Organisational mandates

The mandate object

An implementation note on modelling organisational authority as data, and the fields a mandate needs before any legal check can be automated.

Implementation note — engineering experience from building against these rules. This page describes practice, not law.

Before you can automate "may this person do this thing for that company", you need the authority itself as data. Not a PDF, not a boolean on a user record: a mandate with a grantor, a grantee, a scope, a type, a validity window and a status. This page describes the shape we use in practice. Where the law fixes a field, we cite it. Everywhere else this is experience, not obligation.

Why a document is not enough

A signed power of attorney answers one question: was this granted properly? Operations ask a different question, repeatedly: is this action, by this person, for this company, allowed now? To answer that at machine speed the document's content has to become structure. The law already commits to a minimum structure: the template for the digital EU power of attorney must contain "at least the data fields relating to the scope of representation, the person authorised to represent the company and the type of representation" [Directive (EU) 2025/25, Art. 16c(4)]. Those three fields are the start of the mandate object.

The fields, and where they come from

FieldWhy it existsLegal anchor, where one exists
GrantorThe person whose identity, capacity and authority to represent were verified at grantingVerification floor in [Directive (EU) 2025/25, Art. 16c(1), second subpara.]
Principal (the company)The organisation being bound; carries register identity (EUID)Company identification in the EU Company Certificate [Directive (EU) 2025/25, Art. 16b(2)(c)–(d)]
Grantee (the authorised person)Who may actTemplate field: "the person authorised to represent the company" [Directive (EU) 2025/25, Art. 16c(4)]
Scope of representationWhich procedures/actions are covered — the acceptance rule stops at "as specified in the document"[Directive (EU) 2025/25, Art. 16c(2) and 16c(4)]
Type of representationSole, joint, or otherwise qualifiedTemplate field [Directive (EU) 2025/25, Art. 16c(4)]; alone-or-jointly is register-grade data for original representatives [Directive (EU) 2025/25, Art. 16b(2)(j)]
Status + lifecycle eventsGranted, amended, revoked — each a verified national-law act[Directive (EU) 2025/25, Art. 16c(1) and (3)]
Evidence trailWhich authority verified, when; where filed, if filedFiling option in [Directive (EU) 2025/25, Art. 16c(3)]

Two additions the law does not require but practice does: a validity window (open-ended mandates accumulate risk; short-lived, renewable ones bound it) and a constraint set on the scope (value limits, counterparty limits, procedure limits). Scope written as prose gets read once by a human. Scope written as structure gets checked by a system every time.

Lifecycle, not lookup

The expensive modelling mistake is treating authority as a lookup: is_authorised: true. Authority is a lifecycle. It is granted by someone whose own authority was checked, possibly amended, possibly revoked, and where the qualified-attestation rule applies the revocation is valid "from the moment of its revocation" and irreversible [Regulation (EU) 2024/1183 (eIDAS 2), Art. 45d(4) of Reg. 910/2014 as inserted]. A mandate object needs its history attached, because you will be asked not only "may they act?" but "were they allowed to act on 14 March?". Only the event log answers that.

What this buys you when the law arrives

When the Commission's template is published (it was due by 31 July 2026 [Directive (EU) 2025/25, Art. 24(2)(e)]) and wallets start carrying attestations of "powers and mandates to represent natural or legal persons" [Regulation (EU) 2024/1183 (eIDAS 2), Annex VI, point 9], systems that already hold mandates as structured records can take the attestation as evidence into an existing model. Systems that hold PDFs will be parsing prose against a deadline.

Sources

  1. Law Directive (EU) 2025/25 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 amending Directives 2009/102/EC and (EU) 2017/1132 as regards further expanding and upgrading the use of digital tools and processes in company law (OJ L, 2025/25, 10.1.2025). http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2025/25/oj. Retrieved 2026-08-27.
  2. Law Regulation (EU) 2024/1183 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 as regards establishing the European Digital Identity Framework (OJ L, 2024/1183, 30.4.2024). http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1183/oj. Retrieved 2026-08-27.

Cite this page

Rob Prime, “The mandate object”, EUDIPOA, published 2026-08-27, last verified against its sources 2026-08-27, https://eudipoa.com/mandates/mandate-object.

Better still, cite the instruments themselves — the Sources list below gives each one’s ELI, the EU’s permanent identifier for legislation. This page is a guide to the law, not the law.

Changelog

  • 2026-08-27 — First published. Implementation note distilled from building Mandate Rail; legal anchors cited where they exist.