Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun. 2019, 67(6), 1551-1560 | DOI: 10.11118/actaun201967061551

Qualified Electronic Signature - eIDAS Striking Czech Public Sector Bodies

Radka MacGregor Pelikánová, Eva Daniela Cvik, Robert MacGregor
Metropolitan University Prague, Dubečská 900/10, 100 31 Prague 10, Czech Republic

Electronic IDentification, Authentication and trust Services ("eIDAS") is a standardized system for trustworthiness, effectiveness and efficiency. Since 2018, Czech public sector bodies have to use qualified electronic signatures when officially acting via electronic documents. This calls for a pioneering study entailing three purposes: (i) to identify provisions set by the EU law and Czech law of this duty and to interpret them, (ii) to study and assess how this duty is materialized and observed while using a pioneering Czech micro case study and (iii) to discuss and compare the yielded results with the status quo in other EU member states. A multi-disciplinary and multi-jurisdictional research of primary and secondary sources is performed along with a Czech micro case study exploring the readiness, implementation and consequences of this new duty on five Czech public sector bodies - Prague municipalities. The qualified electronic signature is a reality in the EU, but its standardized use is welcome and materialized with varying intensities.

Keywords: eIDAS, qualified electronic signature, public sector body, electronic communication, digital single market
Grants and funding:

This contribution was supported by GA ČR No. 17-11867S "Comparison of the interaction between the law against unfair competition and IP law, and its consequences in the central European context."

