Electronic signatures in German, French and Polish law perspective

Transcription

1 Artile Eletroni signatures in German, Frenh and Polish law perspetive DR CHRISTIANE BIEREKOVEN, PHILIP BAZIN AND TOMASZ KOZLOWSKI This artile presents some signifiant issues on the reognition of eletroni signatures with regard to foreign ertifiates from the perspetive of German, Frenh and Polish law. The European Union legislation applies to Germany and Frane, and has served as a guide for Polish legislation in the ourse of preparations of the aession of Poland to the European Union. There are therefore strong similarities between the legislation of these ountries, but as the Frenh example shows, the results may also differ with regard to the material law appliable to a ontrat. The differene between simple and advaned eletroni signature is disussed within the ontext of Frenh law. This artile elaborates on onditions of reognition of eletroni signatures and the relevane of suh reognition for the legal systems of the Germany, Frane and Poland. It seems that the Eletroni Signature Diretive has been suessfully implemented, and provides for lear reognition riteria within the European Union. The reognition of ertifiates from third ountries depends on the fulfillment of the riteria set out in the Diretive. The Polish law provides for a speial position of European Union based suppliers of ertifiates in terms of their reognition. Eletroni Signatures in Germany European bakground The European Diretive on Eletroni Signatures 1 binds the German legislator. Thus, the requirements for eletroni signatures laid down in this Diretive apply to the German legislation on eletroni signatures. It may be stressed that Germany was the first ountry in the European Union that issued a law on eletroni, respetively digital, signatures prior to the Eletroni Signature Diretive. The At on Digital Signatures ame into fore on 1 August 1997 and was restrited to the use of digital signatures only. It had to be amended after the Eletroni Signature Diretive was published, beause the Diretive provides for eletroni signatures in general and is not restrited to the use of digital signatures only. The German legislation The Eletroni Signature Diretive was implemented into German law by the At on outlining Conditions for Eletroni Signatures and for the Amendment of further Regulations (Gesetz über Rahmenbedingungen für elektronishe Signaturen und zur Änderung weiterer Vorshriften), hereinafter referred to as SigG - of 21 May It ame into fore on 22 May It replaes the former At on Digital Signatures (Verordnung zur digitalen Signatur No: Signaturgesetz). Art. 23 SigG provides for the reognition of foreign eletroni signatures and produts for eletroni signatures. It distinguishes between eletroni signatures originating in EU member states, states of the European Free Trade Assoiation (EFTA) and eletroni signatures originating in third ountries. Eletroni Signatures originating in a Member State of the EU or the EFTA Aording to Art SigG eletroni signatures, whih are based on a qualified ertifiate of a member state of the EU or the EFTA, are reognized as legally equivalent to qualified eletroni signatures in the sense of the SigG, provided that those qualified ertifiates omply with the provisions of Art. 5 1 of the 1 Diretive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Counil of 13 Deember 1999 on a Community framework for eletroni signatures (OJ L13/12). 7

2 If the ertifiation body approves the seurity onept, the ertifiation servie provider is entitled to all itself aredited ertifiation servie provider and to rely on the approved seurity in the ourse of business and legal relations Eletroni Signature Diretive. This means that eletroni signatures that are based on qualified ertifiates of member states of either the EU or the EFTA that omply with the provisions of Art. 5 1 of the Eletroni Signature Diretive are reognized as legally equivalent with qualified eletroni signatures in the sense of the SigG. So, the requirements for the reognition may be determined by Art. 5 1 Eletroni Signature Diretive. Eletroni Signatures originating in a Third Country Regarding the reognition of eletroni signatures originating in third ountries, Art SigG implements the provisions of Art. 7 1 of the Eletroni Signature Diretive and further requires that the ertifiate in the sense of Art. 7 is to be used for an eletroni signature in the sense of Art. 5 1 Eletroni Signature Diretive. An eletroni signature in the sense of Art. 5(1) is an advaned eletroni signature whih is based on a qualified ertifiate and is reated by a seure signature-reation devie. Pursuant to Art. 2 No. 1 an advaned eletroni signature is an eletroni signature whih is uniquely linked to the signatory, is apable of identifying the signatory, is reated using means that the signatory an maintain under his sole ontrol and eventually is linked to the data to whih it relates in suh a manner that any subsequent hange of the data is detetable. A qualified ertifiate is a ertifiate that meets the requirements laid down in Annex I and is provided by a ertifiation-servie-provider who fulfills the requirements laid down in Annex II 2, Art. 2 No. 10. A seure-signature-reation devie is a signature-reation devie