COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a regulation of the European PArliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) n° 910/2014 as regards establishing a framework for a European Digital Identity
Date: 2021-06-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: computer crime, data processing, data protection, digital single market, digital technology, electronic signature, information security, provision of services

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 3.6.2021  SWD(2021) 125 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a regulation of the European PArliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) n° 910/2014 as regards establishing a framework for a European Digital Identity {COM(2021) 281 final} - {SEC(2021) 228 final} - {SWD(2021) 124 final}  
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHEET 

Impact assessment on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of 
the Council on a framework for a European digital identity and trust services in the 
internal market 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level? 

A.  Need for action 

Currently,  regulatory  and  implementation  shortcomings,  as  well  as  market,  technological  and 
societal developments, are preventing citizens and businesses to make full use of eIDs and trust 
services in the EU. Against this background and in the light of the objectives set by the political 
mandate from the President of the Commission and the European Council, this initiative aims to 
address the following main problems:  

First, the increased demand by public and private services for trusted electronic identification 
and user expectations for seamless and trusted solutions to identify and share attributes across 
borders,  in  a  wide  range  of  public  and  private  use-cases,  are  not  met.  Furthermore,  data 
control  and  security  concerns  are  insufficiently  addressed  by  available  digital  identity 
solutions.  

Second, the unequal conditions for the provision of trust services, and insufficient scope of 
the regulation. 

What should be achieved? 

The  general objective of the intervention is  to  ensure the proper functioning of the internal 
market, particularly in relation to the provision of cross-border and cross-sector digital public 
and private services. The specific objectives of the initiative seek to reflect the political and 
policy mandate formulated by the President of the Commission and by the European Council 
Conclusions, calling for a European digital identity, the objectives of which are to: 

a)  provide  access  to  trusted  and  secure  digital  identity  solutions  for  all  EU  citizens  and 
businesses that can be used cross-border, meeting user expectations and demand; 

b)  ensure  that  public  and  private  services  can  rely  on  trusted  and  secure  digital  identity 
solutions cross-border;   

c)  provide  citizens  full  control  of  their  personal  data  and  assure  their  security  when  using 
digital identity solutions, and  

d)  ensure  equal  conditions  for  the  provision  of  qualified  trust  services  in  the  EU,  and  their 
acceptance. 

What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)? 

In order to ensure effectiveness and interoperability of the European digital identity, action at 
EU  level  would  produce  greater  benefits  compared  to  action  taken  solely  at  Member  State 
level.  National  measures  in  the  fields  of  eID  and  trust  services  are  subject  to  obvious 
limitations in the national context, while their direct benefits would be largely or exclusively 
limited to a single Member State, contributing to further fragmentation. Addressing systemic 

1 

 
 
 
problems  in  relation  to  the  free  movement  facilitated  by  the  extensive  use  of  eID  and  trust 
services to access goods and services all over Europe would receive a better response on an 
EU scale.  

B.  Solutions 

What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or 
not? If not, why? 

Three  policy  options  have  been  considered  and  assessed,  based  on  a  progressive  ambition 
logic:  

  Option 1 has a low level of ambition with focus on improving the current legislation 

without altering its scope;  

  Option 2 has a medium level of ambition. It would build on option 1 and, in addition, 
it  would  establish  a  framework  regulating  a  market  for  the  secure  exchange  of  data 
linked to identity; 

  Option 3 has the highest level of ambition. Building on the synergic effect of a set of 
measures  under  Options  1  and  2,  this  option  would  ensure  that  a  European  Digital 
Identity  personal  Wallet  App  would  be  made  available,  on  a  voluntary  basis,  to  all 
residents and companies in Europe. 

With regards to trust services, the three options build on the same level of ambition and rely 
on a similar set of measures. 

 The preferred option is option 3, which notably includes the following building blocks:  

- 
- 

- 

- 

establish a European Digital Identity personal Wallet App ecosystem; 
enable the free flow and exchange of digital identity data across borders and a strong, 
trusted link between them and the Wallet App; 
ensure  cross-border  trustworthiness  of  the  Wallet  App  by  linking  it  to  the  eIDs 
notified by the Member States, and  
ensure data protection and full user control over identity data. 

What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option? 

