Timestamp blockchain & eIDAS: Non legalmente validi — Perché no?
Legal Compliance

Timestamp blockchain & eIDAS: Non legalmente validi — Perché no?

I timestamp blockchain non sono qualificati eIDAS. Solo un timestamp RFC 3161 emesso da un QTSP soddisfa la presunzione legale degli articoli eIDAS 41 e 42.

U
Urs Wattenhofer· Co-Founder & Operations
·June 17, 2026· 9 min lettura

Nell'aprile 2025, un avvocato brevettuale di Monaco ha ricevuto un cliente con una controversia sul copyright software. Il cliente aveva utilizzato un servizio di timestamping blockchain per registrare un hash del codebase sulla rete Ethereum sei mesi prima. La controparte possedeva un timestamp RFC 3161 emesso da un Qualified Trust Service Provider. L'udienza e durata quaranta minuti. Il timestamp blockchain e stato ammesso come prova di supporto. Il timestamp QTSP godeva di una presunzione legale ai sensi dell'Art. 41 eIDAS. L'avvocato del cliente ha saputo nei primi dieci minuti come sarebbe andata a finire la giornata.

I servizi di timestamping blockchain commercializzati come strumenti di prova legale sono cresciuti in popolarita. Molti affermano di provare l'esistenza di un documento in una data specifica registrando un hash del file su un registro pubblico. L'affermazione e parzialmente vera e significativamente fuorviante.

Proteggi il tuo lavoro con Swiss Trust Layer AG

Sigilla la tua proprietà intellettuale con un e-Sigillo provato in tribunale, supportato da Swisscom Trust Services.

Prenota una Demo Gratuita

Related Articles

The CHF 5 file that can save a CHF 200,000 IP dispute
Legal & Compliance

The CHF 5 file that can save a CHF 200,000 IP dispute

Most IP disputes are not decided by who had the better idea. They are decided by who can prove it. A qualified electronic seal under ZertES Art. 14 and eIDAS Art. 25(2) shifts the legal burden of proof to the opposing party. Without one, you spend the dispute explaining yourself.

July 13, 2026Read more →
A checkbox is not proof: labelling versus evidence under the AI Act
AI & Technology

A checkbox is not proof: labelling versus evidence under the AI Act

A label and a record look identical on a page and behave completely differently the moment somebody questions them. This is what separates a self-declaration from evidence, why the usual internal records do not close the gap, and what a qualified timestamp changes.

August 3, 2026Read more →
Article 50 is live today. Here is how to prove your content is compliant.
AI & Technology

Article 50 is live today. Here is how to prove your content is compliant.

The transparency obligations in Article 50 of the EU AI Act apply from today. This is what the obligation actually requires, why a label alone leaves the burden of proof with the publisher, and the four parts of a record that somebody outside your organisation can check.

August 2, 2026Read more →
What EU AI Act Article 50 actually asks you to do, in plain terms
AI & Technology

What EU AI Act Article 50 actually asks you to do, in plain terms

Article 50 of the EU AI Act applies from 2 August 2026. This is a plain reading of what it asks for: who it binds, what content is in scope, what labelling actually means in practice, and the three questions worth settling before Monday morning.

August 1, 2026Read more →
Qualified signing in plain terms: everything we covered this month
Legal

Qualified signing in plain terms: everything we covered this month

A month of articles on qualified signatures, timestamps, provenance, and proof, collected into one explanation of how the pieces fit together and which one you actually need.

July 31, 2026Read more →