Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-justice action plan 2014-2018 and the way forward : final report.
Date: 2018-09-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
Subjects: EU law - national law, EU programme, access to the courts, area of freedom, security and justice, artificial intelligence, data protection, electronic document, electronic government, equal treatment, fight against crime, judicial cooperation, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, report

Evaluation study on the 
outcome of the e-Justice 
Action Plan 2014-2018 and 
the way forward 

Final report 

DT4EU Consortium  
May – 2018 

Justice 
and Consumers 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Corresponding author:  

DT4EU Consortium 

Ms. Dijana SPASOJEVIĆ, Principal Consultant  

TRASYS International, 

E-mail: dijana.spasojevic@trasysinternational.com  

part of the NRB Group, 
Lead for this study 

Report prepared by: Katarina Manojlović (Trasys International), Robrecht Renard (Trasys 
International), Maruca de Ramón (Deloitte Consulting and Advisory) 

Report document details:  

Study title  

Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-
2018 and the way forward – Final report 

Linguistic version 

EN 

Media/Volume 

PDF/Volume_01 

Catalogue number 

DS-02-18-714-EN-N 

ISBN 

DOI 

978-92-79-85876-5 

10.2838/373323 

Executive summary document details  

Linguistic version  

EN, FR 

Page 2 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 
Directorate B — Criminal justice 
Unit B4  — E-Justice, IT and document management 

Contact: Alexander IVANTCHEV 

E-mail:Alexander.IVANTCHEV@ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

Page 3 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Page 4 of 104 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

DISCLAIMER 

This  document  has  been  prepared  for  the  European  Commission  however  it  reflects  the 
views  only  of  the  authors,  and  the  Commission  cannot  be  held  responsible  for  any  use 
which may be made of the information contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 

PDF 

ISBN: 978-92-79-85876-5 

DOI: 10.2838/373323 

DS-02-18-714-EN-N 

© European Union, 2018 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Page 5 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Contents 

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................... 9 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 10 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 21 

1.1.  Background to the service contract .................................................... 21 

1.2.  Purpose and structure of this document ............................................. 21 

2.  PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................ 22 

2.1.  Project approach and objectives ........................................................ 22 

2.1.1.  Objectives ........................................................................... 22 

2.1.2.  Project approach .................................................................. 22 

2.2.  Project team ................................................................................... 23 

3.  METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 24 

3.1.  Literature review and desk research................................................... 24 

3.2.  Structured questionnaire .................................................................. 24 

3.3.  Interviews ...................................................................................... 24 

4.  ASSESSMENT OF THE E-JUSTICE ACTION PLAN 2014-2018 .......................... 25 

4.1.  Status of Actions ............................................................................. 25 

4.2.  Effectiveness of projects and actions .................................................. 28 

4.3.  Relevance of projects/Desired scope of the projects ............................. 31 

4.4.  Identified Actions’ constraints ........................................................... 35 

5.  SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS AND ACTIONS ................ 39 

5.1.  A: Access to information in the field of justice ..................................... 43 

5.1.1.  Action no. 1a): e-Justice Portal, updates of the static content .... 43 

5.1.2.  Action no.1b): e-Justice Portal, expansion of the static content .. 44 

5.1.3. Action no. 1c): e-Justice Portal, inclusion of functionalities .......... 45 

5.1.4.  Action  no.  2:  European  e-Justice  Portal  -  Information  relating 

to minors 45 

5.1.5.  Action no. 3: Penitentiary establishments ............................... 46 

5.1.6.  Action  no.  4:  European  e-Justice  Portal  –  e-Justice  for 
practitioners  in  criminal  matters  (Knowledge  Management 
initiative on criminal matters) ................................................ 47 

5.1.7.  Action no. 5: European e-Justice Portal – Open data on justice .. 47 

5.1.8.  Action Fiche no. 6: European e-Justice Portal - Information and 

assistance for citizens to resolve fundamental rights problems... 49 

5.1.9.  Action Fiche no. 7: European e-Justice Portal – Judicial auctions 50 

5.1.10.  Action  Fiche  no.  8:  European  e-Justice  Portal  -  Judicial  official 

announcements ................................................................... 51 

5.1.11.  Action no.9: Consumer database ........................................... 51 

5.1.12.  Action no. 10a: Insolvency Registers ...................................... 53 

5.1.13.  Action no. 10b: Insolvency Registers – all Member States ......... 53 

5.1.14.  Action no. 11: Business registers ........................................... 55 

5.1.15.  Action no. 12: Land Registers ................................................ 56 

5.1.16.  Action no. 13: Interpreters and translators Databases .............. 58 

5.1.17.  Action no. 14: Help for the translation of judicial acts ............... 59 

5.1.18.  Action Fiche no. 15: Registers of judicial experts ..................... 60 

5.1.19.  Action Fiche no. 16: Find a Judicial Expert ............................... 60 

5.1.20.  Action no. 17: Interconnection of registers of wills ................... 61 

Page 6 of 104 

 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

5.1.21.  Action no. 18: Electronic European Certificate of Succession...... 62 

5.1.22.  Action no. 19: Register of representation rights and powers  of 

legal representatives ............................................................ 63 

5.1.23.  Action Fiche no. 20: Find a Judicial Officer .............................. 63 

5.1.24.  Action Fiche no. 21: European Case Law Identifier – ECLI ......... 64 

5.1.25.  Action Fiche no. 22: European Legislation Identifier – ELI ......... 65 

5.1.26.  Action Fiche no. 23: Semantic interoperability ......................... 66 

5.2.  B:  Access  to  courts  and  extrajudicial  procedures  in  cross-border 

situations ....................................................................................... 67 

5.2.1.  Action Fiche no. 24a: Court database  - unique identification of 

entities within the judicial domain .......................................... 67 

5.2.2.  Action  Fiche  no.  24b:  Court  database  -  improving  the  content 
and  functioning  of  the  court  database  (extension  of  the  scope 
by coverage of European and national instruments) ................. 68 

5.2.3.  Action Fiche no. 24c: Court database - service interfaces which 
allow  automatic  searching  of  the  court  database  by  national 
and European e-Justice applications ....................................... 69 

5.2.4.  Action  no.  25:  Dynamic  forms  (EPO,  Small  Claims  and  Taking 

of evidence) ........................................................................ 70 

5.2.5.  Action no. 26: ODR (Online-dispute resolution) ........................ 71 

5.2.6.  Action no. 27: Find a mediator .............................................. 73 

5.2.7.  Action no. 28: e-Service of documents ................................... 73 

5.2.8.  Action Fiche no. 29: European Investigation Order (EIO) .......... 74 

5.3.  C. Communication between judicial authorities .................................... 76 

5.3.1.  Action no. 30: Videoconference ............................................. 76 

5.3.2.  Action  no.  31:  e-APP  (Electronic  Apostille  programme)  - 

(including e-Registers of Apostilles) ........................................ 77 

5.3.3.  Action no. 32: i-Support ....................................................... 78 

5.3.4.  Action  no.  33:  Cooperation  with  the  website  of  the  European 

Judicial Network in criminal matters ....................................... 79 

5.4.  D. Horizontal issues ......................................................................... 80 

5.4.1.  Action no. 34a: Automated machine translation - first inclusion 

in the e-Justice Portal ........................................................... 80 

5.4.2.  Action no. 34b: Automated machine translation  -  improve the 

quality of translation - introduce machine translations .............. 81 

5.4.3.  Action no. 35: Promotion of e-Justice (the Portal and e-Justice 

in general) .......................................................................... 82 

5.4.4.  Action  no.  36a:  European  e-Justice  Portal;  Making  the  Portal 

more user-friendly ............................................................... 83 

5.4.5.  Action  no.  36b:  European  e-Justice  Portal  -  Survey  on  user 

needs 

83 

5.4.6.  Action no. 37: Multi-channel strategy ..................................... 84 

5.4.7.  Action no. 38: e-Delivery ...................................................... 85 

5.4.8.  Action no. 39: e-Signature .................................................... 87 

5.4.9.  Action no. 40: e-Payment ..................................................... 88 

5.4.10.  Action no. 41: e-ID .............................................................. 89 

5.4.11.  Action no. 42: e-Documents .................................................. 90 

6.  SUGGESTIONS FOR THE NEW ACTION PLAN FOR THE 2019-2023 PERIOD ...... 92 

6.1.  Domains and initiatives .................................................................... 92 

6.2.  Use of new technologies ................................................................... 93 

7.  WAY FORWARD ....................................................................................... 95 

Page 7 of 104 

 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

7.1.  Recommendations cutting horizontally across all Actions ...................... 95 
7.2.  Recommendations per each Action of the e-Justice Action Plan .............. 95 

Page 8 of 104 

 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Abstract  

The  European  e-Justice  Action  Plan  2014-2018  comprises  42  projects  in  the  area  of 
access  to  and  information  in  the  field  of  justice,  courts  and  extrajudicial  procedures  in 
cross-border situations, and electronic communication between judicial authorities. 

As some projects have one or more specific actions, a total of 49 actions were the focus 
of this study and were assessed against these 4 key indicators:  

  Status of implementation;   
  Effectiveness of an action, i.e. perceived level of success;   
  Relevance of an action, i.e. desired scope; and  
  Constraints, be it administrative, technical, legal or other. 

The output of this study includes a number of suggestions for the way forward for each of 
the 49 actions. Complementarily, the following recommendations are  drawn horizontally 
cutting  across  all  actions:  (a)  Focus  and  prioritise  projects  based  on  the  best  practices; 
(b) Enlarge and diversify stakeholders’ audience and ensure their participation; (c) Closer 
monitoring and reporting; (d) Raise awareness through targeted campaigns and designed 
communication strategy and (e) Conduct independent assessments.  

Looking into the future, 5 key domains are  suggested for the next  e-Justice Action Plan 
for the 2019-2023 period based on the stakeholders' input: (a) Artificial Intelligence; (b) 
e-CODEX;  (c)  interconnection  of  all  legal  registers;  (d)  interconnection  of  land  registers 
and (e) continuous development of the e-Justice Portal.  

Résumé 

Le plan d’action européen concernant la justice en ligne comprend 42 projets ayant trait 
à  l’accès  à  l’information  liée  à  la  justice,  aux  procédures  transnationales  judiciaires  et 
extrajudiciaires et aux interactions entre différentes autorités judiciaires. 

Les  42  projets  peuvent  être  reliés  à  49  actions.  Dans  le  cadre  de  cette  étude,  ces  49 
actions ont été évaluées selon les 4 critères clés suivants: 

  Quel est l'état des lieux actuel de la mise en œuvre de l’action? 
  Quel  résultat  a  été  engrangé   selon  une  échelle  de  perception  du  niveau  de 

réussite? 

