eIDAS Article 41 — Horodatage Électronique Qualifié: Présomption Légale Expliquée (2026)
Legal Compliance

eIDAS Article 41 — Horodatage Électronique Qualifié: Présomption Légale Expliquée (2026)

L'article 41 d'eIDAS accorde aux horodatages électroniques qualifiés une présomption légale d'exactitude dans les 27 États membres de l'UE.

D
Dani Wattenhofer· Co-Founder & Business Development
·June 17, 2026· 8 min de lecture

En fevrier 2025, un cabinet d'avocats specialise en propriete intellectuelle a Zurich a recu un appel urgent d'une societe de conseil en logiciels. Un ancien prestataire avait depose une reclamation de droit d'auteur sur une base de code que la societe avait developpee pendant huit mois. Le prestataire disposait d'un commit Git date. La societe n'avait que des e-mails et la memoire d'un chef de projet. L'associe du cabinet se posait une seule question: a quel moment exact la societe avait-elle cree ce code? Sans horodatage electronique qualifie, il n'existait aucune presomption legale, et la charge de la preuve reposait sur le client.

L'article 41 du reglement eIDAS 910/2014 etablit qu'un horodatage electronique qualifie emis par un QTSP inscrit sur la liste de confiance de l'UE beneficie d'une presomption legale d'exactitude quant a la date et a l'heure indiquees et a l'integrite des donnees auxquelles il est lie.

Protégez votre travail avec Swiss Trust Layer AG

Scellez votre propriété intellectuelle avec un e-Sceau prouvé en justice, soutenu par Swisscom Trust Services.

Réserver une Démo Gratuite

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 →