that meets the requirements laid down in Annex III 3. Hene, if an eletroni signature originating in a third ountry is an advaned eletroni signature in the sense of Art. 2 No. 2 Eletroni Signature Diretive as outlined before it has to be reognized as legally equivalent to qualified eletroni signatures in the sense of the SigG. Note The German SigG provides for voluntary areditation in Art. 15. This means that a ertifiation servie provider may apply for an areditation with the relevant offiial authorities. It has to omply with further requirements of the SigG. This means that suh ertifiation servie provider has to present a seurity onept in the sense of Art. 4 3 in whih it shows that it meets the requirements of both the SigG and the Signaturverordnung (Regulations on Eletroni Signatures), Art SigG. This seurity onept has to be approved by a ertifiation body ( Bestätigungsstelle ), Art SigG. If the ertifiation body approves the seurity onept, the ertifiation servie provider is entitled to all itself aredited ertifiation servie provider and to rely on the approved seurity in the ourse of business and legal relations. Pursuant to Art SigG eletroni signatures in the sense of 1 are reognized as legally equivalent to qualified eletroni signatures based on a ertifiate of an aredited ertifiation servie provider in the sense of Art SigG if it has been demonstrated that they adhere to the same seurity standard. This means that eletroni signatures originating in the member states of the EU or the EFTA or in third ountries and whih omply with the requirements of Art SigG have to show the seurity standard being appliable to eletroni signatures based on a ertifiate of an aredited ertifiation servie provider. If this is proven, they are reognized as legally equivalent to eletroni signatures based on a ertifiate of an aredited ertifiation servie provider in the sense of Art SigG and may, therefore, be promoted as eletroni signatures based on a ertifiate of an aredited ertifiation servie provider. Obtaining approved statues means the aredited ertifiation servie provider an promote this in the ourse of business and rely on the legal effet in its relations with its ustomers. Produts for eletroni signatures Produts for eletroni signatures originating in either a member state of the EU or the EFTA whih omply with the provisions of the Eletroni Signature Diretive and whih have been offiially approved, are reognized in Germany. This means that those produts for eletroni signatures whih have been tested in one of the member states of the EU or the EFTA and whih have been offiially approved to omply with the requirements of the Eletroni Signature Diretive are reognized in Germany. It may be stressed that the definition of produts for eletroni signatures in Art. 2 No. 13 SigG: 2 The Annexes I and II are attahed to the Eletroni Signature Diretive 1999/93/EC, of , L 13/18, L13/19. 3 Annex III is attahed to the Eletroni Signature Diretive, L13/20. 8

3 Produkte für elektronishe Signaturen sihere Signaturerstellungseinheiten, Signaturanwendungskomponenten und tehnishe Komponenten für Zertifizierungsdienste Produts for qualified eletroni signatures shall be seure signature-reation devies, signatureappliation omponents, and tehnial omponents for ertifiation servies; is not idential with the definition of eletroni-signature produt in Art. 2(12) of the Eletroni Signature Diretive: eletroni-signature produt means hardware or software, or relevant omponents thereof, whih are intended to be used by a ertifiation-servie-provider for the provision of eletroni-signature servies or are intended to be used for the reation or verifiation of eletroni signatures; Aording to Art. 2 No. 10 SigG, a seure signature-reation devie means omponents of hardware or software whih are intended to either store or use the signature key. Those omponents have to meet the requirements of Art. 17 or 23 SigG and the relevant stipulations of the Regulations on eletroni signatures, and are intended to be used for qualified eletroni signatures. Thus, in ontrast to the definition of produts for eletroni signatures in the sense of Art. 2(12) of the Eletroni Signature Diretive, the definition of produts for eletroni signatures in Art. 2 No. 13 SigG also inludes the use of the respetive signature key. Furthermore, a signature-appliation omponent means hardware or software produts that are intended (a) to be used for the proess of the reation or the verifiation of a qualified eletroni signature or (b) to verify a qualified eletroni signature or a qualified ertifiate and to show the results of suh verifiation. These requirements are partly inluded in the definition of a signature-verifiation devie of Art. 2(8) of the Eletroni Signature Diretive and partly in the definition of eletroni-signature produt of Art. 2(12) of the Eletroni Signature Diretive. The most important differene between the two definitions is that the definition of Art. 2 No. 10 SigG also inludes the use of the signature key whereas the definition of Art. 2(12) of the Eletroni Signature Diretive does not. Relevane of the Reognition It has to be pointed out that under German law, the use of qualified eletroni signatures in the sense of the SigG amongst other things has at least two important