No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Regulating electronic identity in the European Union: An analysis of the Lisbon Treaty’s competences and legal basis for eID
Abstract
This paper discusses the feasibility of EU legal action in the field of electronic identity (eID) within the new distribution of legal competences and the provision of novel legal basis engendered by the Treaty of Lisbon. The article attempts to find a ‘legal anchor’ to the idea of a pan-European electronic identity within EU law, looking at the issues of competences and legal basis. After examining various different areas of competence and the most feasible (and probable) candidates for a legal basis supporting an EU legal framework for eID, the paper argues that the latter should be found in the combination of Article 16 TFEU (concerning the right to the protection of personal data) with Article 3 TUE, and Articles 26 and 114 TFEU (concerning the establishment and functioning of the Internal Market), which also constitute the area of competence where an eID legal initiative can be pursued.
... As noted in the introduction, not all counties have yet adopted such a card. This is true in Europe in particular, where, notwithstanding European Union (EU) aspirations, the deployment of EICs remains far from universal (Andrade, 2012) with approximately half of EU countries currently deploying an EIC. Those countries that have introduced EICs have had rather different experience. ...
In most countries e-Identity card adoption has had limited or little success. A notable exception to this is the case of Hong Kong. This article examines this phenomenon and contrasts it with the lackluster performance of this technology, in Europe in particular. It is suggested that several useful lessons can be learned from the Hong Kong experience and some possible directions for the future research into the nature and role of e-Identity cards are proposed.
The premises of the research are rooted in the debate about human rights of migrants and securitisation of borders in the European Union. In this context the body is in the spotlight, since a key component in the reinforcement of external borders has been
represented by the growing use of biometric data that is derived from the human body. The paper aims at investigating how and to what extent the human body is considered as an instrument of border control in the European Union. After providing an overview on the
relevant EU legislation, the paper explains which human rights implications are entailed
by the use of biometrics in the management of migration and asylum. It then introduces
the case study of age assessment for unaccompanied migrant children, illustrating in
particular the human rights that can be at stake with regard to medical age examinations.
Through the analysis of the selected case study it makes clear the crucial role that the
human body plays in the strategies of border control. Eventually the paper argues that,
through the deployment of such techniques, states are expressing their power on the body of migrants in order to exclude and not to include them.
Estonia—the small yet digitally advanced EU Member State—is the first country to open up its e-services to the world by issuing e-residencies, the Estonian equivalent to digital identity, to non-nationals. The Estonian digital identity or an e-residency grants its holder several rights unbeknownst to, or at least unapplied in, the majority of the EU Member States and in the world at a larger scale. Being an e-resident of Estonia, one can use the digital services of the country even if there had beforehand been no prior connection to Estonia, provided the potential e-resident shows legitimate interest. The digital services include possibility to digitally sign documents (legally enforceable in any EU Member State), do online banking, encrypt documents, as well as establish and manage a company in Estonia and declare its taxes online via the state-proven digital identity card issued and backed by the Estonian government. The given chapter scrutinises the perception of e-residency and discloses the problematical unbalanced aspects of it, pointing out that although secure from a technical point of view, e-residency lies on a defective concept and conflicting Estonian national regulatory framework that does not fully support the integration of the idea.
2015-ben nemzetközi figyelmet keltett Észtország legújabb „találmánya” – az e-polgárság. Az Európai Unió eme kicsiny, de digitalizáltság szempontjából igen fejlett tagállama számára külön kihívást jelentett, hogy elmagyarázza a világ számára ez mit is takar, bár még nem reklámozták az e-polgárságot. Magyarország sem késlekedett érdeklődést mutatni az ötlet iránt, többek között azért sem, mert éppen a magyar e-kártya koncepciója volt kidolgozás alatt. Számos cikk jelent meg a sajtóban, amelyek beszámoltak az észt fejleményekről, bár gyakran a pontatlan fogalmazás miatt a valóditól eltérő képet festettek az e-polgárság mibenlétéről. Alapvetően az észt digitális személyazonosság vagy e-polgárság az észt állampolgársággal (vagy tartózkodási joggal/engedéllyel) nem rendelkező személyek számára számos olyan jogot biztosít, amely többsége világszinten is ismeretlen, és lehetővé teszi az ország digitális szolgáltatásainak használatát a világ bármely pontjáról. Mindezek mellett az még kevésbé ismert, hogy milyen keretszabály-rendszer biztosítja az „ország- mint-szolgáltatás” működését és hol vannak az e-polgárság problematikus, kiegyen- súlyozatlan vetületei. Jelen tanulmány célja az, hogy pontosítsa a magyar nyelven elérhető információkat és rámutasson arra, hogy az e-polgárság, bár technikai szem- pontból biztonságos, koncepciója még nem teljesen kiforrott és a közeljövőben számos buktatóval kell majd az észteknek szembesülniük. A szerzők reményei szerint eme tanulmánnyal hozzájárulnak ahhoz, hogy a magyar szakértők pontosabb képet kapjanak az észt gyakorlatról, beleértve a sikereket és nehézségeket is.