  Quelle est la pertinence en fonction de l’intérêt généré par le contenu de l’action? 
  Quelles  sont  les  contraintes  rencontrées sur  les  plans  administratifs,  techniques, 

légaux et autres? 

Cette  étude  débouche  sur  une  liste  de  suggestions  quant  à  la  poursuite  de  chacune  de 
ces  49  actions.  En  plus  de  ces  suggestions,  des  recommandations  transversales  aux  49 
actions  ont  été  également  formulées  sur  les  sujets  suivants:  (a)  focalisation  et 
priorisation  des  projets  basées  sur  les  meilleures  pratiques;  (b)  élargir  le  public  cible, 
diversifier  les  parties  prenantes  et  s’assurer  de  leur  implication;  (c)  supervision  et  suivi 
plus  resserré;  (d)  informer  et  conscientiser  via  des  campagnes  ciblées  en  adéquation 
avec  une  stratégie  de  communication  précisée;  (e)  conduire  régulièrement  des 
évaluations indépendantes. 

Dans  une  perspective  d’avenir  et  sur  la  base  des  informations  partagées  par  les  parties 
prenantes  interrogées,  nous  suggérons  de  focaliser  le  prochain  plan  d’action  concernant 
la justice en ligne sur les 5 sujets clés suivants: (a) intelligence artificielle, (b) e-CODEX, 
interconnexion  des  (c)  registres  légaux  et  des  (d)  cadastres  et  (e)  poursuite  du 
développement du portail e-Justice. 

Page 9 of 104 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Executive Summary  

The  information  and  views  set  out  in  this  study  are  those  of  the  author(s)  and  do  not 
necessarily  reflect  the  official  opinion  of  the  Commission.  The  Commission  does  not 
guarantee  the  accuracy  of  the  data  included  in  this  study.  Neither  the  Commission  nor 
any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which 
may be made of the information contained herein. 

The  digital  transformation  of  governments  across  Europe  is  one  of  the  cornerstones  for 
achieving  the  Digital  Single  Market  vision,  as  well  as  the  broader  EU2020  goals.  The 
Tallinn   Declaration1 sealed the commitment to the vision of the EU eGoverment Action 
Plan  2016-2020  and  the  European  Interoperability  Framework  (EIF).  The  overall  vision 
inclusive,  providing  borderless, 
remains  to  strive  towards  “open,  efficient  and 
interoperable, personalised, user-friendly, end-to-end digital public services to all citizens 
and businesses – at all levels of public administration.”2 

Public services in Europe have embraced new technologies to varying degrees, but more 
can  be  done  to  modernise  public  administrations,  achieve  cross-border  interoperability 
and  facilitate  easy  interaction  with  citizens.3  Access  to  justice  has  become  an  important 
issue, where technology is seen as a facilitator and enabler of access to justice, especially 
in  terms  of  access  to  information,  communication  between  judicial  authorities,  and 
access to courts and extrajudicial procedures in cross-border situations.  

The recent conference on the 14-15th of May 2018 on the European e-Justice and the role 
of  new  technologies  took  place  under  the  Bulgarian  Presidency  of  the  Council  of  the 
European  Union.  As  reported,  “the  participants  of  the  forum  highlighted  the  importance 
of  e-Justice  as  a  specific  area  of  eGoverment  where  the  law,  the  technologies  and  the 
interests of the citizens and the judicial authorities are interwoven”.4 

It has been acknowledged that the development of e-Justice is one of the cornerstones of 
the  efficient  functioning  of  justice  in  the  Member  States  and  at  European  level.  The 
Strategy  on European e-Justice 2014-2018 defines the general principles and objectives 
of  European  e-Justice  and  outlines  the  second  multiannual  e-Justice  Action  Plan  for  the 
2014-2018 period. The Plan comprises 42 projects in the area of access to information in 
the  field  of  justice,  access  to  courts  and  extrajudicial  procedures  in  cross-border 
situations, and electronic communication between judicial authorities.  

While the Council of the EU has been in the forefront regarding the monitoring of the e-
Justice Action Plan projects and actions in the past years, the Commission recognised the 
need to take stock  of the work done, drawing on the best practices and lessons learned 
in view of the work on the next, third, e-Justice Action Plan for the 2019-2023 period. 

The Directorate  General  for  Justice  and  Consumers  (DG  JUST)  of  the  European 
Commission has  contracted  a  team  of  Trasys  International,  part  of  the  NRB  Group  and 
Deloitte  Consulting  and  Advisory  (DT4EU  Consortium)  under  the  ABC  IV  Framework 
contract, to undertake an evaluation study with the following main objectives: 

  First, to examine and provide an assessment of the achievements of the actions in 

the Multiannual European e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018; 

1   Tallinn Declaration on eGoverment, October 2017, (see: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ministerial-
declaration-egovernment-tallinn-declaration) https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ministerial-
declaration-egovernment-tallinn-declaration 
Idem  

2  
3   A Digital Single Market for Europe, COM (2015) 
4   News, “Future of the E-Justice in the EU and the new technologies in service of the judiciary”, see: 

https://eu2018bg.bg/en/events, accessed on 15 May 2018.  

Page 10 of 104 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

  Second, to collect an initial feedback from stakeholders to support the definition of 
the future priorities in the area of European e-Justice which should be considered 
for the next Action Plan covering the 2019-2023 period. 

The 42 projects as listed in the Annex to the Multiannual European  e-Justice Action Plan 
2014-2018 (2014/C 182/02) were the main scope of this study. More specifically:   

  A: Access to information in the field of justice with total of 23 projects organized 

into 3 sub-categories; 

o  A1: Information through the e-Justice Portal, with projects no.1-9; 
o  A2: Registers, with projects no. 10-20; 
o  A3: Semantic web, with projects no. 21-23. 

  B: Access to courts and extrajudicial procedures in cross-border situations with a 

total of 6 projects; 

  C: Communication between the judicial authorities with a total of 4 projects; 
  D: Horizontal issues, with a total of 9 projects. 

The study was implemented applying a three-step approach.  

In  the  first  step,  Facts-finding,  the  main  objective  was  to  gather  the  existing  body  of 
knowledge  about  the  projects  and  actions  using  different  methods  and  techniques.  This 
step included activities for launching the projects, i.e. organisation of a kick-off meeting, 
together with desk research and literature review, and stakeholders’ consultations using 
online, structured questionnaire in the EU Survey5 tool, and interviews. The online survey 
was  carried  out  during  the  period  from  14  March  -  13  April  2018,  and  a  total  of  56 
responses were received. Additionally, 32 interviews were conducted.  

In  the  second  step,  Analysis  and  Evaluation,  the  information  collected  via  the 
questionnaire and interviews was processed, analysed and evaluated for preparation of a 
number  of  documents.  More  specifically,  a  consolidated  document  on  the  Action  Fiche 
documents (see Annex 1 to this report) was prepared together with the Interim Report.   

In the third step, Future priorities definition, the evaluation of the actions was carried 
out  together  with  the  consolidation  of  initiatives  and  suggestions  in  preparation  of  the 
third  e-Justice  Action  Plan  for  period  2019-2023.  This  is  presented  in  the  Final  Report 
(this document).  

As  some  of  the  projects  have  one  or  more  specific  actions,  a  total  of  49  actions  were 
assessed against the following 4 key indicators:  

  Current  status  of  implementation  with  indication  if  an  action  is  completed, 

ongoing, not started or no information available;  

  Effectiveness of an action, i.e. the perceived level of success with indication if an 

action is very successful, successful, neutral or not successful; 

  Relevance  of an action, i.e. future scope with an indication if its scope should be 
extended, retained the same or if innovative aspects should be considered; and  
  Constraints,  be  it  administrative,  technical,  legal  or  other,  that  hampered  the 

implementation of an action. 

Regarding  the  implementation  status  of  actions,  31%  (15  out  of  49  actions)  are  being 
completed, 65% (32 out of 49) are ongoing and 4% (2 out of 49 actions) did not start.  

The question on the effectiveness of each action, i.e. the perceived level of success, was 
answered  by  a  different  number  of  stakeholders  per  action.  Based  on  the  responses 
received  32  out  of  49  Actions  (or  65%)  are  assessed  as  successful,  14  out  of  49  (or 

5   EU Survey; https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/home/welcome  

Page 11 of 104 

 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

29%)  as  neutral,  1  out  of  49  (or  2%)  as  not  successful  and  for  2  out  of  49  Actions  (or 
4%) this question is not applicable as the Actions did not start.   

In terms of relevance  of an action, i.e. an indication of a desired scope for each Action, 
different  suggestions  are  received.  Based  on  the  responses  to  the  questionnaire  and 
interviews,  the  following  desired  scope  for  a  number  of  Actions  is  indicated  by  the 
stakeholders.  

30 out of 56 responses (or 53%) indicated that the activities should continue within the 
current  scope,  15  out  of  56  (or  27  %)  replied  that  the  scope  of  the  activities  should 
expand, 8 out of 56 (or 14%) that the innovative aspects were needed, while 1 out of 56 
(or 2%) that some actions should be closed. 2 out of 56 (or 4%) of  responses received 
were not applicable. 

Based on the responses to the questionnaire and interviews, technical and administrative 
constraints  are  identified  as  main  challenges  in  the  implementation  as  indicated  by  22 
out  of  61  responses  (or  36%)  and  21  out  of  61  responses  (or  34%)  respectively.    It  is 
important  to  mention  that  this  was  a  multiple-choice  type  of  question,  where  a 
respondent  could  choose  one  or  more  answer(s).  11  out  of  61  responses  (or  18%) 
indicated  the  legal  constraints  as  main  challenges  in  implementation  of  Actions,  while  7 
out of 61 responses (or 12%) either did not specify any constraints or marked as ‘other’ 
or replied, ‘not applicable’.  

A  number  of  suggestions  for  the  way  forward  for  each  of  the  49  actions  are  defined  in 
this  report.  Moreover,  the  following  recommendations  are  drawn  horizontally  cutting 
across all actions:  

  Focus and prioritise projects based on the best practices. Build on the best 
practices  and  national  experiences  to  focus  and  prioritise  projects/Actions  based 
on the expressed interest of Member States to participate. The main objective and 
criteria  should  be  to  mobilise  a  number  of  Member  States  to  join  and  actively 
participate in the project. Define the leadership roles for each project/action.  

  Enlarge  and  diversify  stakeholders’  audience.  Encourage  and  ensure  the 
participation of a wider and diverse stakeholder audience in specific Actions, going 
beyond the specific groups to raise the awareness about the project and its added 
value at both national and European levels.  

  Closer  monitoring  and  reporting.  Introduce  the  elements  and  the  best 
practices  of  a  project  methodology  for  each  Action,  with  a  clearly  defined  and 
communicated  scope,  objectives  and  organisational  aspects  of  the  project 
together  with  expected  deliverables  and  timeframe.  Design  a  dashboard  for 
monitoring the projects’ status and their achievements. 

