eJustice .1 Overview

Finally, the table below will present a summary for each country of any reported eJustice application, showing specifically the name of the application, an URL, a summary of its use/functionality, and its operational status (fully operational – pilot – implementation stage – design phase – planning stage).

Specific eSignature aspects will be dealt with in the following section.

Country Application name and URL Use/functionality Status Austria Notarial document archive

“CyberDoc »

https://www.ava-online.at

Electronic archive used to register and store scanned paper documents or electronic documents, both converted to XML structures signed with the qualified signature of the notary. The document archive is used to transfer documents to

Germany Federal company register platform (Elektronische

Handelsregisteranmeldung) using the German EGVP system

http://www.handelsregister.de www.egvp.de

General portal for the submission of official documents to the company

Italy E-civil trial (‘processo civile telematico’)

http://www.processotelematico.giust izia.it/pdapublic/index.jsp

The application allows external users, mainly lawyers, to upload documents, signed with digital signature and encrypted, and to

Register (Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy) The system supports the activity of National Court Register by enabling secure information

Operational

114 Described in the national report via a generic eSignature application description, noting that the same signature infrastructure is universally usable (irrespective of application field).

Country Application name and URL Use/functionality Status acts and other judicial proceedings by lawyers, judges and DAs

The application provides an electronic Register of Wills, containing information about the wills that were prepared in the form of notarial protocol, that are deposited at notary, that were prepared by attorneys or are deposited at attorneys, judicial wills and wills deposited at courts.

Operational

With respect to Denmark, an electronic deed registration system became operational in September 2009¹¹⁵; however, no details were available yet at the time of analysis.

4.3.2.3.2 Signature type

For each of the applications identified in the section above, the table below will indicate the type of signature used, reported signature type, and cross border accessibility (if any).

Country Application name Signatures used Reported signature type

Cross border accessibility Austria Notarial document

archive “CyberDoc » Notary’s profession cards are provided by the certification service provider A-Trust (i.e. a citizen card implementation).

Qualified signatures Accessible to any notaries in Austria

Croatia e-Tvrtka (e-Company) FINA card AdES based on QC Accessible to holders of the solutions

Qualified signatures Accessible to holders of the solutions mentioned to the left.

Country Application name Signatures used Reported

register platform Common PKI

compliant qualified

Qualified signatures Common PKI compliant QES only.

Ireland Small claims online Username/password, with the password being granted after payment of the 15 EUR fee

Simple signatures Freely accessible.

Italy E-civil trial (‘processo civile telematico’)

Qualified signatures Only to holders of the appropriate signature solutions (linked to capacity, not to nationality)

Poland e-KRS system Signatures issued by one of the qualified CSPs in Poland:

Certum, Sigillum and Szafir

Qualified signatures Only to holders of the appropriate signature solutions

Portuguese Citius Signatures issued by the CA Multicert,

Advanced signatures Only to holders of the appropriate signature solutions

Slovenia Register of Wills Signatures issued by Slovenian CSPs

In total, 9 eJustice applications were reported, 7 of which were presently operational, and 2 of which were in pilot stage. Again, the number of applications is substantially smaller than for eProcurement applications, which may be linked due to the difficulty of establishing appropriate models for verifying the legal capacity of the actors (notaries, judges, lawyers, etc.). This same problem is also present for eHealth applications, which may explain why the number of applications reported is similar.

Looking at the scope of the applications, four of the nine descriptions relate to court proceedings and court administration (Ireland, Italy, Poland and Portugal), three relate to the establishment and management of companies (Croatia, Estonia and Germany), and two related to notarial archiving services (Austria and Slovenia).

With regard to signature solutions, and looking exclusively at the 7 operational applications, the same diversity found in the eProcurement and eHealth applications is found again:

• Four solutions presently rely on qualified signatures (Austria, Estonia, Germany and Poland);

• One (Slovenia) required advanced signatures based on qualified certificates;

• One (Portugal) required advanced signatures;

• One (Ireland) used simple signatures.

When breaking down the signature types per use case in the 7 operational applications:

• For the three operational court proceedings/administration applications (Ireland, Poland and Portugal), one relies on qualified signatures, one on advanced signatures, and one on a simple signature.

• For the two operational company establishment/management applications (Estonia and Germant), both rely on qualified signatures.

• For the two operational archiving services (in Austria and Slovenia), one uses qualified signatures and the other an advanced signatures based on qualified certificates.

Again, the sample size is too small to attach significant conclusions to this distribution.

As with the eHealth applications, given the sensitive nature, the need to be able to verify the professional status the service providers, and the link to a specific sector, it could reasonably be anticipated that interoperability initiatives would again be limited. In fact, all but one country (Estonia) restrict accessibility of the application to the holder of national credentials.

In the Estonian example, companies can be established not only by the holders of an Estonian signature solution (Estonian eID or Mobile-ID), but also by using a Portuguese, Belgian or Finnish

ID-no barrier for usage across borders, insofar as this would be relevant for a small claims court application.

As with eHealth applications, here too the actual need for interoperability is again much smaller than for applications with a potentially unlimited user group. E.g. the Austrian application is aimed towards any notaries in Austria (who are required to use the archive), meaning that it is not problematic that the Austrian Chamber of Notaries attests to the professional qualification. Signature solutions are in this respect commonly linked to a specific capacity, not to nationality, In cases where this means that all users have access to appropriate national credentials, the need for interoperability is again much smaller.