This chapter examines the core legal and regulatory issues regarding electronic identity (eID) in the European Union. It is structured into five sections. Section 1.2 explains the terminology employed in the field of eID, defining the main concepts and terms of eID and electronic identity management systems (IDMs). Section 1.3 describes the rising socioeconomic relevance of eID, emphasizing its role as key enabler of economic growth. More specifically, this section assesses the importance of eID for citizens, governments, and business. Section 1.4 examines how eID is currently regulated in Europe, focusing on Directive 1999/93/EC on electronic signatures (eSig directive). Within such analysis, the chapter explains the Directive’s current shortcomings and the reasons for the unsuccessful uptake of electronic signatures in the EU. Section 1.5 provides a succinct analysis of the revision process of the eSig directive, which is currently in progress. The chapter outlines the main elements and novelties of the recently proposed Regulation on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market. This section notes how the scope of the existing eSig directive will be considerably expanded, describing the establishment of a mutual recognition of notified electronic identifications schemes and electronic trust services in the EU. Section 1.6 looks at the main and common objective behind eID regulatory initiatives and projects developed in the EU: the creation of a pan-European eID legal framework. In this context, it elaborates on the obstacles that are hindering the establishment of such scheme. As a way to overcome these obstacles and move forward, the chapter proposes a conceptual framework of principles that could form the basis of a future EU legal framework for the protection and management of digital identities: the principles of user-centricity, anonymity, and pseudonimity, as well as the principles of multiple identities, identity portability, unlinkability and negotiation, among others.
The provision of identities online continues to be a fiercely debated topic in policy circles, with proposals emerging for public sector organizations to leverage pre-existing social networking services for their own identity management purposes. Within the broader context of private sector organizations springing up as identity providers, this article explores — from a socio-legal perspective — the merits and drawbacks of using social networking services for government eID in Europe. It then reviews the present and future European policy environment concerning official use of social networking credentials. We focus specifically on legislative measures currently being proposed in the EU to facilitate the Identification, Authentication and Signature policy, within the scope of the ongoing Electronic Signatures Directive revision process and the launch of the proposed Electronic Trust Services Regulation.
The development of European integration from an economic to a political community has become manifest not just in the continuous addition of non-economic policy areas to the treaties. The introduction of Union citizenship (and its controversial subsequent development in the European Court of Justice's jurisprudence) has also triggered a paradigm shift in one of the community's core areas, the concept of negative integration hitherto intrinsically linked to the internal market. Thus, neither the individual's quality as a market actor nor his/her involvement in a transnational economic activity is a condition for enjoyment of the market freedoms' core guarantees, these being a right of residence and a far-reaching claim to national treatment in other Member States, as well as a prohibition on restrictions to the free movement of persons. A new fundamental freedom beyond market integration (‘Grundfreiheit ohne Markt’) has emerged. This process, whose consequences for the welfare systems of the wealthier Member States have been fiercely discussed for some time, however, also threatens to curtail severely the regulatory autonomy at the national level.
Privacy and Identity Management for Life: 6th Ifip Wg 9.2, 9 Revised Selected Papers The Right to Privacy and the Right to Identity in the Age of Ubiquitous Computing: Friends or Foes? A Proposal Towards a Legal Articulation
- S Fischer-Hü
- Bner
and Identity: Distinguishing Concepts and Articulating Rights, " in Privacy and Identity Management for Life: 6th Ifip Wg 9.2, 9.6/11.7, 11. 4, 11.6/Primelife International Summer School, Helsingborg, Sweden, August 2-6, 2010, Revised Selected Papers, ed. S. Fischer-Hü bner, et al. (Berlin; Heidelberg: 2011). d, " The Right to Privacy and the Right to Identity in the Age of Ubiquitous Computing: Friends or Foes? A Proposal Towards a Legal Articulation " in Personal Data Privacy and Protection in a Surveillance Era: Technologies and Practices, ed. Christina Akrivopoulou and Athanasios Psygkas (Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing, 2011).
Saving the European Union: The Logic of the Lisbon Treaty
- Duff
Duff, Saving the European Union: The Logic of the Lisbon Treaty, 30.