  Raise 

through 

awareness 

and  designed 
targeted 
communication  strategy.  Design  and  conduct  well-thought  out  and  targeted 
campaigns to raise awareness about the e-Justice projects and their added value 
to  the  professional  communities  and  the  general  public.  Use  different 
communication  channels  and  media  to  ensure  regular  communication  on  the 
progress of projects, beyond the one-off campaign.  

campaigns 

  Independent  assessments.  Conduct  on  a  regular  basis,  independent,  stock-
taking  assessments  on  the  projects’  implementation  with  the  objective  of  early 
identification of issues and/or constraints affecting the implementation.  

Looking  into  the  future,  the  stakeholders  identified  the  following  5  key  domains  that 
should be taken into account for the next e-Justice Action Plan for the 2019-2023 period. 

  Artificial  Intelligence  -  41%  (19  out  of  46  replies)  indicated  that  AI  should  be 

used in the domain of justice or its possibilities should be explored.   

Page 12 of 104 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

  e-CODEX  
  Interconnection of all legal Registers 
  Interconnection of Land registers  
  Continuous development of the e-Justice Portal  

Synthèse pour la direction  

Les  informations  et  les  opinions  reprises  dans  cette  étude  sont  celles  des  auteurs  et  ne 
reflètent  pas  nécessairement  l’opinion  officielle  de  la  Commission.  La  Commission  ne 
garantit  pas  l’exactitude  des  informations  reprises  par  cette  étude.  Ni  la  Commission  ni 
toute autre personne agissant sous la responsabilité de la Commission ne peut être tenue 
pour responsable de toute utilisation de l’information qui pourrait être faite par ailleurs. 

La  transformation  numérique  des  services  publics  en  Europe  est  l’une  des  pierres 
angulaires du programme de mise en œuvre de la stratégie du marché unique numérique 
d’une  part  et  du  plan  d’action  «l'administration  en  ligne»  2016-2020  et  du  cadre 
européen de l’interopérabilité d’autre part. La stratégie générale est de persister dans la 
voie de la mise en œuvre, à tous les niveaux des administrations publiques, de services 
ouverts,  efficaces,  inclusifs,  interopérables  au-delà  des  frontières,  personnalisés, 
conviviaux et complètement informatisés6.  

Les services publics en Europe ont adopté les nouvelles technologies à des degrés divers 
et  on  pourrait  faire  encore  plus  pour  moderniser  les  administrations  publiques,  pour 
réaliser  l’interopérabilité  entre  les  pays  et  pour  faciliter  la  communication  et  les 
interactions  aisées  avec  le  citoyen.  L’accès  à  la  justice  est  devenu  une  problématique 
importante.  Dans  cette  problématique,  la  technologie  est  perçue  comme  un  inducteur 
essentiel  pour  faciliter  l’accès  à  la  justice  selon  les  facettes  suivantes:  accès  aux 
informations,  communication  entre  les  différentes  autorités  judiciaires,  possibilité 
d’introduire  une  plainte/un  dossier  auprès  d’une  cour  et  de  bénéficier  de  procédures 
transnationales. 

Un  forum  récent  au  sujet  de  la  justice  en  ligne  européenne  et  du  rôle  des  nouvelles 
technologies  s’est  tenu  les  14  et  15  mai  sous  l’égide  de  la  présidence  bulgare.  Les 
participants  à  ce  forum  ont  souligné  l’importance  de  la  justice  en  ligne  en  tant  que 
domaine à part entière faisant partie de l’initiative de l'administration en ligne dans le but 
de  gérer  l’interdépendance  entre  la  législation,  les  technologies  et  les  intérêts  des 
citoyens et des autorités judiciaires7. 

Le développement de la justice en ligne a été confirmé comme une initiative importante 
pour  assurer  le  fonctionnement  efficace  de  la  justice  au  sein  des  États  membres  et  au 
niveau  européen.  La  stratégie  de  justice  en  ligne  établie  pour  2014-2018  définit  les 
principes  et  les  objectifs  généraux  de  la  justice  en  ligne  européenne  et  établit  un  plan 
d’action  pluriannuel  2014-2018.  Ce  plan  comprend  42  projets  dans  les  domaines 
suivants: a) l’accès à l’information judiciaire, b) l'accès aux procédures extrajudiciaires et 
à la justice dans des contextes  transnationaux et c) les interactions entre les différentes 
autorités judiciaires. 

Bien  que  le  Conseil  de  l’UE  ait  été  aux  avant-postes  pour  superviser  les  projets  prévus 
par la plan d’action concernant la justice en ligne ces dernières années, la Commission a 
souhaité  faire  l’état  des  lieux  des  travaux  accomplis,  tirer  les  enseignements  et 
reconnaître  les  meilleures  pratiques  afin  de  préparer  le  troisième  plan  d’action 
concernant la justice en ligne pour la prochaine période 2019-2023. 

6   Déclaration de Tallinn sur l'administration en ligne, octobre 2017 
7   News,  The  Future  of  E-Justice  in  the  EU  and  New  Technologies  in  the  Service  of  the  Judicial  System,  voir: 

https://eu2018bg.bg/en/events, consulté le 15 mai 2018.  

Page 13 of 104 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

La  direction  générale  de  la  justice  et  des  consommateurs  (DG  JUST)  de  la  Commission 
européenne  a  conclu  un  contrat  avec  le  consortium  DT4EU  [constitué  par  Trasys 
International (faisant partie du groupe NRB) et par Deloitte Consulting] dans le cadre du 
contrat-cadre  ABC  IV  afin  d’entreprendre  une  étude  d’évaluation  ayant  les  objectifs 
principaux suivants: 

  primo, dresser un état des lieux des réalisations des actions menées dans le cadre 
du  plan  d’action  européen  pluriannuel  concernant  la  justice  en  ligne  pour  2014-
2018; 

 

secundo, recueillir le ressenti actuel des parties prenantes envers ces réalisations 
afin de justifier les priorités futures du nouveau plan d’action concernant la justice 
en ligne pour la période couvrant les années 2019 à 2023.  

Les 42 projets tels qu’inventoriés en annexe du plan d’action pluriannuel européen 2014-
2018 (réf 2014/C 182/02) ont été au centre de cette étude. Plus précisément:  

  A: le domaine relatif à l'accès aux informations de nature judiciaire comprend 23 

projets organisés selon les sous-domaines suivants:  

o  A1:  les  projets  1  à  9  traitent  de  l’information  mise  à  disposition  par  le 

portail de justice en ligne 

o  A2: les projets 10 à 20 ont trait aux registres 
o  A3:  les  projets  21  à  23  définissent  la  «sémantique»  utilisée  par  les 

applications web. 

  B:  accès  aux  tribunaux  et  aux  procédures  extrajudiciaires  dans  les  situations 

transfrontalières avec un total de 6 projets; 

  C: communication entre les autorités judiciaires avec 4 projets au total; 
  D: questions horizontales, avec un total de 9 projets. 

Le déroulé de l’étude s’est déployé en 3 étapes:  

 

la  première  étape  a  pour  objectif  de  recueillir  l’état  des  connaissances  acquises 
(selon  une  approche  basée  sur  les  faits)  à  l’occasion  des  projets  et  des  actions 
réalisés.  À  la  suite  de  la  phase  classique  de  lancement  du  projet  d’étude,  cette 
étape  a  mis  en  œuvre  différentes  techniques  et  approches  afin  de  faire  le  point 
sur les recherches en cours et sur la littérature pertinente, de consulter les parties 
prenantes  au  moyen  d'un  questionnaire  structuré  en  ligne  et  par  des  interviews 
ciblées. L’étude en ligne a été réalisée entre le 14 mars et le 13 avril 2018 et 56 
réponses  au  total  ont  été  reçues  et  traitées.  En  sus,  32  interviews  ont  été 
également réalisées. 

  Lors de la seconde étape  consacrée à l’analyse et à l’évaluation, les informations 
recueillies à la suite des questionnaires en ligne et des interviews ont été traitées, 
analysées  et  évaluées.  Ce  travail  d’analyse  détaillé  est  disponible  (cf.  «Action 
Fiche  documents»).  Un  document  compilant  ces  informations  a  été  préparé 
conjointement au rapport intermédiaire. 

  Lors  de  la  troisième  étape,  l’évaluation  des  résultats  des  actions  et  la  définition 
des  priorités  futures  pour  la  période  2019-2023  est  présentée  dans  le  rapport 
final (ce document) en tenant compte des initiatives en cours et des suggestions 
recueillies  afin  de  préparer  la  troisième  vague  du  plan  d’action  concernant  la 
justice en ligne. 

Comme certains projets ont une ou plusieurs actions spécifiques, un total de 49 actions 
sont évaluées selon les 4 indicateurs clés suivants: 

 

l’état  des  lieux  actuel  de  la  mise  en  œuvre  de  l’action  en  fonction  de  son  état 
d’avancement,  c'est-à-dire:  action  réalisée,  action  en  cours,  action  non  débutée 
ou pas d’information disponible quant à l’état des lieux; 

Page 14 of 104 

 
 
 
 
       
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

 

 

 

le résultat concret d’une action est mesuré en fonction de la perception exprimée 
par  les  parties  prenantes  interrogées  selon  le  canevas  suivant:  grande  réussite, 
réussite, neutre, en échec; 
la  pertinence  de  l’action  est  mesurée  en  déterminant  si  le  projet  correspondant 
devrait  être  prolongé  ou  non  ou  selon  qu’il  y  a  une  demande  pour  plus 
d’innovation ou non; 
les contraintes, qu’elles soient administratives, techniques, légales ou autres, qui 
ont gêné ou empêché  la mise en œuvre d’une action. 

Le bilan actuel sur le progrès de la mise en œuvre des actions est le suivant: 31 % (15 
sur 49) ont été achevées, 65 % (32 sur 49) sont toujours en cours de mise en œuvre et 
4 % (2 sur 49) n’ont pas débuté. 

Un  nombre  différent  de  parties  prenantes  par  action  a  répondu  à  la  question  de 
l'efficacité  de  chaque  action,  c'est-à-dire  le  niveau  de  succès  perçu.  Selon  les  réponses 
reçues, 32 actions sur 49 (ou 65 %) sont considérées comme réussies, 14 sur 49 (ou 29 
%) comme neutres et 1 sur 49 (ou 2 %) comme non réussies. Pour 2 actions sur 49 (ou 
4 %), cette question ne s'applique pas car les actions n'ont pas démarré. 

En ce qui concerne la pertinence d’une action et de l’utilité du périmètre correspondant, 
différentes  suggestions  sont  reçues.  Sur  la  base  des  réponses  au  questionnaire  et  des 
entretiens, l’action de suivi est indiquée par les parties prenantes. 

