Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62021CN0362

Case C-362/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 June 2021 — Ekofrukt v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo

OJ C 357, 6.9.2021, p. 9–9 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

6.9.2021   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 June 2021 — Ekofrukt v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo

(Case C-362/21)

(2021/C 357/11)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ekofrukt EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo

Questions referred

1.

Is Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC to be interpreted as meaning that it is impermissible for an administrative act issued in the form of an electronic document to be declared invalid if it has been signed with an electronic signature which is not a ‘qualified electronic signature’?

2.

Is the entry of a ‘qualified electronic signature’ in the certificate issued by the trust service provider sufficient for a finding to be made whether or not an electronic signature is a qualified signature, or must the court establish compliance with Article 26 of and Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC?

3.

In a case such as that referred to above, in which the provider qualifies the electronic signature as ‘professional’, is that circumstance sufficient to establish that there is no ‘qualified electronic signature’, in the absence of a qualified certificate from the provider, or is it necessary to establish whether the signatures fulfil the requirements for a qualified electronic signature?

4.

When verifying the compliance of the qualified electronic signature with the requirements of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC, does the fact that the names of the holder of the electronic signature are, instead of being indicated in Cyrillic script as used by the person to identify himself or herself, rather indicated in Latin script constitute an infringement of that regulation, leading to the conclusion that there is no qualified electronic signature?

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC (OJ 2014 L 257, p. 73).

Top