Die Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche in Bayern - ELKB

FC Bayern Munich

bayern single

The Courage lost all three regular season meetings with the Red Stars last season, but finally got the win when it mattered most — in the NWSL playoffs. Retrieved 14 December The equivalent assurance shall be confirmed by a conformity assessment body. Adidas have been Bayern's kit sponsor since Dunn made several key plays to help preserve the shutout, which came against a few of her former Chelsea teammates. In August Bayern opened an office in New York City as the club wants to strengthen their brand positioning against other top European clubs in the United States.

Player ratings

Australia national cricket team This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. If a qualified certificate for an electronic seal has been revoked after initial activation, it shall lose its validity from the moment of its revocation, and its status shall not in any circumstances be reverted. Thanks to all of my teammates for pushing me to be my best self, and making everyday memorable. In the event of the data being transferred between two or more qualified trust service providers, the requirements in points a to f shall apply to all the qualified trust service providers. What I would like from the fans is to support us in that, because together we can create a soccer fest of it. The Commission shall make that information available to Member States.

Unsurprisingly, the excellent Forrest was the architect, first spotting McGregor in space then lifting a cute chip beyond Rafinha for him to finish low under Ulreich. Parity was restored for less than three minutes, however, as David Alaba lifted in for Martinez to head the winner soon after. Anderlecht's thrashing by Paris Saint-Germain means the Europa League is all Celtic can hope for now - but they are at least in a good position to drop into that competition with two games left.

Overall we looked like a proper team and one that is developing at this level. We are disappointed to have lost but there are so many positives from the game. The fans were a super support and it was a wonderful experience for us here. Celtic have won just one of their last 13 Champions League matches W1, D3, L9 , conceding 36 goals in the process.

Kingsley Coman has had a hand in two goals in his last two Champions League starts for Bayern Munich, having previously gone 13 matches without registering a single goal or assist. Javi Martinez netted his first goal in the Champions League in what was his 38th appearance in the competition for Bayern. The winger was drafted in as a replacement for Patrick Roberts after he was hurt at the weekend and he had a terrific game. The winger set a marker early with a great ball for Stuart Armstrong which the midfielder should have done better with and he was at the heart of everything positive Celtic did.

It was perhaps to be expected that Forrest would craft the opening which got Rodgers' team back into the game and the vision he showed was matched by his measured chip for McGregor to equalise.

Forrest is a player who, like many wingers, suffers from inconsistency on occasions - but this was one time he was unfortunate not to win. Celtic travel to sixth-placed St Johnstone as they continue their defence of the Scottish Premiership on Saturday. Bayern have the small matter of a trip to face their closest challengers in the Bundesliga, Borussia Dortmund, on the same day. Enter your selections for free here. Celtic 1 C McGregor Celtic Bayern Munich: Scots eliminated from Champions League Last Updated: However, taking into account the type of services provided by trust service providers, it is appropriate to distinguish as far as those requirements are concerned between qualified and non-qualified trust service providers.

Establishing a supervisory regime for all trust service providers should ensure a level playing field for the security and accountability of their operations and services, thus contributing to the protection of users and to the functioning of the internal market.

Non-qualified trust service providers should be subject to a light touch and reactive ex post supervisory activities justified by the nature of their services and operations. The supervisory body should therefore have no general obligation to supervise non-qualified service providers. The supervisory body should only take action when it is informed for example, by the non-qualified trust service provider itself, by another supervisory body, by a notification from a user or a business partner or on the basis of its own investigation that a non-qualified trust service provider does not comply with the requirements of this Regulation.

This Regulation should provide for the liability of all trust service providers. In particular, it establishes the liability regime under which all trust service providers should be liable for damage caused to any natural or legal person due to failure to comply with the obligations under this Regulation.

In order to facilitate the assessment of financial risk that trust service providers might have to bear or that they should cover by insurance policies, this Regulation allows trust service providers to set limitations, under certain conditions, on the use of the services they provide and not to be liable for damages arising from the use of services exceeding such limitations.

Customers should be duly informed about the limitations in advance. Those limitations should be recognisable by a third party, for example by including information about the limitations in the terms and conditions of the service provided or through other recognisable means.

For the purposes of giving effect to those principles, this Regulation should be applied in accordance with national rules on liability. Therefore, this Regulation does not affect those national rules on, for example, definition of damages, intention, negligence, or relevant applicable procedural rules. Notification of security breaches and security risk assessments is essential with a view to providing adequate information to concerned parties in the event of a breach of security or loss of integrity.

