e-Justice developments in Europe from CEPEJ data and in-depth case studies

e-Justice developments in

Europe from CEPEJ data and in-depth case studies

Marco Velicogna IRSIG-CNR [email protected]

CEPEJ-GT-EVAL 26th meeting Strasbourg, 20 – 21 November 2014

! European Seminar on Court Technology: Grotius Project 1999-2000

! Judicial Electronic Data Interchange: Grotius Project 2002-2003

! ICT for Public Prosecutors’ Offices: AGIS programme JLS/2005/AGIS/175

! Building Interoperability for European Civil Proceedings Online: EU Civil Justice Programme JLS/2009/JCIV/AG/0035

! e-CODEX: EU co-funded project under the ICT PSP, 2010-present, http://www.e-codex.eu

! e-SENS: EU co-funded project under the ICT PSP, 2013 –present, http://www.esens.eu

Some IRSIG projects on ICT

The Circulation of Agency in e-Justice, F. Contini and G.F. Lanzara (eds), Springer, 2014 http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/political+science/book/978-94-007-7524-4

ICT and Innovation in the Public Sector, F. Contini and G.F. Lanzara (eds), Palgrave Macmillan, 2009 http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?pid=283892

Justice and Technology in Europe: How ICT is Changing the Judicial Business M. Fabri and F. Contini, Kluwer http://www.kluwerlaw.com/Catalogue/titleinfo.htm?ProdID=904111694X&name=Justice-and-Technology-in-Europe:-How-ICT-is-Changing-the-Judicial-Business

Some publications on ICT

Looking at past and present measurements and trends of ICT to understand how the CEPEJ questionnaire section of ICT should evolve

e-Justice developments in Europe from CEPEJ data and in-depth

case studies

A look at the past

ICT in the courts in 2004

How we envisioned ICT Evolution in the justice sector (2006-2007)

Paper folders

Internet Website

The ICT Evolution

Judges

Clerks staff

Users

Governance

Paper dockets

Administr. Case management systems

Full business CMS

Management info systems

2

E-Services

4 Case tracking Support tools

3

1

Paperless Justice 5

Court Counter

127

Figure 5.8 Level of computerization of courts: (Q62, Q63, Q64)

The three areas of application: direct assistance to judges and court clerks, administration and management and communication between courts and the parties Comments: Andorra: the Consell Superior de la Justícia is about to sign a convention with the government of Navarra (Spain) to acquire an integrated procedural management system (electronic record, communication with employees and users). Cyprus: an electronic filing system does not exist, however computer technology is used for facilitating the management of cases. Denmark: the changes in the Danish Administration of Justice Act (Retsplejeloven) § 748a and § 748b have been implemented. Estonia: the everyday-tool of the judges and other court staff which is the Courts Information System, connected to different electronic registers and information systems that are used by the state authorities or by the parties to the proceeding. There is a special online information system for citizens, which is connected to the court information system and allows for the electronic submission of procedural documents and the observation of proceedings. As a rule, all Estonian courts use automatic systems for allocating incoming cases. However, there are a few small courthouses that do not use it due to the fact that there are few judges and the court official will choose the judge for the incoming case. Germany: the equipment with network computers has taken place across-the-board. The hardware and software are being gradually renewed at intervals. Specialist procedures have now been developed for almost all applications in the judiciary. Preparations are currently being made for the introduction of electronic justice and the electronic file. A schedule has already been drawn up for the electronic court and administration pigeon hole. Hungary: the electronic administration of the court procedures will be instituted with the financing of the European Union and European Regional Development Fund. The aim of the project is the development of electronic registration and access to the documents that come into existence during the judicial actions. The purpose of the project is to increase the electronic communication between the citizens and the courts, to make possible the electronic submission of petitions by the parties and concerned authorities, the electronic delivery of documents by the courts to the parties. Luxembourg: it should be noted that, although electronic processing of small claims as well as of undisputed debt recoveries is not possible, electronic access to a certain number of set formulas is possible through the Justice and the Internet stand.

