Skip to main content
European Commission logo
Reforms and Investments
AdobeStock_942806527.jpeg

4. Digitalising processes within justice systems

4.1 Introduction

In the era of digital transformation, managing large volumes of data enhances public sector efficiency, creates new policy opportunities, and redefines service standards and accessibility. This shift affects every aspect of public administration, including the justice sector. The primary challenge is to implement these changes incrementally while modernising existing processes and integrating them into new workflows to drive innovation.

Investing in digitalisation of justice contributes to enhancing the effectiveness, quality and accessibility of justice systems, which is an important area for action for Member States and the EU.

  • Between 2019 and 2023, the e-Justice strategy aimed to improve and simplify access to information and to support specifically the digitalisation of cross-border judicial and extra-judicial proceedings. Its aim was also to enhance effectiveness, cooperation among legal authorities, and citizens’ access to justice. Emphasis was placed on legislative action that supports a secure and interoperable EU cross-border IT system for judicial information exchange and collaboration.
  • In a 2020 Communication, the Commission called on Member States to continue to invest in digitalisation of justice to facilitate cross-border cooperation and emphasised that access to justice is one of the main objectives of the EU’s area of freedom, security, and justice. Making the digital channel an available option in EU judicial cooperation (e-CODEX) contributes to more efficient cross-border proceedings and the development of more and better tools for citizens and businesses to access justice.
  • The next milestones are set out in the e-Justice strategy for 2024-2028. The e-Justice Portal is the key entry point to information online about EU and Member States’ justice systems and cross-border judicial cooperation.

The e-Justice Portal

The e-Justice Portal is an online one-stop shop in the area of justice. It provides information on more than 150 topics such as the legal systems of the EU Member States, case law in the EU, protection of fundamental rights, and consumer protection. It is available in all EU official languages.

The Portal provides more than 30 000 pages of content covering various legal areas, containing the following

  • family matters and inheritance, including cross-border issues in the EU
  • information on procedures and forms concerning cross-border monetary claims
  • court procedures for civil and criminal cases
  • detailed information for taking legal action
  • various information pertaining to EU citizens’ rights
  • legislation and case law
  • registers – for businesses on insolvency proceedings and land registers at EU and national level
  • registers to find a legal professional in EU countries
  • training and information on professional networks.

The Portal also provides user-friendly forms and assists the user in finding answers to many legal questions.

The e-Justice Portal can be accessed here: https://e-justice.europa.eu/.

Similarly, at the national level, an essential initial step is developing a strategic plan that commits to digital transformation, outlines funding and continuous change, assigns responsibilities and sets specific targets and timelines.

Each justice system will determine which digital tools and solutions to employ and how digitalisation can enhance their effectiveness. Ensuring some level of uniformity across Member States will ultimately support improved judicial cooperation and provide guidance for citizens throughout the EU (considering the mobility of citizens and businesses within the single market). However, the examples provided are primarily of national interest to contribute to more effective justice systems, focusing on digital tools to improve access to justice and managing the justice system more effectively through information exchange and case management, use of artificial intelligence to support judges and court staff, and organising electronic evidence.

4.2 Strategic planning to digitalise justice

The digital transition is a reality for all aspects of public life, including justice. In the context of the Digital Decade, the European Commission is encouraging Member States ‘to use opportunities supporting their digital transformation, such as the Technical Support Instrument (TSI) and other EU funding mechanisms, as well as targeted training and tools. They can actively participate in the Commission’s efforts to facilitate the electronic exchange of data between public administrations across borders and to improve their interoperability. They can also use the Commission’s support to digitalise their justice systems through legislation, funding, development of IT tools and promotion of national coordination and monitoring instruments.’ European Commission Communication: Enhancing the European Administrative Space (ComPAct).

This inevitable process of digitalisation requires strategic planning, assessing what digital tools best suit their justice system and improve its effectiveness, and continuous maintenance. It also demands a cultural shift in justice administration towards digital-first policies and a ‘digital by design’ approach to system organisation.