Member States are in general favourable to the measures included in the preferred option, and 
in particular on the results of the eIDAS evaluation showing that a strong push is needed to 
accelerate  the  pace  of  notifications  under  eIDAS  and  on  the  need  to  remove  the  current 
limitations  to  the  use  of  eIDs  which  have  an  extremely  limited  reach  in  the  private  sector. 
Industry  stakeholders  plead  for  a  digital  identity  framework  which  would  enables  seamless 
interaction  between  the  national  eIDs  developed  by  Member  States  and  the  related  identity 
attributes framework needed in a wide set of private use-cases. 

C.  Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?                                     

The main benefit of the preferred option would be for citizens; the European Digital Identity 
Wallet  would  enable  citizens  to  manage  their  digital  identity  and  associated  attributes 
and  credentials  that  they  receive  from  various  sources  (e.g. education,  employment, 
municipality, state, professional associations, leisure, etc.) in a self-sovereign way. It would 
give  them  access  to  public  and  private  online  services  throughout  the  EU,  and  full  control 

2 

 
 
 
over their own personal data. 

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?                                    

The  cost  of  the  preferred  option,  and  who  will  bear  the  cost,  is  dependent  on  which 
implementation  scenario  is  chosen  (to  be  implemented  though  a  Member  State,  under  a 
mandate from a Member State or independently from the Member State and are recognised 
by the Member States). 

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness? 

SMEs  are  likely  to  be  interested  in  adopting  wallet  services  for  the  purposes  of  business 
transactions,  while  larger  companies  are  likely  to  favour  desktop  based  solutions  based  on 
automated  processes  (e.g.  social  security  companies  using  dedicated  platforms).  Integrating 
the  wallet  through  APIs  to  consume  credentials  /  attributes  and  identify  or  authenticate 
customers creates costs to SMEs which are however likely to be offset by simplification and 
efficiency benefits, depending on the specific business case. The preferred option would open 
up new business opportunities for SME ID/trust service providers, although development and 
certification costs are likely to act as a certain entry barrier. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? 

Impacts for national budgets and administrations are driven by the requirements to: 

1)  Deploy  fully-fledged  eID  schemes  by  the  Member  States  currently  not  having 

implemented them (costs vary based on Member State size, population) 

2)  Costs  directly  linked  to  the  notification  process  (1.3  MEUR  for  the  remaining  non-

notifying Member States) 

3)   Cost  to  make  available  authentic  sources  for  identity  credential  providers  (around 

€625M on off cost and €162M annually across the EU) 

4)  Develop  and  maintain  the  EU  Walet  App  (up  to  10  MEUR,  in  the  scenario  where 

Member States deploy it) 

5)  Other  costs  related  to  e.g.  standardisation,  certification,  familiarisation  with  the 

legislative changes, and supervision of new trust services. 

Will there be other significant impacts? 

The  initiative  is  expected  to  have  a positive  impact  on  innovation, and  to  further  promote 
interoperability. A positive impact on employment is expected from these options via their 
contribution  to  the  future  expansion  of  online  transactions  and  reduction  of  barriers  in  the 
Internal  Market.  It  will  boost  the  presence  and  accessibility  of  secure  elements  in  mobile 
devices,  which in turn  can enable advances in other identity applications and beyond.  In 
addition,  this  option  is  expected  to  generate  positive  impacts  in  terms  of increased  civic 
participation,  privacy-oriented,  secure,  and  competitive  digital  basis  for  personal  data 
management,  and  promotes  better  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in line with the positive impacts on Freedom, 
Equality, Solidarity and Citizens’ Rights. 

Proportionality? 

Considering  the  objectives,  the  preferred  option  is  sufficiently  proportionate  and  the  costs 
likely  to  be  commensurate  to  the  potential  benefits.  The  costs  derived  from  creating  and 

3 

 
 
aligning to the new standards (trust service providers and online service providers) cannot be 
avoided  if  the  objectives  of  usability  and  accessibility  are  to  be  achieved.  Furthermore,  the 
preferred option intends to harness the investments already made by Member States. 

When will the policy be reviewed? 

D.  Follow up 

The initiative will be monitored as regards its implementation, application and other indirect 
contextual information. A review clause will be introduced in the legal act. 

4