Czech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGeorgiaGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxembourgMalta

Figure 5.8 Level of computerisation of courts for the three areas of application (Q62, Q63, Q64)

FRA

MCOANDESP

PRT

MLT

SMR

ITA

GRC

CYP

TUR

BGR

ROU

MDA

SRB

MKD

ALB

MNE

BIH

HRVSVN

HUNAUT

CHE LIE

LUX

DEU

CZE

POL

UKR

GEOAZE

ARM

RUSLTU

LVA

EST

FIN

SWE

NOR

ISL

UK:ENG&WAL

UK:SCO

UK:NIR

IRL

BEL

NLD

DNK

SVK

ISR

Not a member of CoEData not supplied

From 0 to 35 points (low IT score)From 35 to 50 points (medium IT score)From 50 to 60 points (good IT score)From 60 to 72 points (excellent IT score)

IT Score (cf previous table)

04/0

8/20

14

125

Table 5.7 Computer facilities used within the courts for three areas of use (Q62, Q63, Q64)

The total number of points is displayed for information only. The calculation has been done when the data was available for all categories, but also when one of the categories was missing. The questionnaire consists of a general categorisation by type of equipment (100%, >50%, <50%, >10%); therefore, this is a general assessment by each Member State which only allows a first approach concerning the level of equipment of jurisdictions, on a declarative basis, and can indicate the evolutions over several exercises, complemented with the different comments showing the importance of the on-going changes. Comments: Czech Republic: “other” means data boxes as a mean of communication with the parties (they are obligatory in particular for legal entities, lawyers, notaries and optional for individuals) and state authorities.


States/entities

Wor

d pr

oces

sing

Elec

troni

c da

taba

se o

f ju

rispr

uden

ce

Elec

troni

c fil

es

E-m

ail

Inte

rnet

con

nect

ion

Tota

l

Case

regi

stra

tion

syst

em

Cour

t man

agem

ent

info

rmat

ion

syst

em

Fina

ncia

l inf

orm

atio

n sy

stem

Vide

ocon

fere

ncin

g

Tota

l

Elec

troni

c w

eb fo

rms

Web

site

Follo

w-u

p of

cas

es

onlin

e

Elec

troni

c re

gist

ers

Elec

troni

c pr

oces

sing

of

sm

all c

laim

sEl

ectro

nic

proc

essi

ng

of u

ndis

pute

d de

bt

reco

very

Elec

troni

c su

bmis

sion

of

cla

ims

Vide

ocon

fere

ncin

g

Oth

er e

lect

roni

c co

mm

unic

atio

n fa

cilit

ies

Tota

l

Albania 15 8 11 34Andorra 16 8 0 24Armenia 20 8 20 48Austria 20 16 36 72Azerbaijan 20 13 26 59Belgium 20 9 6 35Bosnia and Herzegovina 19 11 23 53Bulgaria 20 13 13 46Croatia 18 12 15 45Cyprus 16 8 8 32Czech Republic 18 10 34 62Denmark 20 16 12 48Estonia 20 16 36 72Finland 20 16 32 68France 19 16 20 55Georgia 20 6 17 43Germany 17 13 28 58Greece 10 6 11 27Hungary 18 12 22 52Iceland 20 8 8 36Ireland 20 11 23 54Italy 20 14 28 62Latvia 20 13 36 69Lithuania 20 14 35 69Luxembourg 20 16 16 52Malta 20 16 36 72Republic of Moldova 19 9 13 41Monaco 20 12 36 68Montenegro 20 16 24 60Netherlands 17 15 24 56Norway 20 15 12 47Poland 17 13 19 49Portugal 20 16 36 72Romania 16 14 26 56Russian Federation 20 13 25 58Serbia 18 12 18 48Slovakia 17 13 19 49Slovenia 19 16 28 63Spain 20 15 21 56Sweden 20 16 32 68Switzerland 19 13 25 57The FYROMacedonia 20 14 15 49Turkey 20 14 21 55Ukraine 15 9 7 31UK-England and Wales 20 15 27 62UK-Northern Ireland 20 15 28 63UK-Scotland 20 16 24 60

Israel 20 13 33 66

Direct assistance to judges and court clerks

Administration and management Communication between courts and the parties

IT S

core

Evol

utio

n 20

10 -

2012

100% of courts 4 points

-10% of courts

+50% of courts-50% of courts

0% of courts

3 points

2 points

1 point

0 point

15/0

9/20

14

125


The total number of points is displayed for information only. The calculation has been done when the data was available for all categories, but also when one of the categories was missing. The questionnaire consists of a general categorisation by type of equipment (100%, >50%, <50%, >10%); therefore, this is a general assessment by each Member State which only allows a first approach concerning the level of equipment of jurisdictions, on a declarative basis, and can indicate the evolutions over several exercises, complemented with the different comments showing the importance of the on-going changes. Comments: Czech Republic: “other” means data boxes as a mean of communication with the parties (they are obligatory in particular for legal entities, lawyers, notaries and optional for individuals) and state authorities.