Received: June 3, 2019; Accepted: November 17, 2019; Published: December 22, 2019  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
MacGregor Pelikánová, R., Cvik, E.D., & MacGregor, R. (2019). Qualified Electronic Signature - eIDAS Striking Czech Public Sector Bodies. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 67(6), 1551-1560. doi: 10.11118/actaun201967061551
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. ANDRASKO, J. 2017. Mutual Recognition Of Electronic Identification Means Under The Eidas Regulation And Its Application Issues. AD ALTA-Journal Of Interdisciplinary Research, 7(2): 9-13.
    2. AREEDA, P. E. 1996. The Socratic Method. Harv. Law Rev., 109(5): 911-922.
    3. AZOLAI, L. 2011. The Force and Forms of European Legal Integration. EUI Work. Pap., 2011/6. Florence: European University Institute. Go to original source...
    4. BALCERZAK, A. P. 2016. Technological potential of European Economy. Proposition of measurement with application of multiple criteria decision analysis. Montenegrin. J. Econ., 12(3), 7-17. DOI: 10.14254/1800-5845.2016/12-3/1 Go to original source...
    5. CHIRITA, A. D. 2014. A Legal-Historical Review Of the EU Competition Rules. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 63(2): 281-316. DOI: 10.1017/S0020589314000037 Go to original source...
    6. CHRIST, K. L., BURRITT, R. L. and VARSEI, M. 2017. Coopetition as a potential strategy for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ., 26(7): 1029-1040. DOI: 10.1002/bse.1967 Go to original source...
    7. CVIK, E. D. and MACGREGOR PELIKÁNOVÁ, R. 2016. Implementation of directive 2014/17/EU and its impact on EU and member states markets, from not only a Czech perspectives. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci., 220: 85-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.472 Go to original source...
    8. CYGLER, J., SROKA, W., SOLESVIK, M. et al. 2018. Benefits and Drawbacks of Coopetition: The Roles of Scope and Durability in Coopetitive Relationships. Sustainability, 10(8): 2688. DOI: 10.3390/su10082688 Go to original source...
    9. CZYZEWSKI, B., POLCYN, J. and HNATYSZIN-DZIKOWSKA, A. 2016. Concept for Measuring the Efficiency of Public Goods Provision Based on the Education Sector in Poland. Ekonomický časopis, 64: 973-993.
    10. DAMRO, C. 2012. Market power Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(5): 682-699. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2011.646779 Go to original source...
    11. DIMA, A. M., BEGU, L., VASILESCU, D. et al. 2018. The Relationship between the Knowledge Economy and Global Competitivness in the European Union. Sustainability, 10: 1706. DOI: 10.3390/su10061706 Go to original source...
    12. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. 2018. Futurium. eIDAS Observatory. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/content/eidas-implementing-acts [Accessed: 2019 January 8].
    13. ERIXON, F. 2010. The Europe 2020 strategy: Time for Europe to think again. Eur. View, 9(1): 29-37. DOI: 10.1007/s12290-010-0120-8 Go to original source...
    14. MACGREGOR PELIKÁNOVÁ, R. 2013. Internet My Dearest, What Type of European Integration Is The Clearest? Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 61(7): 2475-2481. DOI: 10.11118/actaun201361072475 Go to original source...
    15. MACGREGOR PELIKÁNOVÁ, R. 2017. Constantine's Christianity for the (Dis)integrated EU-Déjŕ vu of Constantine's Roman governance reflecting of the mistrial of Jesus for EU? Dialogo, 4, 81-98. DOI: 10.18638/dialogo.2017.4.1.8 Go to original source...
    16. MACGREGOR PELIKÁNOVÁ, R. 2019. Corporate Social Responsibility Information in Annual Reports in the EU - Czech Case Study. Sustainability, 11(1): 237. DOI: 10.3390/su11010237 Go to original source...
    17. MATEJKA, J. 2013. Internet Jako Objekt Práva - Hledání Rovnováhy Autonomie a Soukromí. Praha: CZ.NIC.
    18. PASIMENI, F. and PASIMENI, P. 2016. An Institutional Analysis of the Europe 2020 Strategy. Soc. Indic. Res., 127(3): 1021-1038. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-015-1013-7 Go to original source...
    19. POHULAK-ZOLEDOWSKA, E. 2016. Innovation in Contemporary Economies. Oeconomia Copernic., 7: 451-466. DOI: 10.12775/OeC.2016.026 Go to original source...
    20. RADULESCU, M., FEDAJEV, A., SINISI, C. I. et al. 2018. Europe 2020 Implementation as Driver of Economic Performance and Competitiveness. Panel Analysis of CEE Countries. Sustainability, 10(3): 566. DOI: 10.3390/su10020566 Go to original source...
    21. RIBEIRO, C., LEITOLD, H., ESPOSITO, S. et al. 2018. STORK: a real, heterogeneous, large-scale eID management system. International Journal of Information Security, 17(5): 569-585. DOI: 10.1007/s10207-017-0385-x Go to original source...
    22. SILVERMAN, D. 2013. Doing Qualitative Research-A Practical Handbook, 4th ed.; SAGE: London, UK.
    23. SOLESVIK, M. Z. and GULBRANDSEN, M. 2013. Partner selection for open innovation. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev., 3(4): 11-16. DOI: 10.22215/timreview/674 Go to original source...
    24. STANÍČKOVÁ, M., MELECKÝ, L. and NAVRÁTIL, B. 2013. Measuring the Student Research Projects' Efficiency Using DEA Method. In: Efficiency and Responsibility in Education 2013 - ERiE: proceedings of the 10th international konference. 6th-7th June 2013, Prague, Czech Republic, EU. Prague: Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, pp. 573-580.
    25. STEC, M. and GRZEBYK, M. 2017. The implementation of the Strategy Europe 2020 objectives in European Union countries: The concept analysis and statistical evaluation. Qual. Quant., 52(1): 119-133. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-016-0454-7 Go to original source...
    26. TUREČKOVÁ, K. and NEVIMA, J. 2018. SMART approach in regional development. In: Proceedings of 18th International Scientific Conference Economic Policy in the European Union Member Countries. Karviná: SU OPF Karviná, pp. 386-394.
    27. VIVANT, M. 2016. Building a common culture IP? Int. Rev. Intellect. Prop. Compet. Law, 47(3): 259-261. Go to original source...
    28. VOGT, T. 2016. Die neue eIDAS-Verordnung - Chance und Herausforderung für die öffentliche Verwaltung in Deutschland Information. Wissenschaft & Praxis, 67(1): 61-68. Go to original source...
    29. ZELAZNY, R. and PIETRUCHA, J. 2017. Measuring innovation and institution: The creative economy index. Equilib. Q. J. Econ. Econ. Policy, 12(1): 43-62. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content