providers within the Com-
munity to vouch for certificates to the same degree that
they guarantee their own certificates could facilitate
cross-border services in a simple but efficient way.

3. Specific comments

3.1.
The Committee of the Regions notes that it has
already highlighted the key importance for the expansion
of electronic commerce of the existence of a coherent
legal and regulatory framework at both European and
global level, in, inter alia, its earlier opinion on the
European initiative in electronic commerce. The Com-
mittee therefore welcomes the Commission’s proposal,
the directive will be enacted and
and hopes that
implemented swiftly, in part so as to avoid divergence
in national legislation and in procedures applied in the
business sector and public administration.

3.2.
The Committee calls on the Commission to take
active steps to seek to ensure that the legal and regulatory
approach towards electronic signatures set out in the
proposal also gains acceptance at global level. Failing
that, the Commission should endeavour to adapt the
proposed directive to the provisions of the most general
initiatives in this area.
of the current international
Otherwise a situation could arise where SMEs,
in
particular, encounter insurmountable problems in seek-
ing to develop commercial relations with regions outside
the internal market. Naturally, a balance must be struck
between meeting this objective and the speedy adoption
of electronic signatures within the European Union.

3.3.
The Committee would also draw attention to
the fact that a legal and regulatory framework for
electronic signatures which is accepted over an area
larger than the EU can make an important contribution
to efforts to shorten adjustment periods for new regions
in connection with enlargement and help to speed up
the development of infrastructure within these regions.

3.4.
The Committee of the Regions endorses the
Commission’s view, as cogently argued in the proposal,
that certification services should not be subject to prior
authorization and that service providers should be under
no obligation to join an accreditation scheme.

3.5.
The Committee also agrees with the Commission
on the need to ensure that electronic signatures are
recognized legally in the same manner as hand written
signatures, and would stress particularly the key role to
be played by public administrations in revising the rules
governing their own activities.

that

The Committee notes

3.7.
the proposal’s
explanatory memorandum focuses on creating con-
ditions conducive to electronic commerce. Although
electronic commerce is important, several projects are
under way in various EU regions which are aimed at
developing the services provided by local and regional
administrations, an essential component of which is
electronic recognition of the parties involved. The
Committee of the Regions deplores the fact that there is
no mention in the explanatory memorandum of what,
from the point of view of citizens, is a development of
particular importance.

3.8.
In the short run, however, the freedom to provide
certification services and the possibility to use closed
systems will ensure that development projects in local
and regional administration can be implemented in
accordance with relevant needs. The Committee of the
Regions nevertheless hopes that the Commission will
monitor the development of the use of electronic
signatures in public services in Europe and, where
necessary, take appropriate action in the event that
divergence in the methods applied poses a real obstacle
to implementation of the principle of citizens’ freedom
of movement.

3.9.
The Committee of the Regions would draw the
Commission’s attention to the fact that the proposal
does not state explicitly what the essential difference is
between the general scope of the directive and the closed
systems mentioned in the proposal. As an example of
an area where application is unclear, the Committee cites
services which a municipality offers local inhabitants and
which require the use of either a hand written signature
or an electronic signature.

3.10.
The Committee endorses the Commission’s
views on the need to ensure a high level of data
protection, especially in the provision of certification
services. The Committee nevertheless expects the Com-
mission, and particularly the Electronic Signature Com-
mittee which it is proposed to set up, to also monitor,
from the point of view of privacy protection, that the
technical ease of using electronic signatures does not
lead to the introduction of recognition in transactions
where it is not absolutely necessary. Such a development
could be regarded as posing a threat to, for example,
transparency in administrative dealings by requiring
recognition in situations where anonymity is appropri-
in electronic commerce, it would be
ate. Similarly,
enough in most cases to verify that a payment is effected
by the client and received by the supplier.

3.6.
The Committee feels that the development of
new services now under way in local and regional
administrations and the business sector requires that the
general rules governing the use of electronic signatures
should, as far as possible, be independent of the
particular technology applied.

3.11.
The Committee considers that it is important
that the use of electronic signatures increases quickly.
The existence of a sufficient volume of transactions is
essential both for commercial certification services and
the expansion of electronic commerce. Moreover, the
widespread adoption of electronic signatures would

C 93/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.1999

lower the cost of public services. It is particularly
important from the regional point of view that resources
available under the Fifth Framework Programme and
other resources available to the Commission are used to

increase awareness of the practical opportunities offered
by electronic signatures and to support implementation
of European applications and services that will boost
the use of electronic signatures.

Brussels, 14 January 1999.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Manfred DAMMEYER

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘European Spatial Development Perspective’

(1999/C 93/07)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP);

having regard to the decision taken by the European Commission on 8 June 1998, under the
first paragraph of Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult
the Committee of the Regions on the matter;

having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 15 July 1998 to direct Commission 4 for
Spatial Planning, Urban Issues, Energy and Environment to draw up the relevant opinion;

having regard to the draft Opinion (CdR 266/98 rev. 2) adopted by Commission 4 on
11 December 1998 (rapporteur: Ms Claude de Granrut, co-rapporteur: Mr Anders Knape),

adopted the following opinion at its plenary session of 13 and 14 January 1999 (meeting of
14 January) by a majority vote.

1. General comments

1.1. The ESDP’s objectives and approach

The decision to frame the ESDP reflects the
1.1.1.
EU’s determination to meet world economic challenges
at a time when it is boosting its economic integration,
recognizes the growing role of local and regional
authorities in spatial development, and is preparing for
the accession of the central and eastern European
countries. This determination goes hand in hand with
the three fundamental goals set by the Leipzig informal
council of spatial planning ministers, namely economic
and social cohesion, sustainable development, and com-
petitive but mutually supportive regions.

To this end, the ESDP proposes a comprehensive concept
of spatial development that has integrated, relevant
scope and facilitates more balanced, effective and
responsible land-use and better management of the EU’s
natural, human and technological resources.

In order to cater for regional differences and the
complexity of the socio-economic challenges to be faced,
this concept postulates a decision-making process which
involves the various tiers of authority and which helps
to ensure that Member States’ spatial development
measures are mutually consistent and complementary.

The ESDP also proposes effective integration
1.1.2.
impact of Community policies, thus
of the spatial
securing added value and drawing maximum benefit