Germany and Spain have submitted written statements expressing certain reservations regarding the European Business Wallet (EBW) for inclusion in the EU Council minutes. Nevertheless, both countries expressed their support for the compromise text presented by the Cyprus Presidency of the Council of the EU with a view to reaching a political agreement (general approach) on this file, which should be adopted at the ‘Telecommunications’ Council on Tuesday 9 June in Luxembourg (see EUROPE 13882/9).
Germany wants to “ensure that wallet providers meet the security requirements of public applications with higher security standards” and is calling for the establishment of “uniform, binding minimum requirements, which could be regulated in the implementing acts for Articles 7 and 11” during the negotiations with the European Parliament, according to the statement seen by Agence Europe.
Germany “sees a need to narrow down the broad wording of Article 4” in order to guarantee “legal certainty”, by incorporating the “consensus” reached on “the principle of equivalence” between the qualified electronic signature and the handwritten signature which it replaces, with “the same legal effects”.
Spain is also expressing “reservations” in its written statement. While welcoming the “safeguards introduced in the recitals and in Article 4 regarding the relationship between the EBW and existing national digital infrastructures”, it considers that Article 16(1), in its current wording, “could be interpreted as allowing economic operators to submit documents or data to public administrations through the EBW even where dedicated digital interfaces (…) are already established and legally required under national or Union law”. Spain therefore considers it “essential that the continued use of these interfaces is not put in doubt”, calling for “significant investments in infrastructures, in areas such as tax administration, social security, and company registration” already put in place, invoking the need to avoid a situation of legal uncertainty.
Spain would also support “a targeted amendment” to Article 2(2), because it does not explicitly cover “procedures governing the exchange of documents and data between competent authorities and economic operators (B2G)”, but only “exchanges between competent authorities (G2G)”. It is also asking for the exclusion of the administration of justice from the scope of the regulation to be stated explicitly in the normative provisions, and not only in a recital, which has no binding legal effect. (Original version in French by Ana Pisonero Hernández)