Pour  30  réponses  sur  56  (soit  53  %),  il  est  indiqué  que  les  activités  doivent  être 
prolongées  dans  le  cadre  du  périmètre  existant;  15  réponses  sur  56  (soit  27  %) 
indiquent  que  les  actions  devraient  voir  leur  périmètre  étendu;  8  réponses  sur  56  (soit 
14 %)  indiquent  que  les  actions  peuvent  inclure  certains  aspects  innovants,  alors  que 
pour 1 réponse sur 56 (soit 2%) il est suggéré d’arrêter  cette action. 2 réponses sur les 
56 reçues (ou 4 %) ne s'appliquent pas. 

Sur  la  base  des  réponses  au  questionnaire  et  des  entretiens,  comme  présenté  dans  les 
chiffres  ci-dessous, les  contraintes administratives  et techniques sont identifiées comme 
étant le défi majeur pendant la mise en œuvre. Elles sont indiquées par respectivement 
22  réponses  sur  61  (ou  36  %)  et  21  réponses  sur  61  (soit  36  %).  Il  est  important  de 
savoir  qu'il  s'agissait  d'une  question  à  choix  multiples  où  le  répondant  pouvait  choisir 
plus d’une réponse. 11 réponses sur 61 (soit 18 %) indiquent que les contraintes légales 
constituent le principal défi pendant la mise en œuvre des actions, alors que 7 réponses 
sur 61 (ou 12 %) n’ont pas indiqué de contraintes, ni fait de remarques comme  "Other" 
ou répondu "Not applicable".  

Le  rapport  fait  état  des  suggestions  recueillies  quant  à  la  poursuite  de  chacune  des  49 
actions.  Les  recommandations  suivantes,  transversales  à  toutes  les  actions,  sont 
proposées en complément: 

 

focalisation  et  priorisation  des  projets  reposant  sur  les  meilleures 
pratiques.  Les  actions  et  projets  retenus  devraient  s’inspirer  des  meilleures 
pratiques  mises  en  œuvre  au  niveau  national  et  de  l'importance  de  l’intérêt 
exprimé  par  les  États  membres.  Ceci  devrait  permettre  de  mobiliser  les  États 
membres  et  de  les  inciter  à  participer  activement  à  la  définition  et  la  mise  en 
œuvre  des  projets.  Il  est  nécessaire  de  définir  les  modalités  de  leadership  pour 
chacun des projets/actions. 

  élargir et diversifier le public cible.  Il est nécessaire d’encourager et d’assurer 
une plus large participation des parties prenantes à des projets adaptés en allant 
au-delà des groupes d’intérêt spécifiques afin d’informer plus largement les  États 
membres et le niveau européen pour faire connaître la valeur ajoutée des projets. 

  supervision  et  suivi  plus  étroits.  Il  est  nécessaire  de  mettre  en  œuvre  une 
méthode  de  projet  s’inspirant  des  meilleures  pratiques:  périmètre  clairement 
défini  et  communiqué,  objectifs  précisés,  organisation  du  projet  décrit,  planning 

Page 15 of 104 

 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

des  livrables  établi.  Un  tableau  de  bord  pour  la  supervision  et  le  suivi  de  l’état 
d’avancement d’un projet est indispensable.  

  augmenter  le  niveau  d’information  (“conscientisation”)  en  mettant  en 
œuvre  une stratégie  de  communication  au moyen  de  campagnes ciblées. 
Il  est  nécessaire  de  concevoir  et  de  conduire  des  campagnes  de  communication 
bien  pensées  afin  d’augmenter  le  niveau  d’information  au  sujet  des  projets  de 
justice en ligne et de leur valeur ajoutée à l'égard des cercles professionnels et du 
grand public. L’utilisation de différents  canaux  de communication et de différents 
médias permet une communication régulière sur l’état d’avancement des projets, 
contrairement à une communication unique et générique. 

  évaluations  indépendantes.  Il est indiqué de  réaliser , sur une base  régulière, 
une  évaluation  indépendante  et  factuelle  sur  l’état  d’avancement  de  la  mise  en 
œuvre d’un projet afin de détecter le plus rapidement possible des problèmes ou 
des contraintes non prévus. 

En  ce  qui  concerne  l’avenir,  les  parties  prenantes  ont  identifié  les  5  domaines  clés 
suivants à prendre en compte: 

 

l’intelligence  artificielle.    41 %  (19  des  46  réponses)  des  personnes  sont  en 
faveur  de  l’utilisation  de  l’intelligence  artificielle  et  41 %  souhaitent  que  la 
possibilité d’utiliser l’intelligence artificielle soit étudiée. 

  e-CODEX 

  Interconnexion des registres légaux 

  Interconnexion des cadastres 

  Développement continu du portail e-Justice 

Page 16 of 104 

 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

List of Abbreviations 

ADR 

API 

Alternative Dispute Resolution  

Application Programming Interface 

ARERT / ENRWA 

European Network of the Registers of Wills Association 

AS4 

B2C 

BRIS 

CEF 

CEHJ 

Applicability Statement 4 

Business to Consumer  

Business Registers Interconnection System 

Connecting Europe Facility  

Chambre Européenne des Huissiers de Justice  

CELLAR 

Content and Metadata Repository of the Publications Office  

CMS 

CNUE 

COM 

CRD 

CSGD 

DG 

Content Management System 

Council of the Notaries of the European Union 

European Commission 

Directive 2011/83/EU on Consumer Rights  

Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive 1999/44/EC  

Directorate-General  

DG JUST 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 

DGT 

DSI 

e-APP 

EC 

ECLI 

Directorate-General for Translation 

Digital Service Infrastructures  

Electronic Apostille Programme 

European Commission 

European Case Law Identifier  

ECMSCS 

Electronic Case Management and Secure Communication System 

e-CODEX 

e-Justice Communication via Online Data Exchange 

ECP 

ECS 

EDP 

EEA 

EEC 

European Central Platform 

European Certificate of Succession 

European Data Portal 

European Economic Area 

European Economic Community 

Page 17 of 104 

 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

EEEI 

EGLE 

EIO 

European Expertise and Expert Institute 

European Guide for Legal Expertise  

European Investigation Order  

EJN-civil 

European Judicial Network in civil matters 

EJN-criminal 

European Judicial Network in criminal matters 

ELI 

ELRA 

ENCJ 

European Legislation Identifier  

European Land Registry Association 

European Networks of Councils for the Judiciary 

ENRWA / ARERT 

European Network of the Registers of Wills Association 

EPIS 

EPO 

European Prison Information System 

European Payment Order  

e-SENS 

Electronic Simple European Networked Services 

EU 

European Union 

EU ODP 

EU Open Data Portal  

EUDEX 

EULIS 

EULITA 

European Directory of (Judicial) Experts 

European Land Information Service 

European Legal Interpreters and Translators Association 

EuroPris 

European Organisation of Prison and Correctional Services 

FAB 

FRA 

FRIT 

G2B 

G2C 

HCCH 

HTTP 

ICRW 

Find a Bailiff 

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 

Fundamental Rights Interactive Tool 

Government-to-Business  

Government-to-Citizens  

Hague Conference on Private International Law 

Hypertext Transfer Protocol 

Project  "Further  developments  in  the  area  of  interconnection  of 
registers of wills" 

ID 

Injunctions Directive 2009/22/EC  

IMOLA 

Interoperability Model for Land Registers 

IP 

Internet Protocol 

Page 18 of 104 

 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

IRI 1.0 

IRI 2.0 

ISA² 

ISDN 

IT 

ITC 

Insolvency Registers Interconnection, version 1.0 

Insolvency Registers Interconnection, version 2.0 

Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations  

Integrated Services Digital Network 

Information Technology 

Information and Communication Technology 

ITTIG 

Italian Institute of Legal Information Theory and Techniques 

LEGICOOP 

Network  for  Legislative  Cooperation  between  the  Ministries  of 
Justice of the EU 

LIT 

LoA 

LRI 

Legal Interpreters and Translators 

Levels of Assurance  

Land Registers Interconnection 

MCAD 

Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive 2006/114/EC  

MLA 

MoJ 

MS 

MSA 

Mutual Legal Assistance 

Ministry of Justice 

Member State 

Member State Administrations  

MT@EC 

Machine Translation at European Commission 

ODP 

ODR 

PDF 

Open Data Portal 

Online Dispute Resolution 

Portable Document Format 

PEPPOL 

Pan-European Public Procurement Online 

PID 

Price Indication Directive 98/6/EC  

PSI Directive 

Public Sector Information Directive 

RESTful 

Representational State Transfer 

SCPOCS 

Simple Procedures Online for Cross-border Services  

SMS 

Short Message Service 

SPARQL 

SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language 

STORK 

Secured Identity Across Borders Linked 

TEU 

Treaty on European Union 

Page 19 of 104 

 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

TF 

Task Force 

UBR|KOOP 

Publications Office of the Netherlands  

UCPD 

UCTD 

UIHJ 

URI 

VAT 

VC 

XML 

Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC  

Unfair Contract Terms Directive 93/13/EEC  

International Union of Judicial Officers 

Uniform Resource Identifier 

Value Added Tax 

Videoconferencing 

Extensible Mark-up Language 

Page 20 of 104 

 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

1. 

Introduction 

1.1. 

Background to the service contract  

Since 2008 the Commission and the Council of the EU  have been working together on a 
number of cross-border initiatives in the area of e-Justice that resulted in the preparation 
of  the  first  Multiannual  e-Justice  Action  Plan  for  period  2009-2013,  and  later  led  to  the 
preparation  of  the  second  e-Justice  Action  Plan  for  the  period  2014-2018,  which  is  the 
focus of this study.  

While the Council of the EU has been in the forefront regarding the status monitoring of 
the  e-Justice  Action  Plan  projects  and  actions  in  the  past  years,  the  Commission  has 
recognised  the  need  to  have  better  insights  into  the  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan 
with the objective of drawing best practices and identifying lessons learned. Moreover, it 
is  important  to  receive  feedback  from  a  diverse  range  of  stakeholders  involved  in  the 
implementation  of  projects  with  the  objective  of  hearing  their  suggestions  and  ideas  in 
view of the preparation of the third e-Justice Action Plan for the period of 2019-2023. 

In  this  context,  DG  JUST  decided  to  launch  an  evaluation  study  emphasizing  the 
importance  of  close  collaboration  with  the  responsible  Member  States  (MS),  Action 
Leaders  and  other  stakeholders  during  the  project.  The  study  was  carried  out  in  the 
March-May 2018 period.  

1.2. 

Purpose and structure of this document 

The main purpose of this document is to present the outcomes of the evaluation study of 
the  e-Justice  Action  Plan  2014-2018  together  with  the  initiatives  and  ideas  for  the  next 
Action Plan.  