The Council of Europe’s European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) Working Group on Cyberjustice and Artificial Intelligence published a Toolkit for the implementation of Guidelines on Cyberjustice in 2019 that can be useful to consult to strategically plan and inform about how to drive change in the justice system. It also includes an outline on how to build an effective case management system and a list of points that should be kept in mind when developing large IT projects.

A notable example of the first steps towards change is the Digital Justice project in Spain, which tries to leverage advanced technologies to transform the public service of justice.

In Malta, the Digital Justice Strategy represents also significant advancement in the country’s justice system, transitioning from a paper-based system to a digital one.

Member States face diverse challenges in digitalising their judicial systems. The EU Justice Scoreboard has shown this disparity since 2013. For instance, electronic file access is available in 10 Member States for civil law procedures, and in 7 and 9 Member States for victims and defendants in criminal cases, respectively. Digital evidence submission is possible in 13 Member States for criminal proceedings and in 10 for civil and commercial law. The slow digitalisation of registers and databases, complicates access for individuals, businesses, and legal practitioners, with paper files still prevalent.[13]

Budgets dedicated to digitalisation vary across Member States. As an example, in terms of the average participation of implemented courts’ budget for ICT in the total budget of courts for EU countries from 2016 to 2020.

  • In Italy, the share of the ICT budget was around 1.7 %.
  • Denmark had a higher proportion, with the ICT budget share being approximately 5.2 %.
  • Poland’s ICT budget share was slightly lower than Denmark’s, at around 4.4 %.
  • Lithuania had an ICT budget share of about 3.3 %.
  • Bulgaria had the smallest share, with the ICT budget making up approximately 0.5% of the total budget of courts.[14]

In terms of average implemented budget of courts per capita and the average implemented budget dedicated to ICT per capita for several countries, funding also varies.

  • In Italy, the average implemented court budget per capita is around €30, while the average implemented ICT budget per capita is about €1.
  • Denmark has an average implemented court budget per capita of approximately €60 and an average implemented ICT budget per capita of around 43.
  • Both Poland and Lithuania have an average implemented court budget per capita of about €10, with an average implemented ICT budget per capita of approximately €0.5.
  • In Estonia, the average implemented court budget per capita is around €20, and the average implemented ICT budget per capita is about €1.
  • The Netherlands has an average implemented court budget per capita of approximately €50 and an average implemented ICT budget per capita of around €4.
  • Bulgaria has the smallest average implemented court budget per capita and ICT budget per capita, at approximately €5 and €0.25 respectively.[15]

Implementing innovative technologies in the justice field presents several challenges: manually processing large amounts of structured and unstructured data and documents, analysing large volumes of video, audio, and image files, and extracting information from multiple, often non-centralised sources. There are also difficulties in making judicial information or services user-friendly and easily accessible, ensuring compliance with personal data protection laws for court documents, and handling large datasets with simple tools.

There are initiatives at both EU and national level. The Council e-Justice strategy (2024 - 2028) guides Member States in implementing a broad range of legislative and non-legislative initiatives to accelerate digitalisation and AI in justice. The strategy outlines principles and objectives for improving e-Justice in the EU over 5 years, explains the steps needed to reach these objectives and how progress will be tracked and managed in the future. It also aims to inspire everyone involved in the digital transformation of justice across the EU.

The EU actively supports the digital transformation of the justice sector in its Member States through several funding programmes.

  • The Digital Europe Programme, with a total budget of €7.6 billion, aims to bolster Europe's digital capabilities and enhance the widespread deployment of digital technologies.
  • The Justice Programme, endowed with around €305 million for the period up to 2027, focuses on facilitating access to justice for individuals and businesses, promoting judicial cooperation, and supporting the training of legal practitioners.
  • The Technical Support Instrument (TSI) also plays a crucial role in contributing to the digitalisation of justice by providing tailored support to Member States in implementing reforms.
  • Significantly, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) has allocated substantial funds to support the digitalisation of justice systems.

All funding opportunities contribute to support Member States in developing crucial advanced digital tools and systems, ensuring that the justice sector becomes more efficient, accessible, and resilient across the EU.