onsequenes. First, pursuant to Art. 126a of the German Civil Code, qualified eletroni signatures in the sense of the SigG are to be reognized as legally equivalent to handwritten signatures. Seondly, aording to Art. 292a of the German Code of Civil Proedure, it is presumed that an eletroni delaration that has been signed with a qualified eletroni signature in the sense of Art. 126a of the German Civil Code is an authenti delaration of the signature-holder. Thus, in a litigation the party who ontests the authentiity of the eletroni delaration of the other party has to present fats that ause reasonable doubts that the delaration in question has been made willingly by the signature-holder. Consequently, if an eletroni signature originating in a member state of the EU or the EFTA or a third ountry is reognized as legally equivalent to qualified eletroni signatures in the sense of the SigG, it may omply with the requirements of a handwritten signature, and the signature-holder may rely on the presumption provided for by Art. 292a German Code of Civil Proedure. So, if the opponent ontests the authentiity of the eletroni delaration that has been signed with an eletroni signature originating in a third ountry that is reognized legally equivalent to a qualified eletroni signature in the sense of Art. 126a of the German Civil Code, the opponent has to present fats that ause reasonable doubts that this delaration has been made willingly by the signature-holder. By ontrast, if the eletroni signature originating in a third ountry is not reognized as legally equivalent to a qualified eletroni signature in the sense of Art. 126a of the German Civil Code, the signature-holder has to prove that the delaration in question has been made willingly by him. In that ase, the signatureholder has to present witnesses who may testify aordingly, whih in fat means that he may only sign eletronially in the presene of a witness. In pratie, it is assumed that this will rarely happen, sine douments in general are signed alone and so are or will be eletroni douments. Therefore, it may be of great advantage for the signature-holder if his eletroni signature is reognized legally equivalent to qualified eletroni signatures in the sense of Art. 126a German Civil Code. 9

4 What is true for every state should ertainly apply to every ourt proeedings onduted by ompetent ourts Eletroni Signatures in Frane A paradoxial question The Frenh view on the eletroni signatures reognition problems fouses on a slightly different issue. From the Frenh law perspetive in the EU ontext, the ruial question is: it is possible for one EU jurisdition or a ompetent ourt to reognize the validity of a ertified signature, and another one to refuse suh reognition. The question so formulated seems to be paradoxial. The Eletroni Signature Diretive lays down a strong priniple of free irulation of eletronisignature produts and their funtional equivalene. This priniple refers to the general priniple of free movement of goods and servies that governs trade within the Common Market. The Eletroni Signature Diretive lays down priniples of ompatibility and interoperability of eletronisignature produts on the level of the Member States, as set out in the fifth reital of the Preamble: The interoperability of eletroni-signature produts should be promoted; in aordane with the artile 14 of the Treaty What is true for every state should ertainly apply to every ourt proeedings onduted by ompetent ourts. Bearing in mind what has been said above, it would have been ontraditory for the European legislation on eletroni signatures if the same ertifiate of signature was onsidered differently in different proeedings. However, a more detailed analysis provides for a more sophistiated answer. The following should be taken into aount: the sope of appliation of the eletroni signature as defined by the Diretive and the two ategories of the signatures established by the Diretive. The sope of appliation of eletroni signatures as defined by the Diretive: ontrats subjet to the formal requirements Artile 1 of the Diretive defines the sope of appliability in a rather general manner. It provides that: The purpose of this Diretive is to failitate the use of eletroni signatures and to ontribute to their legal reognition [and] establishes a legal framework for eletroni signatures Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Eletroni Signature Diretive is not appliable to all kinds of signatures. Artile 1(2) provides for the following exlusion: It [the Diretive] does not over aspets related to the onlusion and validity of ontrats or other legal obligations where there are requirements as regards form presribed by national or Community law Hene the situation in whih the signature by itself is not enough to onlude a ontrat or assume an obligation is exluded from the sope of appliability of the Diretive. Suh is the ase in Frenh law where different sorts of ontrats require observane of the written form and, if suh is missing, the observane of ertain formalities. For example, insurane ontrats, marriage ontrats or artiles of assoiation should be ompleted in writing, whereas a ontrat of marriage should be arried out before a notary. In suh a ase, no matter what means of eletroni