This report is organised into the following sections:  

Section  1,  the  current  section,  aims  to  provide  the  reader  with  the  required  context  to 
follow the document.  

Section 2, Project summary, describes the project approach and objectives together with 
the project team and stakeholders involved.  

Section 3, Methodology, elaborates the techniques and solutions used for conducting the 
stakeholders’ consultations process. 

Section  4,  Assessment  of  the  e-Justice  Action  Plan  2014-2018,  presents  a  high-level, 
horizontal overview across all 49 Actions of the Action Plan in terms of the status, level of 
success, desired scope and project constraints based on the received 56 responses to the 
questionnaire and the 32 interviews that were conducted.  

Section 5, Summary assessment of individual Actions of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-
2018, includes a brief profile of an Action and a flash card in terms of the Action status, 
level of success, desired scope and identified implementation constraints. 

Section 6, Suggestions for the next Action Plan, indicating the interest and opinion of the 
stakeholders for using new technologies in the field of justice. 

Section 7, Way forward, outlining several recommendations applicable across all Actions 
complementary with the key ones for each Action. 

Page 21 of 104 

 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

2. 

Project description  

2.1. 

 Project approach and objectives  

The  projects  and  corresponding  actions listed in  the  Annex  to  the  Multiannual  European 
e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 (2014/C 182/02) are the focus of this study. The Annex 
contains 42 projects categorised in the following areas:   

  A: Access to information in the field of justice with total 23 projects organized into 

3 sub-categories; 

o  A1: Information through the e-Justice Portal, with projects no.1-9; 

o  A2: Registers, with projects no. 10-20; 
o  A3: Semantic web, with projects no. 21-23 

  B: Access to courts and extrajudicial procedures in cross-border situations with a 

total of 6 projects; 

  C: Communication between the judicial authorities with a total of 4 projects; 
  D: Horizontal issues, with a total of 9 projects. 

2.1.1.  Objectives 

The objectives of the study are twofold:  

  First,  to  examine  and  provide  an  assessment  of  the  achievements  of  the  actions 

defined in the Multiannual European e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018. 

  Second, to collect an initial feedback from stakeholders to support the definition of 
the future priorities in the area of European e-Justice which should be considered 
for the next Action Plan covering the 2019-2023 period. 

2.1.2.  Project approach  

The  project  was  carried  out  using  a  three-step  approach,  where  each  step  had  clearly 
defined objectives and deliverables: 

STEP 1: Facts-finding  

In the first step, the main objective was to gather the existing body of knowledge about 
the  projects  and  actions  using  different  methods  and  techniques.  Since  some  out  of  42 
projects in the Action Plan have sub-projects and/or corresponding number of actions, it 
was agreed that the focus of the study is a total of 49 actions.  

This step included activities for launching the project, i.e. the organisation of the kick-off 
meeting,  together  with  desk  research  and  literature  review,  as  well  as  stakeholders’ 
consultations  using  a  structured  questionnaire  (using  EU  Survey  tool)  and  interviews. 
Based  on  the  desk  research  and  strategic  interviews  with  the  representatives  of  the 
Commission,  an  initial  version  of  Action  Fiche  documents  (hereinafter:  AF  documents) 
was prepared following an agreed format. These documents served as a starting point for 
drawing a list of Action Leaders and conducting the interviews.  

Page 22 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

STEP 2: Analysis and evaluation 

In  the  second  step,  the  information 
collected via the questionnaire and the 
32 interviews was processed, analysed 
and evaluated towards the preparation 
of  a  number  of  documents.  More 
specifically, a consolidated response to 
the questionnaire report was prepared 
to serve as a blueprint for analysis and 
evaluation  of  the  Actions,  preparation 
of 
the 
consolidated  Action  Fiche  document 
(see Annex 1) and the Interim Report.    

second  version  of 

the 

STEP 3: Future priorities definition  

In  the  third  step,  the  evaluation  of  the  actions  is  conducted  together  with  the 
consolidation  of  stakeholders’  suggestions  for  the  next,  third  Action  Plan  for  the  2019-
2023 period. Additionally, recommendations for the way forward are included in the Final 
report (this document).  

2.2. 

Project team 

The project organisation is presented in the organigram hereunder.  

The responsible project members at the directing level from the contractor and DG JUST 
side,  Project  Officers  from  DG  JUST  and  the  Project  manager,  a  single  point  of  contact 
from  the  contractor’s  side.  List  of  stakeholders  to  be  consulted  in  the  course  of  the 
project was provided by DG JUST.  

Page 23 of 104 

StakeholdersDG JUSTICE and ConsumersProject OfficersDG JUST internal team Project team-DT4EUDirecting levelManaging levelProject ManagerJunior business analysts European Commission: DG JUSTICEProfessional Legal organisations Senior analysts Project Organisation Project Steering GroupMember States authorities Delivering levelQuality Manager 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

3.  Methodology  

3.1. 

Literature review and desk research  

A comprehensive literature review and desk research was conducted in the course of the 
study. The list of references is given in Annex 2.  

3.2. 

Structured questionnaire 

The  stakeholder  consultation  process  was  carried  out  using  a  structured  questionnaire 
and  interviews.  The  main  objective  of  the  questionnaire  was  to  attain  a  good 
understanding regarding the implementation of each project of the Annex to the e-Justice 
Action  Plan  2014-2018  and  the  corresponding  Action(s),  particularly  in  terms  of  its 
effectiveness  and  relevancy,  together  with  the  identification  of  best  practices  and 
challenges  faced.  Additionally,  it  was  aimed  at  receiving  input  from  stakeholders  to 
facilitate  the  definition  of  priorities  for  the  next,  third  Action  plan  for  the  2019-2023 
period.   

The process of the preparation of the questionnaire included the following steps: first, an 
initial  draft  questionnaire  was  prepared  by  the  contractor  and  sent  to  DG  JUST  for 
comments and input; second, after finalisation, the questionnaire was uploaded to the EU 
Survey online tool.  

Afterwards,  an  email  was  sent  explaining  the  objective  and  structure  of  the 
questionnaire, how to fill it in online and indicating the deadline for receiving responses. 
The stakeholders’ consultation period took place from 14 March - 13 April 2018.   

3.3. 

Interviews 

After  receiving  responses  to  the  questionnaire,  a  total  of  32  interviews  with  the 
responsible  Action  Leaders  and  relevant  stakeholders  were  carried  out.  The  main 
objective  of  those  interviews  was  to  clarify  the  answers  received,  and  to  ask  any 
additional  questions  as  deemed  necessary.  An  interview  report  was  prepared  following 
each interview that was validated by the interviewee.  

Page 24 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

4. 

Assessment of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 

This section gives an overview of the 49 Actions of the e-Justice Action Plan in terms of 
their status, effectiveness, i.e. perceived level of success, relevance, i.e. desired scope of 
the  Action  together  with  identified  constraints  faced  by  stakeholders  during  the 
implementation.    A  summary  assessment  of  each  Action  is  included  in  Section  5  of  this 
report,  while  in-depth  description  is  given  in  Annex  1,  Consolidated  Action  Fiche 
document.   

4.1. 

Status of Actions 

Based  on  the  responses  to  the  questionnaire  and  interviews,  15  out  of  49  Actions  (or 
31%) are completed, 32 out of 49 (or 65%) are ongoing and 2 out of 49 Actions (or 4%) 
did not start as presented in the figure below. These results coincide with a fact that the 
majority of the Actions are of a horizontal nature and thus, ongoing.  

An implementation status of each Action at the time of writing this report is given in the 
table below. The colour code used for visual representation is the following:  

Implementation status8 

Completed 
Ongoing 
Not started 

8   Completed = Green (Red-Green-Blue code: 51-204-51); Ongoing = Yellow (RGB:255-204-0); Not started= Red (RGB: 

226-61-34). 

Page 25 of 104 

Completed31%Ongoing65%Not started4%Status of the ActionsCompletedOngoingNot started 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Title of the Project/Action 

Implementation status 

Project no. 1 (a) updates of the static content, including the completion of information on victims of crime. 

Project no. 1 (b) expansion of the static content (as per half-yearly content work plans) 

Project no.1 (c) inclusion of functionalities defined in this Action Plan 

Project no. 2: European e-Justice Portal - Information relating to minors (collecting information relating to minors in respect to judicial procedures) 

Project no. 3: Penitentiary establishments (information on competence and location of penitentiary establishments) 

Project no. 4: European e-Justice Portal (2) - e-Justice for practitioners in criminal matters: collecting and ensuring availability of practical 
experiences of judicial authorities in the area of EU criminal justice (Knowledge Management initiative on criminal matters) 

Project no. 5: European e-Justice Portal - Open data on justice 

Project no. 6: European e-Justice Portal - Information and assistance for citizens to resolve fundamental rights problems (guidelines for citizens in 
order to solve legal problems) 

Project no. 7: European e-Justice Portal - Judicial auctions - Information on judicial auctions 

Project no. 8: European e-Justice Portal - Judicial official announcements 

Project no. 9: Consumer law database 

Project no. 10: a) interconnection of available insolvency registers (currently limited to certain Member States) 

Project no. 10: b) interconnection of the insolvency registers of all Member States as a result of the future amendment of the Insolvency Regulation 
(legal obligation) 

Project no. 11: Business registers 

Project no. 12: Land registers 

Project no. 13: Interpreters’ and translators’ Databases 

Project no. 14: Help for the translation of judicial acts 

Project no. 15: Registers of judicial experts 

Project no. 16: Find a Judicial Expert 

Project no. 17: Interconnection of registers of wills 

Project no. 18: Electronic European Certificate of Succession 

Project no. 19: Register of representation rights and powers of legal representatives 

Project no. 20: Find a Judicial Officer 

Project no. 21: ECLI 

Project no. 22: ELI - (this project falls under the remit of e-Law) 

Project no. 23: Semantic interoperability - (glossaries, such as LEGIVOC) 

Project no. 24: a) Court database - unique identification of entities within the judicial domain 

Project no. 24: b) Court database - improving the content and functioning of the court database (extension of the scope by coverage of European and 
national instruments) 

Page 26 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Project no. 24: c) Court database - service interfaces which allow automatic searching of the court database by national and European e-Justice 
applications 

Project no. 25: Dynamic forms - (European Payment Order (EPO), Small Claims and Taking of evidence) 

Project no. 26: ODR (Online dispute resolution) 

Project no. 27: Find a mediator 

Project no. 28: e-Service of documents 

Project no. 29: European Investigation Order 

Project no. 30: Videoconference 

Project no. 31: e-APP (Electronic Apostille programme) - (including e-Registers of Apostilles) 

Project no. 32: i-Support (maintenance obligations) 

Project no. 33: Cooperation with the website of the European Judicial Network in criminal matters 

Project no. 34: a) Automated machine translation - first inclusion in the e-Justice Portal 

Project no. 34: b) Automated machine translation -  improve the quality of translation - introduce machine translations 

Project no. 35: Promotion of e-Justice (the Portal and e-Justice in general) 

Project no. 36: a) European e-Justice Portal - Making the Portal more user-friendly 

Project no. 36: b) European e-Justice Portal - Survey on user needs 

Project no. 37: Multi-channel strategy 

Project no. 38: e-Delivery (transporting information securely between the Member States) 

Project no. 39: e-Signature (signing of documents; checking the validity of incoming signed documents) 

Project no. 40: e-Payment (payment of fees online) 

Project no. 41: e-ID (differentiated access to the e-Justice portal by authentication through the use of national identity solutions.) 