One notable aspect of national digitalisation initiatives is the risk of justice privatisation. In Belgium for instance, the responsibility for implementing digital tools is shifting from the judiciary to the Belgian bar.[16] A study on dispute resolution for consumers also found that the use of ICT can privatise the enforcement of legal decisions and affect the underlying methods used to justify dispute resolution.[17] Other research links alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and increased opportunities for self-representation, often supported by technology.[18]

4.3 Digital tools improving access to justice

Digitalisation has transformed the ability of judicial administrations to open up access to justice to all parties, especially members of the public, as illustrated by Austria’s JustizOnline: a digital platform for public service, also contributing to environmental sustainability through digital file handling and electronic inspection.

Digital access to justice has many dimensions. The following issues relate to publication of laws and judgments, the use of metadata to access EU case law, applying digital tools to achieve people-centred justice, the role of chatbots, and online court hearings.

Publication of legislation and judgments

Member States have made efforts to make legislation available on online platforms for easier access. They publish the official gazette in an interactive and searchable manner and update it daily with new laws and amendments. The Casemates project in Luxembourg provides an interesting example of this process. A key element is to ensure that online platforms function as open data to integrate information into new tools. Accessibility should be maintained for all users, including those with disabilities, by ensuring screen reader compatibility and adjustable text sizes.

Also at the European level continuous efforts are undertaken to make EU law more accessible by providing information online and connecting the information from national level.

Online information on EU and Member State legislation

The EU contributes several online tools aiming to provide information about EU and national laws within one online platform.

EUR-Lex

EUR-Lex is the online gateway to EU law. It provides the official and most comprehensive access to EU legal documents, available in all of the EU’s 24 official languages and updated daily. This platform is essential for accessing treaties, legislative acts, preparatory documents, case law, and international agreements.

n-LEX

n-LEX is an online service that provides access to the national legislation of the EU Member States. This portal serves as a single point of access to the national law databases of individual EU countries, making it easier for users to find and understand national legislation. It connects seamlessly with EUR-Lex, ensuring that users can move between EU-level and national-level legal information.

European Legislation Identifier (ELI)

The ELI is a system designed to make legislation available online in a standardised format, so that it can be accessed, exchanged, and reused across borders. ELI uses HTTP URIs (Uniform Resource Identifiers), which can be read by both humans and computers, and proposes a set of metadata elements to describe legislation, including a specific language for exchanging legislation in a machine-readable format.

ELIs have been implemented in various national legislation publishing systems, and are used to link national legislation databases to EUR-Lex, providing a comprehensive and interconnected legal landscape. At the EU level, ELIs are assigned to a wide range of legislation published in the L series (regulations, directives, decisions) of the Official Journal of the European Union and to consolidated acts. From your personal account or ‘Customise shown information’, you can set your preferences so that the ELI appears in the results. It is always displayed on the document page.

Overall, these tools - EUR-Lex, n-LEX, and ELI - work together to create a seamless and integrated system for accessing and understanding both EU and national legal documents, thereby supporting legal transparency and accessibility across the European Union.

ELIs have also been deployed in a number of national legislation publishing systems. They are implemented on a voluntary basis. The ELI implementation status can be reviewed at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli-register/implementation.html.

Many countries have digital platforms for jurisprudence publication, enhancing access to case law. The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers recommended in 1995 that legal information systems should be easily accessible and updated regularly.[19] The Consultative Council of European Judges advocates also for free, accessible online case law, respecting data protection.[20]

Online access rates to published judgments by the general public show that in all EU Member States, except Portugal and Sweden, all judgments are available for civil/commercial and administrative cases, respectively. All first instance criminal courts judgments are available in EU Member States, except in Greece, Slovenia, and Finland. For high instance courts, second instance criminal courts, and highest instance courts, all judgments are accessible online to the general public in all EU Member States.[21]

The #Access to Information and Court Rulings# project in Poland allows for readily available statistical data and court rulings online.