signature were used, it would not be enough to give the at in question legal effet. It is beause the law requires that also other formalities must be observed. This allows us to understand the different position that may be taken by different ourts with regard to same signature tool. If ertain signature tools are used in ases where other formalities are also required, whether the partiular signature tool was in onformity with the requirements of the Diretive would not be deisive. Within the requirements of national law, the use of suh a signature is not enough to reate an at that requires other onditions to be fulfilled. Consider the ontrat of insurane as an example. Assume the insured faes a laim from a third party- vitim of an aident. The insured seeks to all upon the guarantee of the insuring entity. In suh a ase, Frenh law requires the insured to prove the two following aspets: The existene of the ontrat. The obligation to provide a guarantee. The law also requires the ontrat of insurane to be ompleted in writing whih means, in the present wording of the Civil Code, to use paper form. It means that the existene of a ontrat is only possible if it is in paper form. The ase may be that the insured is only in the possession of an eletroni opy of the ontrat. Suh an eletroni opy, even if signed, would not be enough to be regarded as a proof, beause the law requires that the ontrat in its entirety should exist on paper. In suh a ase the judge may disregard the eletroni signature, even if its validity was not in question. On the other hand, onsider the same example of the insurane ontrat but where it has been produed on paper, and where the annex has been signed eletronially. If the ondition with regard to the existene of the ontrat was 10

5 satisfied (exeution of the ontrat in paper form) the proof with regard to the annex (whih is not submitted by law to the same requirements of the paper form) may be arried out using an eletroni signature. In summary, the requirements as to the form onstitute the first explanation of the possibility of a different approah of two jurisditions to the same form of eletroni signature that may have been used. However, the same differene may also appear in a different senario. It is the ase where two signatures are used in onformity with the Diretive, but have different evidential value. The Diretive utilizes the distintion between two ategories of eletroni signature. The two ategories of signature used by the Diretive The Diretive, in artile1, refers to a framework for eletroni signatures. The plural used in that phrase does not simply refer to the signatures that exist in every member state. It refers to the two ategories of signatures introdued by the Diretive. Those two ategories may be haraterized in the following way: The simple eletroni signature whih is only destined as authentiation (to guarantee identity) of the author of a message, and whih is only a method of authentiation. The advaned eletroni signature whih guarantees identity and integrity of a message and whih, taking into aount stringent onditions of its delivery, is destined to have the same legal value as the hand written signature These are in fat two different forms of eletroni signatures whih do not have the same legal value and whih result from two different ultures. The Roman ulture of the identity ard If a person affixes their signature on a doument, they may have to justify the validity of that signature to a third party. Two questions arise: Is the natural person who signs the person who he purports to be? And how should it be proved? In the Roman legal system, the answer is simple: proof is addued by produing an identity ard. The offiial doument is issued by the publi authority on the base of other offiial douments. In Frane, it is an exerpt from the at of birth. The National Identity Card ontains the offiial master of the hand signature. Indeed, as the National Identity Card is delivered by Civil Servants in Frane, the National Identity Card is onsidered to be the strongest tool to prove the identity, nationality and signature of a person. It is this master signature whih serves as element of omparison and, onsequently of authentiation in ase of a dispute. To authentiate in the etymology of the word means to verify the author of a message. The best method to establish a onnetion between the message and its author and onsequently its uniqueness, it is to establish a physial onnetion between the person and the tool they are using. If I sign using my own hand, I onfirm the uniqueness of my signature with regard to the others beause my hand by very definition is unique. But the uniqueness resulting from the physial onnetion between the tool (the hand) and the visible result of the tool (the signature) makes the hand signature something more than just the method of identifiation. It goes muh further beause it is diretly onneted to a person and therefore it also manifests the will. To sign with a hand is not only to simply identify oneself, but it is also to manifest the onsent to a legal at. To sign with a hand means to show onsent and will to reate obligations. Therefore the legal value of the signature refers to its offiial aspet (the master of signature being deposited with the publi