Project no. 42: e-Document (conversion and semantics. Common standards for documents exchanged in cross-border systems.) 

Page 27 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

4.2. 

Effectiveness of projects and actions 

The  question  on  the  effectiveness  of  an  Action,  i.e.  perceived  success  was  one  of  the 
questions included in the questionnaire for each of the 49 Actions. The respondents were 
offered  4  options  to  select  from  for  an  Action’s  perceived  level  of  success:  Very 
successful, Successful, Neutral and Not successful.  

With the objective to establish the perceived level of success of an Action distributed per 
percentage ranges of respondents, the following colour code is used:   

Effectiveness of projects and action 9 

Majority responses (51% or more)  
31-50% 
10-30% 
5-9% 
Less than 5% 

For example, for Action no. 1b expansion of the static content (as per half-yearly content 
work  plans),  5-9%  of  responses  received  identify  this  Action  as  being  very  successful, 
more  than  51%  find  the  Action  successful,  while  10-30%  think  that  is  of  neutral 
effectiveness  and  less  than  5%  that  is  not  successful.  Absolute  figures  (%)  for  each 
action are given in Section 5 of this report. 

Based  on  the  responses  to  the  questionnaire  and  interviews,  32  out  of  49  Actions  (or 
65%)  of  Actions  are  indicated  as  successful,  14  out  of  49  (or  29%)  as  being  neutral,  1 
out of 49 Actions (or  2%) is identified as not  successful and for 2 out of 49 Actions (or 
4%) this question is not applicable as the Actions did not start. The results are presented 
in the figure below.   

9   Majority of responses (51% or more) = Green (Red-Green-Blue code: 153-255-102; Responses received 31-50% = 

Yellow (RGB: 255-255-0); Responses received 10-30% = Blue (RGB:156-194-229); Responses received 5-9% = Beige 
(RGB:255-242-204); Responses received less than 5% = Grey (RGB: 217-217-217).  

Page 28 of 104 

65%29%2%4%Success of the ActionsSucessfulNeutralNot successfulNot applicable asproject did not start 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Title of the Project/Action 

SUCCESS OF THE PROJECTS    

Very 
successful  

Successful    Neutral   

Not 
successful  

SCORE based on the 
majority % responses 
given to an indicator   

Project no. 1 (a) updates of the static content, including the completion of information on victims of crime. 

Project no. 1 (b) expansion of the static content (as per half-yearly content work plans) 

Project no. 1 (c) inclusion of functionalities defined in this Action Plan 

Project no. 2: European e-Justice Portal - Information relating to minors (collecting information relating to minors in 
respect to judicial procedures) 

Project no. 3: Penitentiary establishments (information on competence and location of penitentiary establishments) 

Project no. 4: European e-Justice Portal (2) - e-Justice for practitioners in criminal matters: collecting and ensuring 
availability of practical experiences of judicial authorities in the area of EU criminal justice (Knowledge Management 
initiative on criminal matters) 

Project no. 5: European e-Justice Portal - Open data on justice 

Project no. 6: European e-Justice Portal - Information and assistance for citizens to resolve fundamental rights problems 
(guidelines for citizens in order to solve legal problems) 

Project no. 7: European e-Justice Portal - Judicial auctions - Information on judicial auctions 

Project no. 8: European e-Justice Portal - Judicial official announcements 

Project no. 9: Consumer law database 

Project no. 10: a) interconnection of available insolvency registers (currently limited to certain Member States) 

Project no. 10: b) interconnection of the insolvency registers of all Member States as a result of the future amendment of 
the Insolvency Regulation (legal obligation) 

Project no. 11: Business registers 

Project no. 12: Land registers 

Project no. 13: Interpreters’ and translators’ Databases 

Project no. 14: Help for the translation of judicial acts 

Project no. 15: Registers of judicial experts 

Project no. 16: Find a Judicial Expert 

Project no. 17: Interconnection of registers of wills 

Project no. 18: Electronic European Certificate of Succession 

Project no. 19: Register of representation rights and powers of legal representatives 

Project no. 20: Find a Judicial Officer 

Successful   

Successful   

Successful  

Successful   

Neutral   

Successful   

Successful  

Successful  

Successful  

Neutral  

Successful   

Successful   

Successful   

Successful   

Successful  

Neutral   

Neutral   

 Not applicable as 
project did not start 

Neutral   

Successful  

Neutral   

Not applicable as project 
did not start   

Successful   

Page 29 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Project no. 21: ECLI 

Project no. 22: ELI - (this project falls under the remit of e-Law) 

Project no. 23: Semantic interoperability - (glossaries, such as LEGIVOC) 

Project no. 24: a) Court database - unique identification of entities within the judicial domain 

Project no. 24: b) Court database - improving the content and functioning of the court database (extension of the scope by 
coverage of European and national instruments) 

Project no. 24: c) Court database - service interfaces which allow automatic searching of the court database by national 
and European e-Justice applications 

Project no. 25: Dynamic forms - (European Payment Order (EPO), Small Claims and Taking of evidence) 

Project no. 26: ODR (Online dispute resolution) 

Project no. 27: Find a mediator 

Project no. 28: e-Service of documents 

Project no. 29: European Investigation Order 

Project no. 30: Videoconference 

Project no. 31: e-APP (Electronic Apostille programme) - (including e-Registers of Apostilles) 

Project no. 32: i-Support (maintenance obligations) 

Project no. 33: Cooperation with the website of the European Judicial Network in criminal matters 

Project no. 34: a) Automated machine translation - first inclusion in the e-Justice Portal 

Project no. 34: b) Automated machine translation -  improve the quality of translation - introduce machine translations 

Project no. 35: Promotion of e-Justice (the Portal and e-Justice in general) 

Project no. 36: a) European e-Justice Portal - Making the Portal more user-friendly 

Project no. 36: b) European e-Justice Portal - Survey on user needs 

Project no. 37: Multi-channel strategy 

Project no. 38: e-Delivery (transporting information securely between the Member States) 

Project no. 39: e-Signature (signing of documents; checking the validity of incoming signed documents) 

Project no. 40: e-Payment (payment of fees online) 

Project no. 41: e-ID (differentiated access to the e-Justice portal by authentication through the use of national identity 
solutions.) 

Project no. 42: e-Document (conversion and semantics. Common standards for documents exchanged in cross-border 
systems.) 

Successful   

Successful   

Successful    

Successful   

Successful   

Successful   

Successful   

Neutral 

Not successful   

Successful   

Successful   

Successful   

Successful   

Successful  

Neutral   

Neutral   

Neutral  

Neutral   

Successful   

Neutral   

Successful  

 Successful   

Successful   

Neutral  

Neutral   

Successful   

Page 30 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

4.3. 

Relevance of projects/Desired scope of the projects  

The question on the relevance of an Action, i.e. desired scope of the project was another 
question  included  in  the  questionnaire  for  each  of  the  49  Actions.  A  summary  overview 
with  recommendations/suggestions  for  each  Action  is  given  in  the  Section  7.2.  of  this 
report.  

The  respondents  were  offered  4  options  for  each  Action’s  desired  scope  in  the  future: 
Innovative  aspects  to  be  included;  Continue  within  the  current  scope  of  an  Action; 
Expand the scope or Close the Action. It is important to mention that this was a multiple-
choice type of question, where a respondent could choose one or more answer(s).  

With the objective to establish the desired scope of an Action in the future the following 
colour code is used:   

Desired scope of the projects10 

Majority responses (51% or more)  
31-50% 
10-30% 
5-9% 
Less than 5% 

For example, for Action no. 1b expansion of the static content (as per half-yearly content 
work  plans),  10-30%  of  respondents  believe  that innovative  aspects  should  be  included 
for  this  Action,  31-50%  think  that  the  Action  should  continue  within  its  current  scope, 
while 10-30% indicated that the scope of the Action should be expanded.  Less than 5% 
think that the Action should be closed.  

An  overview  of  the  percentage  of  responses  given  by  stakeholders  to  each  indicator  is 
given  in  the  table  below.  The  final  score  given  to  an  Action  is  based  on  the  majority  of 
responses given to an indicator.  

10   Majority of responses (51% or more) = Green (Red-Green-Blue code: 153-255-102; Responses received 31-50% = 

Yellow (RGB: 255-255-0); Responses received 10-30% = Blue (RGB:156-194-229); Responses received 5-9% = Beige 
(RGB:255-242-204); Responses received less than 5% = Grey (RGB: 217-217-217).  

Page 31 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Title of the Project/Action 

DESIRED SCOPE OF THE PROJECTS/Actions   

Innovate 

Continue with 
‘as-is’ scope 

Expand the 
scope 

Close  

SCORE based on the 
majority % responses given 
to an indicator   

Project no. 1 (a) updates of the static content, including the completion of information on victims of crime. 