Access to case law and ECLI (European Case Law Identifier)

In accordance with principles of proportionality and decentralisation, there should be no centralised European database for national case law. Different databases with varying functionalities should meet specific user needs.[22] To ensure interoperability, the EU has developed the European Case Law Identifier (ECLI). The European Commission provides a central ECLI search interface for the public in collaboration with participating case law providers.

The ECLI standard provides a common identifier and metadata set, understandable by both humans and computers. It allows national systems to coexist with or adopt this European standard, which can also be the exclusive national standard if desired. ECLI includes five elements: ‘ECLI’ label, country code, court code, judgment year, and a 25-character max number.

Many EU Member States already use the ECLI standard to publishing national judgments. This can also be done using funding support of the European Commission, such as the Technical Support Instrument that is implemented by Directorate-General for Structural Reform Support (DG REFORM). More information about the ECLI and the status of implementation can be found on the e-Justice Portal.

Digital tools and people-centred justice

Technology can reduce barriers to justice services. Increased use of a multichannel approach to access justice seems to be the future to ensure access for all people to justice. This includes communication channels via mobile phones and specific mobile phone-supported applications, as well as ‘live chat’ features which can provide for better scale effects and can lower costs for justice systems, thereby making justice accessible to financially disadvantaged groups.[23]

For Member States, identifying early signals of crime significantly improves the efficiency of the justice system. Early detection of potential misconduct, wrongdoing, or crime facilitates immediate action, preventing further harm or damage. It also inhibits the escalation of criminal activities, ensuring that detected crimes do not become more severe or widespread. These early signals provide valuable evidence for legal proceedings, with the information provided by whistleblowers being instrumental in building strong cases against perpetrators. The mere knowledge that crimes can be detected early can function as a deterrent for potential criminals, potentially leading to a reduction in crime rates. Furthermore, insights gained from these early signals can be used to refine policies and procedures, leading to more effective crime prevention strategies. Public confidence in these institutions is likely to increase when they observe that crimes are promptly detected and addressed.[24]

For instance, the Cybercrime Helpline, established by the City of Vienna, provides a valuable resource for victims of cybercrime, offering immediate assistance and raising awareness about online fraud.

Ensuring the safety and well-being of victims of domestic violence requires innovative approaches that simplify the process of seeking help and justice. In France, an initiative has been launched to address this need by enabling victims of domestic violence to file complaints directly in medical facilities. This novel approach aims to provide a supportive environment where victims can report incidents of violence without the additional burden of navigating complex legal procedures. By integrating the complaint process within hospitals, the system ensures immediate access to legal support and protection, thereby enhancing the overall response to domestic violence cases.

Digital tools allow for a more people-centred justice. eJustice solutions are seen by many Member States as key to enhancing access to justice, allowing people to exercise their rights more efficiently. Digital services offer increased and customisable accessibility, even during crises.[25] COVID-19 has accelerated the digitalisation of court procedures, with lockdowns have necessitated the implementation of online services. Courts worldwide have adopted technology, making online hearings and digital documents the potential new standard.[26]

Another example is the ‘Virtual Digital Interaction Desk’ (EVID) project, an initiative by the Ministry of Justice in Spain, providing secure, inclusive, and environmentally friendly remote services.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) criteria for people-centred justice suggest that expecting citizens to understand all laws is unrealistic. The government’s assumption that providing information is sufficient for citizens to act accordingly is often incorrect, especially for those in vulnerable situations. Therefore, digital government services should be designed to be as user-friendly and accessible as possible (e.g. through specific formats, style of text etc) to accommodate specifically needs of citizens belonging to vulnerable groups.[27] An interesting example to help decrease barriers for citizens is the access to judicial services by smartphone. France has developed a mobile app to provide information on judicial proceedings, documents and links to online justice portals for case handling and requests.

The new role of chatbots

The Communication ‘Artificial Intelligence for Europe’[29] and the Artificial Intelligence Act[30] delineate three pillars of AI technology: updating technology (first pillar), preparing people (second pillar), and determining the impact of tech rules without undermining rights, law, and democracy (third pillar).

