Topic I: Natural person representing another natural person

[phin10]

Welcome to the discussion on the Natural person representing another natural person, part of the ongoing development of the Architecture and Reference Framework (ARF) for the European Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet.

This discussion is based on the document Topic I - Natural person representing another natural person.

Topic I is about retrieving high level requirements on how the Wallet will support the representation of another natural person.

• One common use case is the legal representation of minors or individuals with diminished legal capacity. For example parents or legal guardians should be empowered to make decisions and act on behalf of their children end represent them when accessing educational platforms, healthcare services, government benefits, or other services. The EU Digital Identity Wallet should therefore accommodate such delegation in a secure, verifiable manner.
• Another significant use case is the management of affairs for elderly or incapacitated individuals. In these cases individuals can be assigned as legal representatives to manage healthcare, financial, and personal matters. This could translate into a caregiver or relative holding a proper delegation to, for instance, access health records or submit applications for social care services on behalf of the person they represent.
• Power of attorney is another use case of a natural person (the agent) acting on behalf of another natural person (the principal).

The discussion paper addresses several questions and options at Attestation issuance and at Attestation presentation.

This discussion is part of a structured process to refine and complete the ARF, with your input playing a vital role. We invite you to share your comments, insights, and suggestions here. Your contributions will be carefully reviewed and considered as we work towards the next version of the ARF, which will incorporate updates on this topic.

Thank you for participating in this important conversation.

[Kazik65]

I believe that the definition of electronic identification expressed in Article 3 1 eIDAS
electronic identification’ means the process of using person identification data in electronic form uniquely representing either a natural or legal person, or a natural person representing another natural person or a legal person;
and then the definition established in Article 3.2
‘electronic identification means’ means a material and/or immaterial unit containing person identification data and which is used for authentication for an online service or, where appropriate, for an offline service;
and finally, the definition expressed in Article 3.3
‘person identification data’ means a set of data that is issued in accordance with Union or national law and that enables the establishment of the identity of a natural or legal person, or of a natural person representing another natural person or a legal person
means no doubt that electronic identification is only for confirming the identity of the person using the electronic identification means and/or the person represented. And that’s all – establishing identity but not other attributes assigned to this identity such as education or qualifications.
Therefore, data identifying a person should ensure the identification of the person and not their additional attributes. Accordingly, electronic identification is the process of using data identifying a person (natural or legal).
Electronic attestation of attributes is something else, in particular attributes referred to in Annex VI, point 9 eIDAS (Powers and mandates to represent natural or legal persons ). Attribute attestation is not an electronic identification means because it is not used for electronic identification (establishing the identity of a natural person representing a natural or legal person) but for indicating another features like rights and possibly the scope of these rights.

In particular, assigning a scope of rights (e.g. parental rights, access to medical data, the right to represent in a specific administrative case or the right to pick up a child from school) to a person representing another natural person is not the identification of a natural person representing another natural person.

To sum up, it is not possible and should not be to assign rights to data identifying a person and, consequently, to an electronic identification means. If this were to be the case, it would be necessary to create different electronic identification means for different tasks, which would result in their overproduction. Currently available online services that expect electronic identification of users sometimes allows (as part of this service) of other persons authorized by the users and internally solve the problem of representation.

The emergence of electronic identification means of natural persons representing other natural persons, with effectiveness limited to specific resources, would force service providers not only to recognize a new type of identification means but also to automatically read the scope of authorizations in order to determine whether this scope includes a specific service. Such a task seems too ambitious.

Therefore, if the electronic identification of a natural person is provided by an electronic identification means, and the indication of the possibility of this person representing another person is found in the electronic attestation of attribute , then why were electronic identification means of persons representing other persons provided for at all? Isn't the use of an electronic identification means of a natural person together with an (Q)EAA containing the authorization to represent sufficient?
It seems that the following explanations are possible:

1. the electronic identification means of a natural person representing another natural or legal person can be used without additional electronic attestation of attribute and always has unlimited effectiveness (these issues are not resolved in eIDAS and should certainly depend on national regulations which can indicate the scope of effectiveness of such means without the need to attach an EAA)
   or
2. the electronic identification means of a natural person representing another natural or legal person shall be used in conjunction with EAA, which specifies the scope of it. Without additional electronic attestation of attribute such means are not effective (these issues are not resolved in eIDAS and should certainly depend on national regulations).
   or
3. Alternatively, a natural person's identification means can be used in conjunction with electronic attestation of attribute, which specifies the scope of its application in the scope of representing a legal or natural person

[phin10]

Thank you for your comment and your analysis.

Please find the results on this topic in:

1. ARF, Annex2, Topic 29. Added in ARF version 2.2.0 on 20 June 2025.
2. Discussion paper on topic I. Added on 21 May 2025.