States/entities

Wor

d pr

oces

sing

Elec

troni

c da

taba

se o

f ju

rispr

uden

ce

Elec

troni

c fil

es

E-m

ail

Inte

rnet

con

nect

ion

Tota

l

Case

regi

stra

tion

syst

em

Cour

t man

agem

ent

info

rmat

ion

syst

em

Fina

ncia

l inf

orm

atio

n sy

stem

Vide

ocon

fere

ncin

g

Tota

l

Elec

troni

c w

eb fo

rms

Web

site

Follo

w-u

p of

cas

es

onlin

e

Elec

troni

c re

gist

ers

Elec

troni

c pr

oces

sing

of

sm

all c

laim

sEl

ectro

nic

proc

essi

ng

of u

ndis

pute

d de

bt

reco

very

Elec

troni

c su

bmis

sion

of

cla

ims

Vide

ocon

fere

ncin

g

Oth

er e

lect

roni

c co

mm

unic

atio

n fa

cilit

ies

Tota

l

Albania 15 8 11 34Andorra 16 8 0 24Armenia 20 8 20 48Austria 20 16 36 72Azerbaijan 20 13 26 59Belgium 20 9 6 35Bosnia and Herzegovina 19 11 23 53Bulgaria 20 13 13 46Croatia 18 12 15 45Cyprus 16 8 8 32Czech Republic 18 10 34 62Denmark 20 16 12 48Estonia 20 16 36 72Finland 20 16 32 68France 19 16 20 55Georgia 20 6 17 43Germany 17 13 28 58Greece 10 6 11 27Hungary 18 12 22 52Iceland 20 8 8 36Ireland 20 11 23 54Italy 20 14 28 62Latvia 20 13 36 69Lithuania 20 14 35 69Luxembourg 20 16 16 52Malta 20 16 36 72Republic of Moldova 19 9 13 41Monaco 20 12 36 68Montenegro 20 16 24 60Netherlands 17 15 24 56Norway 20 15 12 47Poland 17 13 19 49Portugal 20 16 36 72Romania 16 14 26 56Russian Federation 20 13 25 58Serbia 18 12 18 48Slovakia 17 13 19 49Slovenia 19 16 28 63Spain 20 15 21 56Sweden 20 16 32 68Switzerland 19 13 25 57The FYROMacedonia 20 14 15 49Turkey 20 14 21 55Ukraine 15 9 7 31UK-England and Wales 20 15 27 62UK-Northern Ireland 20 15 28 63UK-Scotland 20 16 24 60

Israel 20 13 33 66

Direct assistance to judges and court clerks

Administration and management Communication between courts and the parties

IT S

core

Evol

utio

n 20

10 -

2012

100% of courts 4 points

-10% of courts

+50% of courts-50% of courts

0% of courts

3 points

2 points

1 point

0 point

15/0

9/20

14

For many categories the availability is at 100% in most if not all countries, especially in the case of technologies for the direct assistance of judges & court clerks and of technologies for administration and management. Keeping using them will not provide additional benefits. Better to 1) start looking at results produced e.g. number of electronic court decisions, number of official electronic communications, level of refinement and use of court statistics for managerial and disciplinary purposes etc. or 2) move the focus of attention to other areas e.g. level of interoperability between organizations in the justice sector, with other administrations etc.

A good map to get us here, but what’s next?