Chatbots can guide people to the adequate place to be heard and providing solutions guaranteeing access to both justice and to information.[31] They simplify interactions with citizens, clarify legal jargon and support contact centres in real time.[32] Chatbots help citizens find information about public services, such as required documents and relevant legislation. Although the Core Public Service Vocabulary (CPSV) exists, it falls short in handling complex cases. Thus chatbots are valuable tools, particularly in the justice sector.[33]

A typical chatbot tool can be provided within a central webpage about the justice system, such as the website of a court administration, to help the user navigate the information. Examples of such chatbot can be found in Latvia and Austria.

Developments and challenges of online courts hearings

Member States have been progressing at different speeds to enable online court hearings. Partly this was due to a gap of national legal frameworks, as well as requiring important investments to create secure and compliant access to such processes and purchasing and installing the necessary IT tools. At the EU level, a legal basis has been adopted that can also serve for cross-border judicial collaboration and contributes to enhancing national approaches to setting up online legal hearings.

The Council of Europe’s European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) has issued guidelines on videoconferencing in judicial proceedings. These guidelines aim to ensure that videoconferencing does not compromise the right to a fair trial. They include four principles.

  • All fair trial guarantees apply to remote hearings.
  • States should create a legal framework for remote hearings.
  • Courts decide if a hearing should be remote to maintain fairness.
  • Courts must protect a party’s right to legal assistance and confidential communication.

Remote participation in a trial can be compatible with human rights standards if all guarantees to a fair trial apply.[34] Security and confidentiality are crucial, given the sensitive nature of some court hearings, and it is also essential that IT experts carefully assess the online platforms used.[35]

In that respect, the ‘Digital Immediacy and Non-Face-to-Face Services’ project in Spain enabled secure, remote interactions between citizens, justice professionals, public administration and the judiciary.

In the field of criminal law, online trials can enhance court system management, in particular in terms of reasonable duration of the proceedings.[36] Online hearings can help reduce the number of trials conducted in absentia and strengthen access to justice, for instance for persons that are limited in their physical mobility or those residing abroad.

However, it is crucial to ensure that virtual proceedings do not compromise the fundamental and procedural rights of the parties involved, in particular the right to be present at the trial, as enshrined in Directive (EU) 2016/343. As the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarified, the Directive does not prohibit remote participation in criminal trials where the accused person expressly requests this, and the purpose of the Directive, which is to strengthen the effective exercise of the right to a fair trial and the rights of defence, is not prejudiced.[37]

A European Court of Human Rights judgment against Finland highlighted the failure to ensure fair trial due to inadequate videoconferencing tools, which hindered witness examination and caused delays and an unjustified prolongation of the procedure.[38] Particular caution also needs to be employed as regards the design of safeguards for persons who, due to specific disabilities or other vulnerabilities, experience challenges in the use of online tools. For criminal proceedings, it is therefore essential that the option of participating in person is always retained as a default.

For civil cases, procedural rules allowing the oral part of the procedure to be conducted entirely via distance communication technology are available in all Member States except Cyprus.[39]

4.4 Information exchange systems and case management

In the words of the Council of Europe’s European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), electronic court filing (eFiling) refers to ‘technological solutions facilitating access to justice by establishing a digital channel that enables the interaction and exchange of data and e-documents between courts and court users’. CEPEJ 2021 guidelines on electronic court filing (e-filing) and digitalisation of courts

As CEPEJ explains, implementing eFiling is a complex matter. Applying digital solutions to judicial procedures should be understood as a ‘systemic and comprehensive reform’, and ‘building a complete ecosystem of electronic judicial services’. It presents governance challenges, not just technological ones, concerning legal, organisational and socio-cultural considerations in the functioning of judicial bodies. It requires interoperable systems and key digital enablers to be in place, as well as standardisation and simplification of processes, where required and operational adjustments.