Project no.  1 (b) expansion of the static content (as per half-yearly content work plans) 

Project no.1 (c) inclusion of functionalities defined in this Action Plan 

Project no. 2: European e-Justice Portal - Information relating to minors (collecting information relating to minors in 
respect to judicial procedures) 

Project no. 3: Penitentiary establishments (information on competence and location of penitentiary establishments) 

Project no. 4: European e-Justice Portal (2) - e-Justice for practitioners in criminal matters: collecting and ensuring 
availability of practical experiences of judicial authorities in the area of EU criminal justice (Knowledge 
Management initiative on criminal matters) 

Project no. 5: European e-Justice Portal - Open data on justice 

Project no. 6: European e-Justice Portal - Information and assistance for citizens to resolve fundamental rights 
problems (guidelines for citizens in order to solve legal problems) 

Project no. 7: European e-Justice Portal - Judicial auctions - Information on judicial auctions 

Project no. 8: European e-Justice Portal - Judicial official announcements 

Project no. 9: Consumer law database 

Project no. 10: a) interconnection of available insolvency registers (currently limited to certain Member States) 

Project no. 10: b) interconnection of the insolvency registers of all Member States as a result of the future 
amendment of the Insolvency Regulation (legal obligation) 

Project no. 11: Business registers 

Project no. 12: Land registers 

Project no. 13: Interpreters’ and translators’ Databases 

Project no. 14: Help for the translation of judicial acts 

Project no. 15: Registers of judicial experts 

Project no. 16: Find a Judicial Expert 

Project no. 17: Interconnection of registers of wills 

Project no. 18: Electronic European Certificate of Succession 

Project no. 19: Register of representation rights and powers of legal representatives 

Project no. 20: Find a Judicial Officer 

Project no. 21: ECLI 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Innovate 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Expand 

Expand 

Continue ‘as-is’; Expand 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Not applicable as the 
project did not start 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is 

Page 32 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Project no. 22: ELI - (this project falls under the remit of e-Law) 

Project no. 23: Semantic interoperability - (glossaries, such as LEGIVOC) 

Project no. 24: a) Court database - unique identification of entities within the judicial domain 

Project no. 24: b) Court database - improving the content and functioning of the court database (extension of the 
scope by coverage of European and national instruments) 

Project no. 24: c) Court database - service interfaces which allow automatic searching of the court database by 
national and European e-Justice applications 

Project no. 25: Dynamic forms - (European Payment Order (EPO), Small Claims and Taking of evidence) 

Project no. 26: ODR (Online dispute resolution) 

Project no. 27: Find a mediator 

Project no. 28: e-Service of documents 

Project no. 29: European Investigation Order 

Project no. 30: Videoconference 

Project no. 31: e-APP (Electronic Apostille programme) - (including e-Registers of Apostilles) 

Project no. 32: i-Support (maintenance obligations) 

Project no. 33: Cooperation with the website of the European Judicial Network in criminal matters 

Project no. 34: a) Automated machine translation - first inclusion in the e-Justice Portal 

Project no. 34: b) Automated machine translation -  improve the quality of translation - introduce machine 
translations 

Project no. 35: Promotion of e-Justice (the Portal and e-Justice in general) 

Project no. 36: a) European e-Justice Portal - Making the Portal more user-friendly 

Project no. 36: b) European e-Justice Portal - Survey on user needs 

Project no. 37: Multi-channel strategy 

Project no. 38: e-Delivery (transporting information securely between the Member States) 

Project no. 39: e-Signature (signing of documents; checking the validity of incoming signed documents) 

Project no. 40: e-Payment (payment of fees online) 

Project no. 41: e-ID (differentiated access to the e-Justice portal by authentication using national identity solutions.) 

Project no. 42: e-Document (conversion and semantics. Common standards for documents exchanged in cross-
border systems.) 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Expand 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is’; 

Expand 

Innovate 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Innovate; Expand 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Innovate 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Innovate; Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Expand 

Expand 

Innovate; Expand 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Close 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Expand 

Expand; Innovate 

Expand 

Innovate; Expand 

Expand 

Page 33 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Based  on  the  responses  to  the  questionnaire  and  interviews,  as  presented  in  the  figure 
below,  the  following  desired  scope  for  a  number  of  Actions  is  indicated  by  the 
stakeholders. It is important to mention that this was a multiple-choice type of question, 
where a respondent could choose one or more answer(s).   

30 out of 56 responses (or 53%) indicated that the activities should continue within the 
current  scope,  15  out  of  56  (or  27  %)  replied  that  the  scope  of  the  activities  should 
expand, 8 out of 56 (or 14%) that the innovative aspects were needed, while 1 out of 56 
(or 2%) that some actions should be closed. 2 out of 56 (or 4%) of  responses received 
were not applicable. 

Page 34 of 104 

Continue 'as-is'53%Expand 27%Innovate14%Close2%Not Applicable4%Desired scope of ActionsContinue 'as-is'ExpandInnovateCloseNot Applicable 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

4.4. 

Identified Actions’ constraints  

This  section  addresses  the  question  on  identification  of  the  administrative,  technical, 
legal  or  other  constraints  faced  during  the  implementation  of  an  Action.  For  example, 
administrative  constraints  that  are  reported  by  stakeholders  include  a  lack  of  resources 
or  a  lack  of  clear  communication  between  the  stakeholders.  Technical  constraints  are 
related to the existence of different IT systems and/or a challenge on regular publishing 
of metadata. Legal constraints refer to an existence of different legal rules  e.g.  on data 
protection.  It  is  important  to  mention  that  this  was  a  multiple-choice  type  of  question, 
where a respondent could choose one or more answer(s).  

With the objective to establish the desired scope of an Action in the future distributed per 
percentage ranges of respondents, the following colour code is used:   

Identified Actions’ constraints11 

Majority responses (51% or more)  
31-50% 
10-30% 
5-9% 
Less than 5% 

For example, for Action no. 1b expansion of the static content (as per half-yearly content 
work  plans),  31-50%  of  responses  indicated  administrative  challenges  in  the  course  of 
implementation  of  the  Action,  10-30%  identified  technical  constrains,  and  10-30%  are 
more of legal nature. 5-9% indicates not to know. 

This  table  gives  an  indication  of  the  ‘pain  areas’  that  should  be  considered  as  ‘lessons 
learned’ to facilitate better implementation of the Actions in the course of the next Action 
Plan. 

11   Majority responses (51% or more)=Green (Red-Green-Blue code: 153-255-102; Responses received 31-50% = Yellow 
(RGB: 255-255-0); Responses received 10-30% = Blue (RGB:156-194-229); Responses received 5-9% =Beige 
(RGB:255-242-204); Responses received less than 5%= Grey (RGB: 217-217-217).  

Page 35 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Title of the Project/Action 

CONSTRAINTS FACED DURING THE PROJECT    

Admin.  

Tech. 

Legal 

Other 

Don’t 
know 

Project no. 1 (a) updates of the static content, including the completion of information on victims of crime. 

Project no.  1 (b) expansion of the static content (as per half-yearly content work plans) 

Project no.1 (c) inclusion of functionalities defined in this Action Plan 

Project no. 2: European e-Justice Portal - Information relating to minors (collecting information relating to 
minors in respect to judicial procedures) 

Project no. 3: Penitentiary establishments (information on competence and location of penitentiary 
establishments) 

Project no. 4: European e-Justice Portal (2) - e-Justice for practitioners in criminal matters: collecting and 
ensuring availability of practical experiences of judicial authorities in the area of EU criminal justice 
(Knowledge Management initiative on criminal matters) 

Project no. 5: European e-Justice Portal - Open data on justice 

Project no. 6: European e-Justice Portal - Information and assistance for citizens to resolve fundamental 
rights problems (guidelines for citizens in order to solve legal problems) 

Project no. 7: European e-Justice Portal - Judicial auctions - Information on judicial auctions 

Project no. 8: European e-Justice Portal - Judicial official announcements 

Project no. 9: Consumer law database 

Project no. 10: a) interconnection of available insolvency registers (currently limited to certain Member 
States) 

Project no. 10: b) interconnection of the insolvency registers of all Member States as a result of the future 
amendment of the Insolvency Regulation (legal obligation) 

Project no. 11: business registers 

Project no. 12: Land registers 

Project no. 13: Interpreters’ and translators’ Databases 

Project no. 14: Help for the translation of judicial acts 

Project no. 15: Registers of judicial experts 

Project no. 16: Find a Judicial Expert 

Project no. 17: Interconnection of registers of wills 

Project no. 18: Electronic European Certificate of Succession 

Project no. 19: Register of representation rights and powers of legal representatives 

SCORE based on the 
majority % responses given 
to an indicator   

Administrative 

Administrative 

Technical 

Administrative 

Administrative 

Technical 

Technical;  Administrative, 
Legal 

Administrative 

Technical 

Administrative;  Technical; 

Administrative, Technical 

Legal 

Technical 

Technical 

Administrative 

Legal; Administrative 

Administrative 

Not applicable as the project 
did not start 

Legal; Administrative; 

Legal 

Administrative; Legal; 

Not applicable as the project 
did not start 

Page 36 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Project no. 20: Find a Judicial Officer 

Project no. 21: ECLI 

Project no. 22: ELI - (this project falls under the remit of e-Law) 

Project no. 23: Semantic interoperability - (glossaries, such as LEGIVOC) 

Project no. 24: a) Court database - unique identification of entities within the judicial domain 

Project no. 24: b) Court database - improving the content and functioning of the court database (extension of 
the scope by coverage of European and national instruments) 

Project no. 24: c) Court database - service interfaces which allow automatic searching of the court database 
by national and European e-Justice applications 

Project no. 25: Dynamic forms - (European Payment Order (EPO), Small Claims and Taking of evidence) 

Project no. 26: ODR (Online dispute resolution) 

Project no. 27: Find a mediator 

Project no. 28: e-Service of documents 

Project no. 29: European Investigation Order 

Project no. 30: Videoconference 

Project no. 31: e-APP (Electronic Apostille programme) - (including e-Registers of Apostilles) 

Project no. 32: i-Support (maintenance obligations) 

Project no. 33: Cooperation with the website of the European Judicial Network in criminal matters 

Project no. 34: a) Automated machine translation - first inclusion in the e-Justice Portal 

Project no. 34: b) Automated machine translation -  improve the quality of translation - introduce machine 
translations 

Project no. 35: Promotion of e-Justice (the Portal and e-Justice in general) 

Project no. 36: a) European e-Justice Portal - Making the Portal more user-friendly 

Project no. 36: b) European e-Justice Portal - Survey on user needs 

Project no. 37: Multi-channel strategy 

Project no. 38: e-Delivery (transporting information securely between the Member States) 

Project no. 39: e-Signature (signing of documents; checking the validity of incoming signed documents) 

Project no. 40: e-Payment (payment of fees online) 

Project no. 41: e-ID (differentiated access to the e-Justice portal by authentication through the use of 
national identity solutions.) 

Project no. 42: e-Document (conversion and semantics. Common standards for documents exchanged in 
cross-border systems.) 

Technical, Legal 

Administrative 

Administrative;  Technical 

Technical 

Technical 

Administrative 

Administrative;  Technical 

Technical 

Technical 

No replies received 

Administrative 

Technical; Legal 

Technical 

Technical 

Administrative; Technical 

Administrative 

Other 

Other 

Administrative 

Legal 

No specific constraints 
identified 

Legal 

Technical 

Legal 

Administrative;  Technical; 
Legal 

Legal; Technical 

Administrative 

Page 37 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Based  on  the  responses  to  the  questionnaire  and  interviews,  as  presented  in  the  figure 
below,  technical  and  administrative  constraints  are  identified  as  main  challenges  in  the 
implementation  as  indicated  by  22  out  of  61  responses  (or  36%)  and  21  out  of  61 
responses  (or  34%)  respectively.  11  out  of  61  responses  (or  18%)  indicated  the  legal 
constraints as main challenges in implementation of Actions, while 7 out of 61 responses 
(or  12%)  either  did  not  specify  any  constraints  or  marked  as  ‘other’  or  replied  ‘not 
applicable’.  