Research on ICT and e-Justice cases studies are providing many ideas on what is becoming relevant and what should be investigated…

Contini, F., & Lanzara, G. F. (2013). The circulation of agency in e-justice. Springer. Velicogna, M., Errera, A., & Derlange, S. (2013). Building e-Justice in Continental

Europe: The TéléRecours Experience in France. Utrecht L. Rev., 9, 38. Mohr, R., & Contini, F. (2011). Reassembling the legal: The wonders of modern

science in court-related proceedings. Griffith L. Rev., 20, 994. Velicogna, M., Errera, A., & Derlange, S. (2011). e-Justice in France: the e-Barreau

experience. Utrecht L. Rev., 7, 163. Reiling, D. (2010). Technology for justice. How information technology can support judicial

reform (p. 310). Leiden University Press. Contini, F., & Lanzara, G. F. (Eds.). (2009). ICT and innovation in the public sector:

European studies in the making of e-government. Palgrave Macmillan. Hanseth, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2008). Theorizing about the design of Information

Infrastructures: design kernel theories and principles. Velicogna, M. (2008). Use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in

European judicial systems. CEPEJ Studies No. 7. Council of Europe.

Some emerging elements that need considering

!   From technology to e-Justice information systems

!   Performativity

!   Complexity of multimediality

!   Scale

! Pervasivity

!   Time

!   Feasibility





!   Scale

! Pervasivity

!   Time

!   Feasibility

We are dealing not just with technological tools but with multi-domain, heterogeneous objects resulting from the assemblage of distinct legal, organizational and technological components which provide e-justice services




!   Scale

! Pervasivity

!   Time

!   Feasibility

A judicial utterances that is communicated through proper e-justice systems is not merely descriptive, does not just ‘say’ something. It performs a certain kind of action (begins a civil procedure, activates an arrest, a surrender procedure, etc.) changing the social order it is describing.





!   Scale

! Pervasivity

!   Time

!   Feasibility

Media behave differently and when switching from one medium to another and back changes take place and need to be managed e.g. signature, printing of digitally signed document…


Easy can become suddenly difficult e.g. identification, signature, and roles attribution…




!   Scale

! Pervasivity

!   Time

!   Feasibility

We are entering the area of ultra large scale information systems and of information infrastructures, which are characterized by unprecedented amounts of hardware and software components, numbers of users, volumes of data, whose borders becomes often unclear as they are developed and used by many stakeholders across multiple organizations





!   Scale

! Pervasivity

!   Time

!   Feasibility

E-Justice systems are becoming a core part of every justice procedure and service.





!   Scale

! Pervasivity

!   Time

!   Feasibility

- Time boundedness of components (and components providers), objectives, requirements, users needs - Shifting of focus from design to development to implementation to sustainability and evolvability





!   Scale

! Pervasivity

!   Time

!   Feasibility

What has been defined as the dynamic space for solutions’ designs, and which is related to the concepts of manageable complexity and feasible simplicity, and which depends from the interactions between the legal, technological, organizational and institutional domains, from the available resources (budget, competences, ICT providers market, installed base, governance…) and from the innovation approach (blue-print design Vs bootstraping etc.)


Need to get a better understanding of the dynamics related to the shifting of complexity from one domain to another and of the elements that acts as complexity sinks and amplifiers

Some cases and lessons

Learning from experience: COVL (Slovenia)

CMS iVpisnik

Claim processing judges, clerks‏

Central Office Digitization

and data capture

Paper filing

e-registry

e-Filing

Central department for enforcement on the basis of authentic documents

!   Looking at England & Wales, Finland and Germany for best practices (also to reinforce strategic directions and decisions)

!   Decision not to commit by law in advance to specific technical solutions

!   Open standards and software to prevent vendors lock-in

!   Moving from a paper based decentralized system to a centralized and automated procedure (single national jurisdiction)

!   Use of credit cards for identification, elimination of the signature requirement

COVL

!   Connection to external registers for data needed for the judicial procedure, including localization of debtors assets

!   XML based forms with automatic data checks on various registers and double level warnings (red blocking and yellow

!   Provide economic incentives to the use of the system (reduced fees)

!   Do not require the sending of proofs, just the type of document and reference number

!   Introduce clear sanctions for the abuse of the enforcement procedure

!   Development of a B2G interface for bulk filing !   Creation of an automated postal dispatch system for the off-

line part of the procedure

COVL

!   Connection to external registers for data needed for the judicial procedure, including localization of debtors assets

!   XML based forms with automatic data checks on various registers and double level warnings (red blocking and yellow

!   Provide economic incentives to the use of the system (reduced fees)

!   Do not require the sending of proofs, just the type of document and reference number