  • eFiling requires judicial documents to be electronic, authentic and confidential.
  • Pleadings and decisions should be in open formats.
  • Qualified eSignatures or eSeals should authenticate certain legal acts.
  • eDocuments should contain metadata for automated management and provide proof of delivery via an electronic timestamp.
  • The system should handle multimedia and large files, and ensure correct handling of e-Evidence with standardised metadata.
  • For those unable to use digital channels, paper documents should be accepted and digitalised.
  • Scanned documents should have an advanced eSignature for authenticity.
  • Internal users need customisable templates and a searchable central repository if used.

As the European Commission’s 2024 Rule of law report identifies through its country chapters, Member States are at different states of developing their eFiling systems and digitalising courts. For instance, Germany is introducing electronic files across all Länder, aiming for a complete transition by 2026. In Greece, full eFiling implementation is delayed and inconsistently available, with usage remaining low due to stakeholders’ unfamiliarity with the tools. A new electronic recording system for criminal proceedings was introduced, applied to 21 courts. Italy’s civil justice is fully digital, with tax justice expected by September 2024; however, some parts of the criminal sector remain behind in digitalisation.

The ‘EVIP’ project in Slovenia, a central communications hub for court logistics, has significantly improved the performance of courts by accelerating judicial proceedings, reducing administrative work, and saving costs, thereby transforming the Slovenian judicial system into a more efficient and digitally advanced entity.

Similarly, the modernisation of the Lithuanian Court Information System (LITEKO) has improved efficiency through advanced court resource management and case distribution models.

The eServices project at the Patras District Civil Court in Greece has also significantly enhanced public service delivery by digitalising court processes, enabling citizens and legal professionals to access case information, submit applications, and receive digitally-signed certificates online.

The Justiz 3.0 Initiative in Austria implemented a fully digital file management system, enabling simultaneous processing of files, reducing waiting lists, and allowing citizens to remotely check the status of their files.

The Data-Driven Justice project in Spain allows to transition from a ‘document-driven’ to a ‘data-driven’ approach, creating an open-access, inter-administrative data platform that integrates various data sources, enables evidence-informed policy decisions, and ensures responsible data management.

The LVwG Styria project in Austria transforms the Regional Administrative Court of Styria by offering a digital public service platform that provides easy, secure and 24/7 access to appeal procedures, streamlines court processes, thus reducing environmental footprint, and enhancing legal certainty.

The project ‘Court Administration of Latvia’ provides a digital public service platform that ensures easy, secure and round-the-clock access to court proceedings. eFiling platforms allow specifically to make case related information immediately accessible to all lawyers involve, parties of the case as well as the general public.

The GeFa project, a nationwide application for Justice Services in Germany, enhances the efficiency and user experience of the judicial system by standardising data recording, processing, and management across all Bundesländer, integrating artificial intelligence for case management tasks.

4.5 AI tools to support judges and court staff

The rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI), notably exemplified by the proliferation of generative AIs such as ChatGPT, has sparked discussions about its impact on the justice field. Scholars are exploring how AI could transform law practice and its conceptual frameworks. AI offers benefits in terms of speed and volume management within legal systems.[52] Potential applications of AI include legal research, support for administration of justice, chatbots, and predictive justice.

At the same time, the use of AI tools must respect and uphold individuals’ fundamental rights and must not perpetuate or exacerbate discrimination.[53] It should also be in full compliance with European legislation, including on AI and data protection. The application of AI in judicial proceedings raises concerns about accountability, transparency, and the influence of algorithms on judicial decision-making.[54] Frameworks to manage AI risks, particularly for high-risk applications, were developed.[55] EU rules, adopted in July 2024 under the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA), aim to ensure that AI systems are safe, transparent, and respect fundamental rights, thereby fostering trust and innovation in AI technologies within the EU. The AIA becomes fully applicable in 2026.