authority) and its physial onnetion with the person whose onsent is manifested. Compared with the ommon law, the signature always serves to identify the signatory of a ontrat and to aknowledge onsent to a legal at, unless the ontrator gives the order to a third person to ontrat for him and under his name. The Anglo-Saxon ulture of authentiation Our English friends ignore the mehanism of identity ard that onstitutes strong referene in terms of a proof. They are muh more familiar with methods of authentiation whih are pratially the ontratual proedures by whih two persons define the speifi signs by whih they would be mutually reognizable. This is the ulture of authentiation that takes different forms, suh as the use of a password, aess ode, hip ard or USB key. These methods are often used in private or semi-private networks, like a safe guarded intranet. This method of proeeding has a diret influene on the understanding of eletroni signature. Very simply one ould say that the signature being a method of the authentiation for some, would be the identity and onsent for the others. However, those two forms are not subjet to the same tehnial requirements. To sign with a hand is not only to simply identify oneself, but it is also to manifest the onsent to a legal at 11

6 The simpliity of eletroni signature understood as a method of authentiation As already mentioned, the method of authentiation may take very different forms. Espeially, it may be used under a ovenant with regard to methods of evidene. I deide that in my relations with the bank I will identify myself by a ode omposed of four digits. I deide that in my relations with my suppliers I will identify myself by a password to obtain aess to a private network. I deide that in relations with my lients, I will be identified by a ombination of password, a hip ard or USB key on whih the data generated by me for my identifiation is installed. In short, an eletroni signature as understood as a method of authentiation within the meaning of the Diretive, is simple to produe and simple to funtion. But what is its value in terms of proof? Between the parties of the agreement it is ertainly strong. But this value is only a relative one, beause it does not apply to other parties. These authentiation tools only have a legal value in relation to those who voluntary aept to be bound by them. For the third parties, those methods are without any effet. A signature should be effetive against everyone, just like a hand written one. What makes the value of the advaned eletroni signature it is its omplexity. The omplexity of advaned eletroni signature understood as a tool of identifiation and onsent From a legal point of view, the advaned eletroni signature guaranties the integrity of a message and identity of its author. The tools that are used to produe it (qualified ertifiates) are delivered observing stringent onditions. Notably, the provider of ertifiation servies should assure by physial ontat, the existene and the identity of a given person or legal entity. Seondly, the ertifiate should be produed with the tehnology that responds to the stringent tehnial requirements, guaranteeing the holder of suh a ertifiate against all risk of dupliating suh a ertifiate. Finally, the provider of the ertifiation servies should present the speial guaranties of ompetene and organization to obtain the right to issue the ertifiates haraterized as qualified. To sum up, the advaned eletroni signature does not have muh to do with the simple method of authentiation, whih is the simple signature. Different kinds of signatures As there are two ategories of signature, it is understandable why two jurisditions or ompetent ourts may have different opinions in relation to the same form of signature. The advaned eletroni signature presents a muh stronger guarantee in omparison to those offered by a simple signature. Beause of this, and depending on the irumstanes of the ase, it may well be the ase that a simple eletroni signature would be onsidered as valid in some irumstanes and not in others. For example if I order a CD over the internet and I use a simple eletroni signature, it is possible that in ase of a dispute the judge would onsider a simple eletroni signature as a valid proof with regard to the limited importane of the interests at stake. Quite the opposite, if I use the same signature to buy a ar or jewellery, the judge would understandably take muh more septial approah, and would onsider the obligations to be of suh importane that a simple signature would not suffie as the proof of those obligations. In short, the simple eletroni signature bears too great a risk of fraudulent usage to be given the same value in terms of proof as the advaned eletroni signature. Summary The answer to the question under Frenh law may be onluded as follows. It is possible that the same ertifiate of signature would be onsidered as a valid by one judge and not by another. This possibility of the different appreiation results from the distintions in the European law between two ategories of the signature. The simple eletroni signature does not ontain strong legal guaranties. The advaned eletroni signature, on the other hand, presents important legal guaranties. Those guaranties are at least the same as those of a hand written signature. If a simple eletroni signature is used for obligations of a limited importane, the judge may take a more generous approah to its usage. One it is used for obligations of substantial importane, the judge would take a more ritial approah and onsider only the advaned eletroni signature as a valid proof that is aeptable in the ourt proeedings. 12