To enable the Commission and the Member States to assess the effectiveness of the breach notification mechanism introduced by this Regulation, supervisory bodies should be requested to provide summary information to the Commission and to European Union Agency for Network and Information Security ENISA.

To enable the Commission and the Member States to assess the effectiveness of the enhanced supervision mechanism introduced by this Regulation, supervisory bodies should be requested to report on their activities.

This would be instrumental in facilitating the exchange of good practice between supervisory bodies and would ensure the verification of the consistent and efficient implementation of the essential supervision requirements in all Member States. To facilitate the supervision of qualified trust service providers, for example, when a provider is providing its services in the territory of another Member State and is not subject to supervision there, or when the computers of a provider are located in the territory of a Member State other than the one where it is established, a mutual assistance system between supervisory bodies in the Member States should be established.

In order to ensure the compliance of qualified trust service providers and the services they provide with the requirements set out in this Regulation, a conformity assessment should be carried out by a conformity assessment body and the resulting conformity assessment reports should be submitted by the qualified trust service providers to the supervisory body.

Whenever the supervisory body requires a qualified trust service provider to submit an ad hoc conformity assessment report, the supervisory body should respect, in particular, the principles of good administration, including the obligation to give reasons for its decisions, as well as the principle of proportionality. Therefore, the supervisory body should duly justify its decision to require an ad hoc conformity assessment.

This Regulation aims to ensure a coherent framework with a view to providing a high level of security and legal certainty of trust services. In order to allow an efficient initiation process, which should lead to the inclusion of qualified trust service providers and the qualified trust services they provide into trusted lists, preliminary interactions between prospective qualified trust service providers and the competent supervisory body should be encouraged with a view to facilitating the due diligence leading to the provisioning of qualified trust services.

Trusted lists are essential elements in the building of trust among market operators as they indicate the qualified status of the service provider at the time of supervision. Confidence in and convenience of online services are essential for users to fully benefit and consciously rely on electronic services. To this end, an EU trust mark should be created to identify the qualified trust services provided by qualified trust service providers.

Such an EU trust mark for qualified trust services would clearly differentiate qualified trust services from other trust services thus contributing to transparency in the market. The use of an EU trust mark by qualified trust service providers should be voluntary and should not lead to any requirement other than those provided for in this Regulation. This Regulation should establish the principle that an electronic signature should not be denied legal effect on the grounds that it is in an electronic form or that it does not meet the requirements of the qualified electronic signature.

However, it is for national law to define the legal effect of electronic signatures, except for the requirements provided for in this Regulation according to which a qualified electronic signature should have the equivalent legal effect of a handwritten signature. As competent authorities in the Member States currently use different formats of advanced electronic signatures to sign their documents electronically, it is necessary to ensure that at least a number of advanced electronic signature formats can be technically supported by Member States when they receive documents signed electronically.

Similarly, when competent authorities in the Member States use advanced electronic seals, it would be necessary to ensure that they support at least a number of advanced electronic seal formats. It should be possible for the signatory to entrust qualified electronic signature creation devices to the care of a third party, provided that appropriate mechanisms and procedures are implemented to ensure that the signatory has sole control over the use of his electronic signature creation data, and the qualified electronic signature requirements are met by the use of the device.

The creation of remote electronic signatures, where the electronic signature creation environment is managed by a trust service provider on behalf of the signatory, is set to increase in the light of its multiple economic benefits. However, in order to ensure that such electronic signatures receive the same legal recognition as electronic signatures created in an entirely user-managed environment, remote electronic signature service providers should apply specific management and administrative security procedures and use trustworthy systems and products, including secure electronic communication channels, in order to guarantee that the electronic signature creation environment is reliable and is used under the sole control of the signatory.

Where a qualified electronic signature has been created using a remote electronic signature creation device, the requirements applicable to qualified trust service providers set out in this Regulation should apply. The suspension of qualified certificates is an established operational practice of trust service providers in a number of Member States, which is different from revocation and entails the temporary loss of validity of a certificate.

Legal certainty calls for the suspension status of a certificate to always be clearly indicated. To that end, trust service providers should have the responsibility to clearly indicate the status of the certificate and, if suspended, the precise period of time during which the certificate has been suspended.

