EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 30.05.2008 
SEC(2008)1944 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the Communication to the Council, the European 
Parliament and the European Economic a nd Social Committee "T owards a European 
strategy on e-Justice" 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
COM(2008)329 final 
 
SEC(2008)1947 
EN 2   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Executive Summary of the Impact assessment of the Communication to the Council, the 
European Parliament and the European Ec onomic and Social Committee "Towards a 
European strategy on e-Justice" 
1. The political background 
In June 2007, the JHA Council (d oc. 10393/07 JURINFO 21) has iden tified several priorities 
for the development of е-Justice in the European Union: 
- setting up a European in terface (e-Justice portal); 
- creating the conditions for networking of several registers, such as criminal records, 
insolvency registers, commercial and business registers and land registers; 
- starting the preparations for the use of ICT for the Europ ean payment order procedure, 
in conformity to Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006; 
- improving the use of video-conference t echnology in cross-border proceedings, in 
particular concerning the taking of evidence 
- devising support tools for interpretation and translation. During the German, the Portuguese and the (current) Slovenian Presidencies, work on e-
justice has steadily progressed. 
Work done in this framework must: - ensure that priority be given to operational projects; 
- give preference to decentrali zed structures, while providing for coordination at European 
level; 
- draw on existing legal instru ments and employ IT tools to improve their effectiveness. 
The European Parliament has al so expressed its support for the е-Justice project. 
A number of initiatives already exist at Euro pean and national level in this field. (Doc. 
6358/08, JURINFO 14). 
The use of modem information technologies has consistently been  encouraged by the 
Commission, both in the civil and in criminal fi eld. Several instruments already adopted in the 
framework of the judicial coope ration in civil matters  foresee this possibility, such as the 
European payment order, the Regulation on th e taking of evidence and the European small 
claims procedure. Furthermore, the Comm ission has been managing since 2003, in close 
cooperation with the Member Stat es, the "portal" of the Europ ean Judicial Network in civil 
and commercial matters accessible to the citizen s in 22 languages. The Commission has also 
designed and set up the European J udicial Atlas, an electronic t ool at the disposal of judges 
EN 3   EN and legal practitioners, which enable them to  handle on-line cross-border proceedings. These 
two tools are undeniably precursory elements of a future European framework for e-justice. 
In the criminal field, the Commission is working on a tool aiming to permit the exchange of 
information extracted from criminal records of the Member States. Eurojust has also 
developed secure communication sy stems with national authoritie s in particular under the E-
POC project. 
In coming years, е-Justice will offer many opportunities to make the European judicial area 
more concrete for citizens. In order to set up an overall strategy for this important issue the 
Commission would like to adopt  in May a Communication on e- Justice. This Communication 
seeks to lay down objective criteria for identifying  priorities, especially for future projects at 
European level, in order to attain co ncrete results within a reasonable time. 
2 The definition of the problem As the demand for justice increases across Eu rope and its transnational dimension grows 
steadily, because of enhanced mobility of eco nomic operators and citiz ens, the traditional 
justice systems fail to provide ad equate response to new needs. Transnational justice presents 
peculiar features and poses particular cha llenges which require adequate and innovative 
solutions. 
The main drawbacks of transnational ju stice can be summarised as follows: 
• Information deficit about procedures applicable in other Member States; 
• Language barriers; • Difficulty in the exchange of information between judicial authorities of different 
Member States;  
• Lack of trust between judicial  authorities of different MS;  
• Insufficient implementation of  existing EU instruments; 
• Problems related to the security  and authentication of documents. 
The variety of existing national initiatives in this field, while signaling the importance of the 
phenomenon, could lead to the adoption of diffe rent, and diverging te chnical solutions at 
national level. Significant problems of interoperability may therefore ensue. The e-Justice initiative seeks to avert this risk by proposing a common approach to the issue. 
3. Objectives of the initiative The Communication aims at the following objectives: • To promote an easier access to informa tion, by making information accessible on-line 
and by keeping it up-to-date. 
• To speed up the procedures, in particular  by streamlining recour se to videoconference 
and by supporting the coordinated development of e-Justice. 
EN 4   EN • To improve the mutual trust between judici al authorities, in pa rticular by removing 
obstacles linked to multilingualism and by providi ng reliable tools to ensure security and 
authentication of data. 
• To reinforce the mechanisms of cross-bord er judicial co-opera tion, in particular by 
devising practical tools and by facilitating the application of  existing EU instruments. 
• To coordinate existing projects and to ensure th eir consistency. 
4. Policy options The IA report explores four different policy options to address the problems, including a 
status quo option (option 1). 
a) Option 1 Status quo: e-Justice left to  MS - continuation of existing projects 
+ No resources needed - Current problems unlikely to be solved - risk of divergent technical solutions 
b) Option 2 Support for transnational ac tions and promotion of exchange of 
best practices + National projects likely be booste d - Limited resources needed 
- Limited ambition and problem-solving capacity c) Option 3 European e-Justice initiative: on the basis of four criteria, the strategy 
may focus on the following actions: use of videoconference;  creation of е-Justice portal; 
improvement of translation facilities by deve loping automatic on-line translation tools; 
improvement of communication between judicial  authorities; increased interconnection 
between national registers; on-line tools for Eu ropean procedures (e.g. European Payment 
Order) 
+ Combines European dimension and national competence - allows 
economies of scale  - Different projects require sepa rate assessment of feasibility 
d) Option 4 Legislative action: horizontal  instruments to impose common technical 
and legal standards for e- Justice 
+ Maximum effectiveness of common solutions - Legal basis, political sensitivity of the field 5. Preferred option The Option 3 - which incorporates elements of option 2 - is the preferred policy option. 
EN 5   EN Why? 
• It fosters the development of concrete projec ts improving judicial co -operation (translations, 
videoconference, etc.) 
• It encourages е-Justice initiative at national level, in conformity to the principle of 
subsidiarity, while ensuring consistency at Eu ropean level through the exchange of best 
practices. 
• It avoids risks of divergent technical solu tions, while stopping short of imposing single 
standards. 
• It permits economies of scale and cost savings for national administrations and 
citizens, without creating an excessive financial burden for the EU and for MS. 
• It provides the basis for a pivotal role of EU institutions , while avoiding the (legal and 
political) pitfalls of legislative action. 
6. Who is affected? • The Member States, with whom lies the pr imary responsibility for providing effective 
and trustworthy justice systems. 
• The European Commission, in its ro le of guardian of the treaties. 
• The judicial authorities of Member States , which need more sophisticated tools to 
communicate, especially in cross-border cases. 
• The legal professions, citizens and businesses,  who all advocate better use of IT tools 
with a view to achieving more satisfact ory responses to their 'justice' needs. 
7. Who was consulted? The IA report has been prepared taking into  account the reactions of  the Member States, 
judicial authorities, legal professions, citi zens and business. All these actors have been 
consulted, directly or indirectly, prior to the drafting of this IA. 
The result of a Eurobarometer on civil justice ha s been used to measure the needs of citizens 
in relation with civil justice. The views of the legal practitione rs have been gathered through a 
questionnaire disseminated by the judicial network in civil matters and the judicial network in 
criminal matters. The views of the judicial auth orities of Member States have been gathered 
through questionnaires on the use of ICT in Memb er States' judicial systems, on insolvency 
registers and on videoconferenc ing disseminated by the Council. 
As concerns the internal consultation, the auth or DG has developed close contacts with DG 
DIGIT, DGT, ENTR, INFSO, MARKT, TREN; OLAF; OPOCE and SG.