!   Introduce clear sanctions for the abuse of the enforcement procedure

!   Development of a B2G interface for bulk filing !   Creation of an automated postal dispatch system for the off-

line part of the procedure

COVL

• Tax Registry at Tax Authority (DURS) • Public Payments Administration (UJP) • Central Registry of Citizens at Ministry of Internal Affairs (CRP) • Registry of Bank Accounts at Bank of Slovenia (BS/RTRR) • Central Securities Clearing Corporation Registry (CSCC/KDD) • Employment Office (ZZZS) • Land Registry at courts (EZK) • Registry of Land Units at Surveying Authority (RPE) • Company Registry at courts and at AJPES (PRS)

Experience does not always work smoothly: MCOL and PCOL

MCOL success story !   Building on existing installed

base (organization, ID etc.)

!   Incremental development

!   Loose coupling of relatively independent subsystems easing problem solving an overall evolvability

!   Single national jurisdiction for on-line procedure

!   Functional simplification through exclusion rules

!   Law designed to support the service being designed

One example of change in the subsystems: the Government Gateway providing for ID, payment and accounting to MCOL

PCOL somewhat less successful story…

!   Many of MCOL ideas, components and functionalities were re-used, but when PCOL was introduced, the result was not as satisfactory…

!   Different complexity of the procedure

!   Different typology of court users

!   Different expectations (?)

… till recently In 2013 PCOL has been completely revised by the MoJ’s digital services team with the idea of “putting the user first”

Note: MCOL is also being revised according to the same philosophy and it is now in the “alpha” phase (a core service prototype that meets the main user needs is being built and tested with users)

The enabling power of the installed base: e-ID, e-Signature and e-Justice

services in Estonia History of E-Justice systems in Estonia

!   2002-2005: KOLA – publication of judgments in the internet + statistics

!   2006-2013/2014: KIS – main functions of a document management system NB! Since 2008 enables processing of electronic payment orders!

!   2013/2014 –∞: KIS² – modern document management system for the courts

!   Supreme Court had a separate system from the I and II instance courts until 2014

Interoperability

!   X-ROAD

!   E-FILE

e-ID Card

!   Since 2002

!   1.1 million active e-ID cards in Estonia (1.3 million residents)

!   Provides proof of identification when logging into public and private systems

!   Can be used to sign documents

The e-ID card as a complexity sink in designing e-services

!   Public e-File is a web-based information system that enables the parties and their representatives to participate in civil, administrative, criminal and misdemeanor proceedings electronically in Estonia.

!   If an Estonian logs in to this portal he/she can see all the documents delivered to him/her in any court proceedings.

!   He/she will also get an e-mail notification every time a new document is delivered. A user of the Public e-File system can determine which e-mail he/she wants to use for receiving notifications. In addition, every Estonian has an official e-mail address @eesti.ee

!   The notification includes a link to the document and a note telling them to go to the portal and sign in using the national e-ID card. If a document needs to be signed, again, the national e-ID card is used.

!   In payment order proceedings, which are now fully electronic, the Public e-File system is the only channel that can be used to file a case or communicate with the court. For other proceedings the Public e-File system is also widely used, but alternative ways are available (e-mail, letter etc.).

If it is not complex, we do not like it: The Italian Civil Trial On-line

!   140 tribunals !   26 Courts of Appeals !   1 Supreme Court !   465 justice of the peace offices !   3.000 judges !   15.000 court clerks !   200.000 active lawyers

3.800.000 pending cases 2.800.000 new cases /year

Gestore di PECGiustizia (GiustiziaCert)

Overall'architecture'

E"Jus&ce)domain)

Court)

Soggettoabilitato esternoPunto di accesso

District)data)center)Fascicoloinformatico

Registroinformatizzato

Magistrato

Cancelliere

Gestore di PECGiustizia (GiustiziaCert)

Portale deiservizi telematici

e"filing(=(PEC(

On"line(services(

Cer$fied'e(mail'system'

judges

clerks

Lawyers (other practitioners)

Utente privato(Cittadino e impresa)Citizens

public/private companies

Access point

Portal

PDF+XML(Digital(signature(a;achments(Encrypted(envelope(

2"factor(authenDcaDon(

e"filing(

e"Filing(!meline'

2006'+'2013' 2014' 2015'30/6(

Mandatory(by(law'for'injunc!ons'+'pleadings'in'new'cases'(in'all'tribunals)'