This Regulation should not impose the use of suspension on trust service providers or Member States, but should provide for transparency rules when and where such a practice is available. Cross-border interoperability and recognition of qualified certificates is a precondition for cross-border recognition of qualified electronic signatures.

Therefore, qualified certificates should not be subject to any mandatory requirements exceeding the requirements laid down in this Regulation. However, at national level, the inclusion of specific attributes, such as unique identifiers, in qualified certificates should be allowed, provided that such specific attributes do not hamper cross-border interoperability and recognition of qualified certificates and electronic signatures.

IT security certification based on international standards such as ISO and related evaluation methods and mutual recognition arrangements is an important tool for verifying the security of qualified electronic signature creation devices and should be promoted. However, innovative solutions and services such as mobile signing and cloud signing rely on technical and organisational solutions for qualified electronic signature creation devices for which security standards may not yet be available or for which the first IT security certification is ongoing.

The level of security of such qualified electronic signature creation devices could be evaluated by using alternative processes only where such security standards are not available or where the first IT security certification is ongoing.

Those processes should be comparable to the standards for IT security certification insofar as their security levels are equivalent.

Those processes could be facilitated by a peer review. This Regulation should lay down requirements for qualified electronic signature creation devices to ensure the functionality of advanced electronic signatures. This Regulation should not cover the entire system environment in which such devices operate.

Therefore, the scope of the certification of qualified signature creation devices should be limited to the hardware and system software used to manage and protect the signature creation data created, stored or processed in the signature creation device. As detailed in relevant standards, the scope of the certification obligation should exclude signature creation applications. To ensure legal certainty as regards the validity of the signature, it is essential to specify the components of a qualified electronic signature, which should be assessed by the relying party carrying out the validation.

Moreover, specifying the requirements for qualified trust service providers that can provide a qualified validation service to relying parties unwilling or unable to carry out the validation of qualified electronic signatures themselves, should stimulate the private and public sector to invest in such services.

Both elements should make qualified electronic signature validation easy and convenient for all parties at Union level. When a transaction requires a qualified electronic seal from a legal person, a qualified electronic signature from the authorised representative of the legal person should be equally acceptable.

Trust service providers issuing qualified certificates for electronic seals should implement the necessary measures in order to be able to establish the identity of the natural person representing the legal person to whom the qualified certificate for the electronic seal is provided, when such identification is necessary at national level in the context of judicial or administrative proceedings.

This Regulation should ensure the long-term preservation of information, in order to ensure the legal validity of electronic signatures and electronic seals over extended periods of time and guarantee that they can be validated irrespective of future technological changes.

In order to ensure the security of qualified electronic time stamps, this Regulation should require the use of an advanced electronic seal or an advanced electronic signature or of other equivalent methods. It is foreseeable that innovation may lead to new technologies that may ensure an equivalent level of security for time stamps. Whenever a method other than an advanced electronic seal or an advanced electronic signature is used, it should be up to the qualified trust service provider to demonstrate, in the conformity assessment report, that such a method ensures an equivalent level of security and complies with the obligations set out in this Regulation.

Electronic documents are important for further development of cross-border electronic transactions in the internal market.

This Regulation should establish the principle that an electronic document should not be denied legal effect on the grounds that it is in an electronic form in order to ensure that an electronic transaction will not be rejected only on the grounds that a document is in electronic form. In addition to authenticating the document issued by the legal person, electronic seals can be used to authenticate any digital asset of the legal person, such as software code or servers.

It is essential to provide for a legal framework to facilitate cross-border recognition between existing national legal systems related to electronic registered delivery services. That framework could also open new market opportunities for Union trust service providers to offer new pan-European electronic registered delivery services. Website authentication services provide a means by which a visitor to a website can be assured that there is a genuine and legitimate entity standing behind the website.

Those services contribute to the building of trust and confidence in conducting business online, as users will have confidence in a website that has been authenticated. The provision and the use of website authentication services are entirely voluntary.

However, in order for website authentication to become a means to boosting trust, providing a better experience for the user and furthering growth in the internal market, this Regulation should lay down minimal security and liability obligations for the providers and their services.

In addition, this Regulation should not impede the use of other means or methods to authenticate a website not falling under this Regulation nor should it prevent third country providers of website authentication services from providing their services to customers in the Union.

However, a third country provider should only have its website authentication services recognised as qualified in accordance with this Regulation, if an international agreement between the Union and the country of establishment of the provider has been concluded.

The Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies are encouraged to recognise electronic identification and trust services covered by this Regulation for the purpose of administrative cooperation capitalising, in particular, on existing good practices and the results of ongoing projects in the areas covered by this Regulation. In order to complement certain detailed technical aspects of this Regulation in a flexible and rapid manner, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of criteria to be met by the bodies responsible for the certification of qualified electronic signature creation devices.

It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council. In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission, in particular for specifying reference numbers of standards the use of which would raise a presumption of compliance with certain requirements laid down in this Regulation.

When adopting delegated or implementing acts, the Commission should take due account of the standards and technical specifications drawn up by European and international standardisation organisations and bodies, in particular the European Committee for Standardisation CEN , the European Telecommunications Standards Institute ETSI , the International Organisation for Standardisation ISO and the International Telecommunication Union ITU , with a view to ensuring a high level of security and interoperability of electronic identification and trust services.

Finally, it is also necessary to provide the Commission with the means to adopt the implementing acts and delegated acts before that date. Since the objectives of this Regulation cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union.

In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives. With a view to ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market while aiming at an adequate level of security of electronic identification means and trust services this Regulation:. This Regulation applies to electronic identification schemes that have been notified by a Member State, and to trust service providers that are established in the Union.

This Regulation does not apply to the provision of trust services that are used exclusively within closed systems resulting from national law or from agreements between a defined set of participants.

This Regulation does not affect national or Union law related to the conclusion and validity of contracts or other legal or procedural obligations relating to form. Without prejudice to the legal effect given to pseudonyms under national law, the use of pseudonyms in electronic transactions shall not be prohibited. There shall be no restriction on the provision of trust services in the territory of a Member State by a trust service provider established in another Member State for reasons that fall within the fields covered by this Regulation.

Products and trust services that comply with this Regulation shall be permitted to circulate freely in the internal market.

When an electronic identification using an electronic identification means and authentication is required under national law or by administrative practice to access a service provided by a public sector body online in one Member State, the electronic identification means issued in another Member State shall be recognised in the first Member State for the purposes of cross-border authentication for that service online, provided that the following conditions are met:.

Such recognition shall take place no later than 12 months after the Commission publishes the list referred to in point a of the first subparagraph. An electronic identification means which is issued under an electronic identification scheme included in the list published by the Commission pursuant to Article 9 and which corresponds to the assurance level low may be recognised by public sector bodies for the purposes of cross-border authentication for the service provided online by those bodies.

An electronic identification scheme shall be eligible for notification pursuant to Article 9 1 provided that all of the following conditions are met:. For relying parties other than public sector bodies the notifying Member State may define terms of access to that authentication.

The cross-border authentication shall be provided free of charge when it is carried out in relation to a service online provided by a public sector body. Member States shall not impose any specific disproportionate technical requirements on relying parties intending to carry out such authentication, where such requirements prevent or significantly impede the interoperability of the notified electronic identification schemes;.

The assurance levels low, substantial and high shall meet respectively the following criteria:. By 18 September , taking into account relevant international standards and subject to paragraph 2, the Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, set out minimum technical specifications, standards and procedures with reference to which assurance levels low, substantial and high are specified for electronic identification means for the purposes of paragraph 1.

Those minimum technical specifications, standards and procedures shall be set out by reference to the reliability and quality of the following elements:. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48 2. The notifying Member State shall notify to the Commission the following information and, without undue delay, any subsequent changes thereto:.

One year from the date of application of the implementing acts referred to in Articles 8 3 and 12 8 , the Commission shall publish in the Official Journal of the European Union a list of the electronic identification schemes which were notified pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article and the basic information thereon. If the Commission receives a notification after the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 2, it shall publish in the Official Journal of the European Union the amendments to the list referred to in paragraph 2 within two months from the date of receipt of that notification.

A Member State may submit to the Commission a request to remove an electronic identification scheme notified by that Member State from the list referred to in paragraph 2. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, define the circumstances, formats and procedures of notifications under paragraph 1.

Where either the electronic identification scheme notified pursuant to Article 9 1 or the authentication referred to in point f of Article 7 is breached or partly compromised in a manner that affects the reliability of the cross-border authentication of that scheme, the notifying Member State shall, without delay, suspend or revoke that cross-border authentication or the compromised parts concerned, and shall inform other Member States and the Commission.