AI tools for law enforcement should be safe, robust, and respect principles of fairness and transparency, including the principle of inequality of arms in the context criminal proceedings. Any prejudice to the effective exercise of the right to a fair trial and the rights of defence must be precluded. The use of such tools should therefore undergo risk assessment and necessity testing, with safeguards matching identified risks.[56]

There is a debate about the role of machines in making autonomous decisions, with some authors emphasising the need for human involvement. In judicial proceedings, it is in fact a fundamental right (enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) to be judged by an independent and impartial tribunal, i.e. a human, not a machine. Instances of AI assessments being biased have been identified.[57] Tools assessing recidivism risk have been used in the US to determine sentence length or parole, raising questions about the potential for automating criminal procedures. However, these tools are highly problematic, as they have important limitations, including the inability to predict human behaviour scientifically, reliance on group characteristics rather than individual information, and inability to differentiate between offence severities.[58] Indeed, such tools are also likely to perpetuate deep rooted discrimination.

Judges started to engage in exchanges and discussions on the impact of AI on the rule of law and potential ethical challenges. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) published a useful global toolkit on AI and the rule of law for the judiciary. The toolkit includes useful questions and reflections that judiciaries should examine before starting to introduce AI tools into the justice system. The UNESCO also published recommendations on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence detailing more specifically how an ethical impact assessment should be conducted and how to continue to monitor and evaluate the AI tool. The UNESCO also started in 2024 consultations to develop Guidelines for the Use of AI Systems in Courts and Tribunals.

Another useful tool on the development of ethical AI tools in justice is the Council of Europe’s European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) charter on the use of artificial intelligence in judicial systems and their environment. In addition, the CEPEJ Artificial Intelligence Advisory Board provides expert advice on AI in the judicial environment and can be consulted. Examples of AI tools in justice systems around the globe can also be found and reviewed in the CEPEJ’s Resource Centre on Cyberjustice and AI.

In Germany, the AI tool for cases of travel delay streamlines decision-making in air passenger rights disputes by providing judges with data-driven insights, thereby expediting settlement cases and enhancing the efficiency of judicial processes.

The Robotic Process Automation (RPA) in Justice project by the Spanish Ministry of Justice automates repetitive tasks, reducing backlogs, and enabling 24/7 utilisation.

DataJust, aimed to streamline the process of bodily injury compensation in France by providing a reference framework for judges. However, this project had to be stopped due to biased training data and complexity of decisions linked to the award of damages in cases of accidents.

The CREA project (Conflict Resolution with Equitative Algorithms), through its innovative use of algorithms for dispute resolution, offers a cost-effective, fair, and expedited solution for EU citizens, streamlining national and cross-border proceedings.

4.6 Tools to support organisation of evidence

‘Electronic evidence’ (e-Evidence) is data stored by a service provider used as evidence in criminal proceedings. ‘Metadata’ describes other data, including identity, origin, history, and timestamps. A ‘trust service’ manages electronic signatures, seals, timestamps, delivery services, certificates, and website authentication, and preserves related certificates.[63]

Securing electronic evidence is crucial for modern crime investigations and prosecutions, both domestic and cross-border. It is vital to have effective, rights-compliant mechanisms for this, ensuring necessity, proportionality and respecting the rights to fair trial, privacy, data protection, and confidentiality of communications.[64]

From 2018 to 2022, requests to service providers like Google, LinkedIn, Meta, Reddit, Snapchat, and TikTok surged by 159 %. In 2022, Germany made nearly half of all EU requests (48%), with France at 1 %. Google received the most requests, followed by Meta.[65]

In general, electronic evidence should be securely collected and submitted to courts using reliable services, considering the higher risk of potential loss or destruction compared to non-electronic evidence. Member States should establish secure procedures for this purpose.

In civil and administrative proceedings, courts need to be aware of the challenges in seizing and collecting electronic evidence abroad, especially in cross-border cases, and should cooperate in such instances. The receiving court should inform the requesting court about the conditions and restrictions under which evidence can be taken. The collection, structuring, and management of electronic evidence should facilitate its transmission to other courts, particularly appellate courts. The transmission of electronic evidence electronically should be encouraged to enhance court proceedings’ efficiency, and the systems and devices used for this purpose should ensure the evidence’s integrity.[66]

For instance, the Hansken open digital forensic platform, developed by the Netherlands Forensic Institute, provides a scalable solution for analysing large volumes of digital data.

Footnotes