digeorgi
commented
1 month ago Thank you very much for your input. Indeed a clarification is needed on how to deal with the PID of people who are not legally capable of making decisions on their own behalf. We agree also that the ARF should describe delegation in the context of legal persons. For example, when do we issue a legal-person attestation and when do we issue an attestation giving a natural person the right to represent a legal person? How is the connection between the PID and such representation rights? Are they part of the PID, or included in separate attestations?
We will add a section to the ARF main document to describe such questions on a high level. We will need to discuss further about these topics before we can propose any solutions or mechanisms. This will become available in a future release, after the publication of ARF 1.5.0.
ARF (Annex 2, Topic 29) does not provide HLRs for implementing the delegation scenarios it considers, which are very well described in the corresponding EPIC and which are needed in real-life scenarios including Social Security.
The delegation process, i.e., a natural person representing another based on the will of the represented person or a decision by an authority, is vital in the social security domain as well as in many other real-life scenarios. Despite the inherent complexity of these scenarios, guidelines on how these can be implemented in the context of the EUDI ecosystem, would be a highly beneficial addition and could expedite the adoption of the EUDI Wallet solution.
Topic 29 validly states that further MS input is needed due to lack of cross-border legal framework for recognition of powers and mandates; it would convenient to find a suitable balance with relevant upcoming regulations, e.g. the Company Law Directive (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_1930) that should align with EUDI wallets, but should at the same time provide a standard model for cross-borders Powers of Attorneys.