When the breach or compromise referred to in paragraph 1 is remedied, the notifying Member State shall re-establish the cross-border authentication and shall inform other Member States and the Commission without undue delay. If the breach or compromise referred to in paragraph 1 is not remedied within three months of the suspension or revocation, the notifying Member State shall notify other Member States and the Commission of the withdrawal of the electronic identification scheme.

The Commission shall publish in the Official Journal of the European Union the corresponding amendments to the list referred to in Article 9 2 without undue delay. The notifying Member State shall be liable for damage caused intentionally or negligently to any natural or legal person due to a failure to comply with its obligations under points d and f of Article 7 in a cross-border transaction.

The party issuing the electronic identification means shall be liable for damage caused intentionally or negligently to any natural or legal person due to a failure to comply with the obligation referred to in point e of Article 7 in a cross-border transaction.

The party operating the authentication procedure shall be liable for damage caused intentionally or negligently to any natural or legal person due to a failure to ensure the correct operation of the authentication referred to in point f of Article 7 in a cross-border transaction.

Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall be applied in accordance with national rules on liability. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 are without prejudice to the liability under national law of parties to a transaction in which electronic identification means falling under the electronic identification scheme notified pursuant to Article 9 1 are used.

The national electronic identification schemes notified pursuant to Article 9 1 shall be interoperable. For the purposes of paragraph 1, an interoperability framework shall be established. The interoperability framework shall meet the following criteria:.

The interoperability framework shall consist of:. Member States shall cooperate with regard to the following:. The cooperation between Member States shall consist of:. By 18 March , the Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish the necessary procedural arrangements to facilitate the cooperation between the Member States referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 with a view to fostering a high level of trust and security appropriate to the degree of risk. By 18 September , for the purpose of setting uniform conditions for the implementation of the requirement under paragraph 1, the Commission shall, subject to the criteria set out in paragraph 3 and taking into account the results of the cooperation between Member States, adopt implementing acts on the interoperability framework as set out in paragraph 4.

The implementing acts referred to in paragraphs 7 and 8 of this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48 2. Without prejudice to paragraph 2, trust service providers shall be liable for damage caused intentionally or negligently to any natural or legal person due to a failure to comply with the obligations under this Regulation.

The burden of proving intention or negligence of a non-qualified trust service provider shall lie with the natural or legal person claiming the damage referred to in the first subparagraph. The intention or negligence of a qualified trust service provider shall be presumed unless that qualified trust service provider proves that the damage referred to in the first subparagraph occurred without the intention or negligence of that qualified trust service provider.

Where trust service providers duly inform their customers in advance of the limitations on the use of the services they provide and where those limitations are recognisable to third parties, trust service providers shall not be liable for damages arising from the use of services exceeding the indicated limitations. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be applied in accordance with national rules on liability. Trust services provided by trust service providers established in a third country shall be recognised as legally equivalent to qualified trust services provided by qualified trust service providers established in the Union where the trust services originating from the third country are recognised under an agreement concluded between the Union and the third country in question or an international organisation in accordance with Article TFEU.

Agreements referred to in paragraph 1 shall ensure, in particular, that:. Where feasible, trust services provided and end-user products used in the provision of those services shall be made accessible for persons with disabilities. Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

Member States shall designate a supervisory body established in their territory or, upon mutual agreement with another Member State, a supervisory body established in that other Member State. That body shall be responsible for supervisory tasks in the designating Member State. Supervisory bodies shall be given the necessary powers and adequate resources for the exercise of their tasks. Member States shall notify to the Commission the names and the addresses of their respective designated supervisory bodies.

The role of the supervisory body shall be the following:. For the purposes of paragraph 3 and subject to the limitations provided therein, the tasks of the supervisory body shall include in particular:. Member States may require the supervisory body to establish, maintain and update a trust infrastructure in accordance with the conditions under national law. The Commission shall make the annual report referred to in paragraph 6 available to Member States.

The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, define the formats and procedures for the report referred to in paragraph 6. Supervisory bodies shall cooperate with a view to exchanging good practice. A supervisory body shall, upon receipt of a justified request from another supervisory body, provide that body with assistance so that the activities of supervisory bodies can be carried out in a consistent manner.

Mutual assistance may cover, in particular, information requests and supervisory measures, such as requests to carry out inspections related to the conformity assessment reports as referred to in Articles 20 and A supervisory body to which a request for assistance is addressed may refuse that request on any of the following grounds:. The arrangements and procedures for such joint actions shall be agreed upon and established by the Member States concerned in accordance with their national law.