7 Eletroni Signature in Poland The Polish At on Eletroni Signature, dated (Ustawa z dnia 18 wrzesnia 2001 r. o podpisie elektroniznym), aimed to ahieve similar standards as in the Eletroni Signature Diretive. The at on eletroni signatures differentiates three kinds of signatures: eletroni signature (Art. 3 item 1 of the At), safe eletroni signature (Art. 3 item 2 of the At), safe eletroni signature verified by qualified ertifiate (Art. 5 setion 1 of the At) The last type of signature (safe eletroni signature verified by qualified ertifiate) is equivalent to the hand written signature in terms of its legal effets 4. The qualified ertifiate may be issued only by qualified entity subjet to stringent requirements defined in the At (Artiles and Artile 23). The entities providing qualified ertifiate servies are subjet to enrolment to the registry of the qualified suppliers of ertifiate servies. The registry is supervised by the Ministry of Eonomy 5. Reognition of foreign ertifiates supporting eletroni signatures Artile 4 of the At on Eletroni Signatures sets out the onditions relating to foreign ertifiates. For a foreign ertifiate to be reognized, one of the following riteria has to be met: 1. podmiotowi swiadzaemu uslugi ertyfikayjne, który wydal ten ertyfikat, zostala udzielona akredytaja, 2. przewiduje to umowa miedzynarodowa, której strona jest Rzezpospolita Polska, o wzajemnym uznaniu ertyfikatów, 3. podmiot swiadzay uslugi ertyfikayjne, który wydal ten ertyfikat,zostal wpisany do rejestru kwalifikowanyh podmiotów swiadzayh uslugi ertyfikayjne, 4. podmiot swiadzay uslugi ertyfikayjne, majay siedzibe na terytorium spólnoty Europejskiej spelniajay wymogi ustawy, udzielil gwaranji za ten ertyfikat, 5. ertyfikat ten zostal uznany za kwalifikowany w drodze umowy miedzynarodowej zawartej pomiedzy Wspólnota Europejska a panstwami trzeimi lub organizajami miedzynarodowymi, 6. podmiot swiadzay uslugi ertyfikayjne, który wydal ten ertyfikat, zostal uznany w drodze umowy miedzynarodowej zawartej pomiedzy Wspólnota Europejska a panstwami trzeimi lub organizajami miedzynarodowymi. 1. The entity providing the ertifiate servies has been entered to the register of the qualified entities providing ertifiate servies. 2. The reognition is envisaged by an international onvention on mutual reognition of the ertifiates to whih Poland is party. 3. The provider of the ertifiate servies fulfils the requirements of the At and has been aredited in the Member State of European Union. 4. The provider of the ertifiate servies with a seat in the European Union fulfilling the requirements of the At has guarantied that ertifiate. 5. The ertifiate in question has been onsidered as qualified by an international onvention onluded between European Union and third parties or international organisations. 6. The entity rendering ertifiate servies whih issued that ertifiate has been reognised by international onvention onluded between the European Union and third parties or international organisations. Dr. Christiane Bierekoven, Philip Bazin and Tomasz Kozlowski, 2004 The Artile is the result of work of the E- Commere Group of Avrio Advoati, a European based legal network. The details of the network, the authors and their legal praties are available at The disussion on German law is provided by Dr Christiane Bierekoven, Rehtsänwaltin, assoiate at Eimer Heushmid Mehle, Germany, who speializes in unfair ompetition, intelletual property, trade marks, internet law, ageny and distribution, International private law, European law. Dr Bierekoven won the Ehrhardt-Imelmann-Award 2001 of the University of Cologne. bierekoven@avrio.net The disussion on Frenh law is provided by Philip Bazin Philip is an avoat at Barreau de Rouen, Frane, and a member of the Assoiation pour le Développement pour l Informatique Juridique and the Forum des Droits de l Internet. His firm, Emo Herbert & Assoies, is a member of the Assoiation HSD, established by Ernst & Young. pbazin@avoeha.om To sum up this disussion, the Polish At on Eletroni Signatures provides for the possibility of the reognition of eletroni signatures produed with the ertifiates issued by entities in other ountries, espeially in member states of European Union. The outline on Polish law is provided by Tomasz Kozlowski, of Rada Prawny (legal advisor), Poland, KRPiA Gluhowski Jedlinski Rodziewiz Zwara & Partners. Tomasz is a holder of Diplomas in EU, German, English and Frenh Law from Universities in Cambridge (UK), Bonn (Germany) and Poitiers (DESS-Frane). t.kozlowski@kps.om.pl 4 Artile 5 setion 2 reads: Data in eletroni format signed with safe eletroni signature verified by valid qualified ertifiate are equivalent in their legal effets with douments signed by hand unless speifi provisions of law provide otherwise. 5 A list of entities rendering the ertifiation servies may be viewed on the web e.g. at 13