31/12(

Mandatory'for'all'pleadings'(in'all'tribunals)'

30/6(

Mandatory'also'in'all'Courts'of'Appeal'

On(a(voluntary(basis(When'single'courts'and'bars'were'ready'

Communica)ons+from+the+Courts+2011$ 2012$ 2013$ 2014$ 2015$

19/11+

Introduc0on$of$cer0fied$mail$system$(PEC)$

18/2+

Mandatory+by+law$to$send$ONLY$electronically$(via$PEC)$

15/12+

Mandatory$also$in$criminal$cases$

In$2014,$about$1$million$Court$communica0ons$to$the$par0es$per$month$

Some elements which allowed to succeed !   Trying to keep it as simple as possible after the initial hyper-

complex attempt: e.g. 2006 revision to adopt PDF (complexity for XML, encryption, etc. left to vendors)

!   Move from the ‘perfect’ legal provisions based on the paper procedure to more reasonable ones considering the differences of the electronic environment

!   Highest feasible levels of security and confidentiality (required by the Italian context)

!   Use of structured data in order to automatically feed the databases of all actors involved

!   Gradual deployment in courts: mandatory when sufficiently mature, no single ownership of the governance

!   Learning to deal with the world of the users ICT vendors

E-CODEX: e-Justice Communication via Online Data Exchange

e-CODEX is and is seen as several things:

!   An EU co-funded project,

!   A ‘content agnostic’ e-Delivery solution to exchange data and documents across legal domains

!   An information infrastructure using technology, organisational systems, rules and agreements to provide secure cross border judicial services which are performative.

E-CODEX

!   e-CODEX (e-Justice Communication via Online Data EXchange) is a Large Scale Pilot, Co-Funded by the European Commission

!   CODEX goal is to “Improve the cross-border access of citizens and businesses to legal means in Europe as well as to improve the interoperability between legal authorities within the EU”

!   Initially running from Dec 2010 to Dec 2013, now extended to Feb 2015.

Partners & budget It involves 20 countries (with two additional countries in the process of joining), mainly through their Ministries of Justice or their representatives, but also other institutions such as the CCBE, CNUE, the National Research Council of Italy, and OASIS.

Budget 24m € (EU contribution: €12m)

Initially running from Dec 2010 to Dec 2013, now extended to Feb 2015. It is under discussion its further extension till May 2016.

Organizational Structure and main challenges

43

Plurality of national solutions Compatibility issues (technological, normative, organizational)

Integration Vs standard interfaces

Mantainance and evolvability Reaching a critical mass of users

Sustainability

Organizational Structure and main challenges

Performativity and the circle of trust

Existing and reusable EU components

The marketing representation

A more technical representation Receiving eCMSending eCM

E-CODEX gateway

e-Deliveryplatform

Service provider

E-CODEX gatewayConnector Connector Service

provider

3

PDF

XML

Transport Info

PDF

XML

WP4

WP6

WP5

•  Creates documents (pdf, XML, other attachments)

•  Sends

•  Adds Trust-OK token •  Transforms to

e-CODEX standards

•  Establishes connection •  Formats to eBMS3.0

•  Receives •  Extracts from eBMS3.0

•  Checks Trust-OK token •  Transforms from e-CODEX

to National standards

•  Receives •  Elaborates

A national solution example (Austria)

EPO$

VJ$

Business$Register$

Land$Register$

ERV$(Elektronischer$Rechtsverkehr$

JMS$Queues$

JMS$Queues$

JMS$Queues$

JMS$Queues$

WebService$

MS$specific$Connector$

part$

e@CODEX$DO

MIBU

S$Connector$

e@CODEX$DO

MIBU

S$Gatew

ay$$

Backend$Integra7on$WebService$

MS$Na7onal$Solu7on$ MS$e;CODEX$e;Delivery$Component$$

$$$$$$$ebMS$

European$e@Delivery$

•  European Payment Order (EPO) based on Regulation (EC) No

1896/2006

•  Small Claims (SC) based on Regulation (EC) No 861/2007

•  Secure cross-border exchange of sensitive judicial data •  Freezing and confiscations based on Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA

•  Mutual recognition to confiscation orders, based on Council FD 2006/783/JHA

•  Data exchange for criminal matters within the EURegio cooperation framework

•  European Arrest Warrant (EAW) based on the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA

•  Mutual recognition of financial penalties based on the Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA

•  Synchronous Communication – applied to business Registers based on Directive 2012/17/EU amending Council Directive 89/666/EEC and Directives 2005/56/EC and 2009/101/EC

Procedures being piloted

At least in theory a high level of procedural standardization

Piloting Procedures

Based on EU Regulations and Framework decisions Presence of multilingual forms

for the information exchange

!   But…

!   While these procedures provide a certain level of standardisation, their functioning relies on national organisations (e.g. courts), procedures (e.g. notification, payment of fees) which highly increase the complexity for potential users

Some dynamics emerging in the building and maintaining e-CODEX performative

!   The ‘circle of trust’ solution to overcome holes in the EU normative framework and limits of the technologyNeed to monitor and get involved in the changes in EU Regulations and Framework Decisions

!   Relevance of national norms and practice to which part of the procedure is delegated or through which the EU procedure is interpreted (e.g. notification, fee payment, etc.)

!   Changes in National practices introduced by e-CODEX piloting

!   The question of sustainability…

Some concluding remarks We are now in a very peculiar moment in time. Justice has now a leading role in the discussion on ICT evolution.

This is not just for the relevance of the justice domain, but for its extreme multilayered sociotechnical complexity and the constraints and pressure this puts into the information systems development.

The bad news: developing justice IS is tough!

The good news: there is a lot to learn from justice experiences not only within the justice domain and, as we have seen, justice systems are doing very interesting things!

Some suggestions for the CEPEJ questionnaire ICT

section revision

General Considerations for the CEPEJ questionnaire ICT section

revision !   Considering the rise in relevance of ICT and the need to

shift focus from individual and internal court ICT to inter-organizational ICT

!   Need to shift focus from counting number of technical tools to counting the service provided

!   Greater difficulty in measuring ICT through quantitative indicators. It could be worth increasing the number of open questions and of qualitative data collection on key topics

Some quantitative questions for the CEPEJ questionnaire ICT section

revision (1/2) !   Number of lawyers communicating electronically with the

courts or with other parties in court procedures (e.g. e-filing, legally valid electronic notifications from the court)

!   Existence of electronic addresses to which legally valid electronic notification of documents can be done, which are these categories (e.g. lawyers official e-mail, official enterprise e-mail etc.) and which coverage it provides (e.g. 100% of lawyers, 95% of private enterprises, 100% public administration etc.).

!   Availability of services for phones and Apps for smartphones and level of service provided + % of procedures for which it is available ( % per specific CEPEJ case category if possible) + number of communications/accesses per day

Some quantitative questions for the CEPEJ questionnaire ICT section

revision (2/2) !   Number of e-filed cases (per specific CEPEJ case category if

possible) - absolute number and % of e-filed cases on the total number

!   Number of cases with e-Decision sent/available to the parties (per specific CEPEJ case category if possible) - absolute number and % of e-Decisions on the total number

!   Number of fully electronic cases (per specific CEPEJ case category if possible)- absolute number and % on the total number of cases

Some more qualitative questions for the CEPEJ questionnaire ICT

section revision (1/3) !   e-ID and e-Signature level required to participate in e-Justice

procedure and level of diffusion of such technologies between the professional and non professional court users

!   Existence of means to assess the satisfaction of external users for ICT services

!   Policy concerning justice administration ICT vendors and e-Justice vendors market


section revision (1/3) !   Electronic documents format and exchange requirements for

legally valid electronic communication (e.g. signed pdf, certified e-mail, log-on secure system before uploading documents etc.), specifying if applicable to one, several or all procedures

!   Level of interoperability (open questions on other agencies/ registers etc. which are electronically interconnected and on the type of access available e.g. shared database, automatic data exchange, notifications etc.)


section revision (1/3) !   Open question on e-Justice Governance: strategy,

organizational structure, main policies, and procedures that have been established to develop, promote, manage and coordinate the use of ICT in the justice system.

!   Open questions on the main ICT projects and systems (name, short description, main positive aspects, number of users and cases, at least one development/implementation/maintenance/sustainability problem)

!   ICT training: training policy, organizational structure, number and typologies of courses, number of trained personnel (per personnel category)

e-Justice developments in Europe from CEPEJ data and in-depth case studies

Documents