Qualified and non-qualified trust service providers shall take appropriate technical and organisational measures to manage the risks posed to the security of the trust services they provide. Having regard to the latest technological developments, those measures shall ensure that the level of security is commensurate to the degree of risk.

In particular, measures shall be taken to prevent and minimise the impact of security incidents and inform stakeholders of the adverse effects of any such incidents. Qualified and non-qualified trust service providers shall, without undue delay but in any event within 24 hours after having become aware of it, notify the supervisory body and, where applicable, other relevant bodies, such as the competent national body for information security or the data protection authority, of any breach of security or loss of integrity that has a significant impact on the trust service provided or on the personal data maintained therein.

Where the breach of security or loss of integrity is likely to adversely affect a natural or legal person to whom the trusted service has been provided, the trust service provider shall also notify the natural or legal person of the breach of security or loss of integrity without undue delay. Where appropriate, in particular if a breach of security or loss of integrity concerns two or more Member States, the notified supervisory body shall inform the supervisory bodies in other Member States concerned and ENISA.

The notified supervisory body shall inform the public or require the trust service provider to do so, where it determines that disclosure of the breach of security or loss of integrity is in the public interest. The supervisory body shall provide ENISA once a year with a summary of notifications of breach of security and loss of integrity received from trust service providers.

The Commission may, by means of implementing acts,:. Qualified trust service providers shall be audited at their own expense at least every 24 months by a conformity assessment body. The purpose of the audit shall be to confirm that the qualified trust service providers and the qualified trust services provided by them fulfil the requirements laid down in this Regulation.

The qualified trust service providers shall submit the resulting conformity assessment report to the supervisory body within the period of three working days after receiving it. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, the supervisory body may at any time audit or request a conformity assessment body to perform a conformity assessment of the qualified trust service providers, at the expense of those trust service providers, to confirm that they and the qualified trust services provided by them fulfil the requirements laid down in this Regulation.

Where personal data protection rules appear to have been breached, the supervisory body shall inform the data protection authorities of the results of its audits. Where the supervisory body requires the qualified trust service provider to remedy any failure to fulfil requirements under this Regulation and where that provider does not act accordingly, and if applicable within a time limit set by the supervisory body, the supervisory body, taking into account, in particular, the extent, duration and consequences of that failure, may withdraw the qualified status of that provider or of the affected service it provides and inform the body referred to in Article 22 3 for the purposes of updating the trusted lists referred to in Article 22 1.

The supervisory body shall inform the qualified trust service provider of the withdrawal of its qualified status or of the qualified status of the service concerned. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, establish reference number of the following standards:. Where trust service providers, without qualified status, intend to start providing qualified trust services, they shall submit to the supervisory body a notification of their intention together with a conformity assessment report issued by a conformity assessment body.

The supervisory body shall verify whether the trust service provider and the trust services provided by it comply with the requirements laid down in this Regulation, and in particular, with the requirements for qualified trust service providers and for the qualified trust services they provide.

If the supervisory body concludes that the trust service provider and the trust services provided by it comply with the requirements referred to in the first subparagraph, the supervisory body shall grant qualified status to the trust service provider and the trust services it provides and inform the body referred to in Article 22 3 for the purposes of updating the trusted lists referred to in Article 22 1 , not later than three months after notification in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article.

If the verification is not concluded within three months of notification, the supervisory body shall inform the trust service provider specifying the reasons for the delay and the period within which the verification is to be concluded. Qualified trust service providers may begin to provide the qualified trust service after the qualified status has been indicated in the trusted lists referred to in Article 22 1.

The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, define the formats and procedures for the purpose of paragraphs 1 and 2. Each Member State shall establish, maintain and publish trusted lists, including information related to the qualified trust service providers for which it is responsible, together with information related to the qualified trust services provided by them.

Member States shall establish, maintain and publish, in a secured manner, the electronically signed or sealed trusted lists referred to in paragraph 1 in a form suitable for automated processing.

Member States shall notify to the Commission, without undue delay, information on the body responsible for establishing, maintaining and publishing national trusted lists, and details of where such lists are published, the certificates used to sign or seal the trusted lists and any changes thereto.

The Commission shall make available to the public, through a secure channel, the information referred to in paragraph 3 in electronically signed or sealed form suitable for automated processing. By 18 September the Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, specify the information referred to in paragraph 1 and define the technical specifications and formats for trusted lists applicable for the purposes of paragraphs 1 to 4.

After the qualified status referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 21 2 has been indicated in the trusted list referred to in Article 22 1 , qualified trust service providers may use the EU trust mark to indicate in a simple, recognisable and clear manner the qualified trust services they provide.

When using the EU trust mark for the qualified trust services referred to in paragraph 1, qualified trust service providers shall ensure that a link to the relevant trusted list is made available on their website. By 1 July the Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, provide for specifications with regard to the form, and in particular the presentation, composition, size and design of the EU trust mark for qualified trust services.

When issuing a qualified certificate for a trust service, a qualified trust service provider shall verify, by appropriate means and in accordance with national law, the identity and, if applicable, any specific attributes of the natural or legal person to whom the qualified certificate is issued. The information referred to in the first subparagraph shall be verified by the qualified trust service provider either directly or by relying on a third party in accordance with national law:.

The equivalent assurance shall be confirmed by a conformity assessment body. A qualified trust service provider providing qualified trust services shall:. Such recording may be done electronically;.

If a qualified trust service provider issuing qualified certificates decides to revoke a certificate, it shall register such revocation in its certificate database and publish the revocation status of the certificate in a timely manner, and in any event within 24 hours after the receipt of the request. The revocation shall become effective immediately upon its publication.

With regard to paragraph 3, qualified trust service providers issuing qualified certificates shall provide to any relying party information on the validity or revocation status of qualified certificates issued by them. This information shall be made available at least on a per certificate basis at any time and beyond the validity period of the certificate in an automated manner that is reliable, free of charge and efficient. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, establish reference numbers of standards for trustworthy systems and products, which comply with the requirements under points e and f of paragraph 2 of this Article.

Compliance with the requirements laid down in this Article shall be presumed where trustworthy systems and products meet those standards. An electronic signature shall not be denied legal effect and admissibility as evidence in legal proceedings solely on the grounds that it is in an electronic form or that it does not meet the requirements for qualified electronic signatures.

A qualified electronic signature shall have the equivalent legal effect of a handwritten signature. A qualified electronic signature based on a qualified certificate issued in one Member State shall be recognised as a qualified electronic signature in all other Member States. If a Member State requires an advanced electronic signature to use an online service offered by, or on behalf of, a public sector body, that Member State shall recognise advanced electronic signatures, advanced electronic signatures based on a qualified certificate for electronic signatures, and qualified electronic signatures in at least the formats or using methods defined in the implementing acts referred to in paragraph 5.

If a Member State requires an advanced electronic signature based on a qualified certificate to use an online service offered by, or on behalf of, a public sector body, that Member State shall recognise advanced electronic signatures based on a qualified certificate and qualified electronic signatures in at least the formats or using methods defined in the implementing acts referred to in paragraph 5.

Member States shall not request for cross-border use in an online service offered by a public sector body an electronic signature at a higher security level than the qualified electronic signature. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, establish reference numbers of standards for advanced electronic signatures.

Compliance with the requirements for advanced electronic signatures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article and in Article 26 shall be presumed when an advanced electronic signature meets those standards.

By 18 September , and taking into account existing practices, standards and Union legal acts, the Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, define reference formats of advanced electronic signatures or reference methods where alternative formats are used.

Qualified certificates for electronic signatures shall meet the requirements laid down in Annex I. Qualified certificates for electronic signatures shall not be subject to any mandatory requirement exceeding the requirements laid down in Annex I. Qualified certificates for electronic signatures may include non-mandatory additional specific attributes. Those attributes shall not affect the interoperability and recognition of qualified electronic signatures. If a qualified certificate for electronic signatures has been revoked after initial activation, it shall lose its validity from the moment of its revocation, and its status shall not in any circumstances be reverted.

Bilder: bayern single

bayern single

Also of note on the Dash roster: Such recognition shall take place no later than 12 months after the Commission publishes the list referred to in point a of the first subparagraph.

bayern single

It is foreseeable that innovation may lead to new technologies that may ensure an equivalent level of security for time stamps.

bayern single

Women supporting women was a theme of the day, especially women athletes winterberg downhill singletrail other women athletes. ET The Spirit went vs. Then the second bayern single that comes to mind is to just soak up all the information you can. That all changed in the playoffs. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. Retrieved 21 Bauern