 It  is  important  to  mention  that  this  was  a  multiple-choice  type  of  question,  where  a 
respondent could choose one or more answer(s).    

Page 38 of 104 

Administrative34%Technical36%Legal18%Not applicable 12%Identified constraintsAdministrativeTechnicalLegalNot applicable 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

5. 

Summary assessment of individual projects and 
actions   

The  projects  and  corresponding  actions listed in  the  Annex  to  the  Multiannual  European 
e-Justice  Action  Plan  2014-2018  (2014/C  182/02)  were  the  focus  of  this  study.  The 
Annex contains 42 projects categorised in the following areas:   

  A: Access to information in the field of justice with total 23 projects organised into 

3 sub-categories 

o  A1: Information through the e-Justice portal, with projects no.1-9 
o  A2: Registers, with projects no. 10-20 
o  A3: Semantic web, with projects no. 21-23 

  B: Access to courts and extrajudicial procedures in cross-border situations with a 

total of 6 projects 

  C: Communication between the judicial authorities with a total of 4 projects 
  D: Horizontal issues, with a total of 9 projects 

While this report contains a brief profile of each Action, a detailed description of 
each Action, including responses to the questionnaire, is given in the Annex 1.  

A brief description of each Action starts with a flash card, giving a summary in terms of 
the  Action’s  implementation  status,  effectiveness  of  the  action,  desired  scope  and  also  
identified challenges and constraints.   

Implementation 
Status of the Action 

Effectiveness of the 
project- colour is based on 
the highest % of replies 
received   

Relevance of the 
project- colour is based 
on the highest % of 
replies received   

Constrains faced during the 
implementation- colour is 
based on the highest % of 
replies received  

A summary of flash cards per each Action is given in the table below:  

Page 39 of 104 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Title of the Project/Action 

SUMMARY FLASH CARDS in terms of an Action status, success level, desired 
scope and constraints identified 

Status  

Success level 

Desired scope of the 
project 

Constraints faced  

Project no. 1 (a) updates of the static content, including the completion of information 
on victims of crime. 

Project no.  1 (b) expansion of the static content (as per half-yearly content work plans) 

Project no.1 (c) inclusion of functionalities defined in this Action Plan 

Project no. 2: European e-Justice Portal - Information relating to minors (collecting 
information relating to minors in respect to judicial procedures) 

Project no. 3: Penitentiary establishments (information on competence and location of 
penitentiary establishments) 

Project no. 4: European e-Justice Portal (2) - e-Justice for practitioners in criminal 
matters: collecting and ensuring availability of practical experiences of judicial 
authorities in the area of EU criminal justice (Knowledge Management initiative on 
criminal matters) 

Successful   

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Administrative 

Successful   

Successful  

Successful   

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Administrative 

Innovate 

Technical 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Administrative 

Neutral   

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Administrative 

Successful   

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Technical 

Project no. 5: European e-Justice Portal - Open data on justice 

Successful  

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Technical;  
Administrative, Legal 

Project no. 6: European e-Justice Portal - Information and assistance for citizens to 
resolve fundamental rights problems (guidelines for citizens in order to solve legal 
problems) 

Project no. 7: European e-Justice Portal - Judicial auctions - Information on judicial 
auctions 

Successful  

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Administrative 

Successful  

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Technical 

Project no. 8: European e-Justice Portal - Judicial official announcements 

Neutral  

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Project no. 9: Consumer law database 

Successful   

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Administrative;  
Technical; 

Administrative, 
Technical 

Project no. 10: a) interconnection of available insolvency registers (currently limited to 
certain Member States) 

Project no. 10: b) interconnection of the insolvency registers of all Member States as a 
result of the future amendment of the Insolvency Regulation (legal obligation) 

Project no. 11: business registers 

Project no. 12: Land registers 

Project no. 13: Interpreters’ and translators’ Databases 

Project no. 14: Help for the translation of judicial acts 

Project no. 15: Registers of judicial experts 

Successful   

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Legal 

Successful   

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Technical 

Successful   

Successful  

Neutral   

Neutral   

 Not applicable as 
project did not start 

Expand 

Expand 

Technical 

Administrative 

Continue ‘as-is’; Expand 

Legal; Administrative 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Administrative 

Not applicable as the 
project did not start 

Page 40 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Project no. 16: Find a Judicial Expert 

Project no. 17: Interconnection of registers of wills 

Project no. 18: Electronic European Certificate of Succession 

Project no. 19: Register of representation rights and powers of legal representatives 

Project no. 20: Find a Judicial Officer 

Project no. 21: ECLI 

Project no. 22: ELI - (this project falls under the remit of e-Law) 

Project no. 23: Semantic interoperability - (glossaries, such as LEGIVOC) 

Project no. 24: a) Court database - unique identification of entities within the judicial 
domain 

Project no. 24: b) Court database - improving the content and functioning of the court 
database (extension of the scope by coverage of European and national instruments) 

Project no. 24: c) Court database - service interfaces which allow automatic searching 
of the court database by national and European e-Justice applications 

Project no. 25: Dynamic forms - (European Payment Order (EPO), Small Claims and 
Taking of evidence) 

Project no. 26: ODR (Online dispute resolution) 

Project no. 27: Find a mediator 

Project no. 28: e-Service of documents 

Project no. 29: European Investigation Order 

Project no. 30: Videoconference 

Project no. 31: e-APP (Electronic Apostille programme) - (including e-Registers of 
Apostilles) 

Neutral   

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Successful  

Neutral   

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Legal; 
Administrative; 

Legal 

Administrative; 
Legal; 

Not applicable as 
project did not start   

Not applicable as the 
project did not start 

Not applicable as the 
project did not start 

Successful   

Successful   

Successful   

Successful    

Successful   

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Expand 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Technical, Legal 

Administrative 

Administrative;  
Technical 

Technical 

Technical 

Successful   

Continue ‘as-is’; 

Administrative 

Successful   

Successful   

Expand 

Innovate 

Administrative;  
Technical 

Technical 

Neutral 

Not successful   

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Technical 

No replies received 

Successful   

Successful   

Successful   

Successful   

Innovate; Expand 

Administrative 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Technical; Legal 

Innovate 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Technical 

Technical 

Project no. 32: i-Support (maintenance obligations) 

Successful  

Innovate; Continue ‘as-is’ 

Project no. 33: Cooperation with the website of the European Judicial Network in 
criminal matters 

Project no. 34: a) Automated machine translation - first inclusion in the e-Justice Portal 

Project no. 34: b) Automated machine translation -  improve the quality of translation - 
introduce machine translations 

Project no. 35: Promotion of e-Justice (the Portal and e-Justice in general) 

Project no. 36: a) European e-Justice Portal - Making the Portal more user-friendly 

Neutral   

Neutral   

Neutral  

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Expand 

Expand 

Administrative; 
Technical 

Administrative 

Other 

Other 

Neutral   

Successful   

Innovate; Expand 

Administrative 

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Legal 

Page 41 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Project no. 36: b) European e-Justice Portal - Survey on user needs 

Neutral   

Close 

No specific 
constraints identified 

Project no. 37: Multi-channel strategy 

Project no. 38: e-Delivery (transporting information securely between the Member 
States) 

Project no. 39: e-Signature (signing of documents; checking the validity of incoming 
signed documents) 

Project no. 40: e-Payment (payment of fees online) 

Project no. 41: e-ID (differentiated access to the e-Justice portal by authentication 
through the use of national identity solutions.) 

Project no. 42: e-Document (conversion and semantics. Common standards for 
documents exchanged in cross-border systems.) 

Successful  

 Successful   

Continue ‘as-is’ 

Expand 

Legal 

Technical 

Successful   

Expand; Innovate 

Legal 

Neutral  

Expand 

Neutral   

Innovate; Expand 

Administrative;  
Technical; Legal 

Legal; Technical 

Successful   

Expand 

Administrative 

Page 42 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

5.1. 

A: Access to information in the field of justice 

This category of the Annex to the Multiannual European e-Justice Action Plan contains a 
total  of  9  projects.  For  project  no.  1,  three  specific  actions  are  defined,  namely:  1a) 
updates  of  the  static  content;  1b)  expansion  of  the  static  content  and  1c)  inclusion  of 
functionalities.  Thus,  this  section  describes  11  separate  actions  in  total.  Although  the 
responsibility  for  the  Portal's  content  and  its  management  is  shared  between  the 
European  Commission  and  the  individual  European  Union  Member  States,  the 
management of the European e-Justice Portal is with the European Commission.12 

5.1.1.  Action no. 1a): e-Justice Portal, updates of the static content   

Ongoing 

Successful 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Administrative constraints 

The European e-Justice Portal project is an electronic one-stop-shop for access to justice 
throughout the EU13. The web site benefits citizens, businesses, lawyers and judges with 
answers  to  cross-border  legal  questions,  and  boosts  the  mutual  understanding  of 
different legal systems by contributing to the creation of a single area of justice. 

The  scope  of  the  e-Justice  Portal  project  includes  a  diverse  set  of  activities  that  aim  to 
assist  businesses,  legal  practitioners  and  judicial  authorities  and  facilitate  the  access  of 
citizens to judicial and legal information.14  

The objective of this Action includes keeping the static content of the European e-Justice 
Portal  up  to  date.  Contributions  and  updates  are  expected  from  the  Commission,  the 
European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters (EJN-civil), the Member States 
and other stakeholders.  

According  to  92%  of  those  who  replied  to  the  question  on  the  status,  this  Action  is 
ongoing.  

Updating  the  static  content  on  the  Portal  is  carried  out,  among  others,  by  the  Member 
States. However, as the process for updating the static content is resources-intensive, as 
indicated  by  Member  States,  it  is  suggested  to  analyse  the  possible  ways  for 
automatization of the process itself. 

In  response  to  the  question  on  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  of  the  Action,  73% 
indicated  that  the  implementation  of  the  Action  has  been  successful.  Similar  feedback 
regarding  the  Action’s  effectiveness  was  received  during  the  interviews.  Most  of  the 
Member States provide content and updates on a regular basis.   

In  terms  of  the  relevance  of  the  project/desired  scope,  12  responses  indicated  that  the 
Action  should  continue  within  its  current  scope,  9  that  the  Action  scope  should  be 
expanded,  while  7  replies  selected  that  innovative  aspects  should  be  included  in  the 
future.    

12   e-Justice Portal Join up, e-Justice Portal launched, news 19.07.2010, https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/news/ejustice-portal-

launched, accessed on 15.03.2018 

13   e-Justice Portal. https://e-justice.europa.eu/home.do?plang=en&action=home, accessed on 14.03.2018 
14   Draft strategy on European e-Justice 2014-2018, 2013/C 376/06, 21.12.2013, par 11, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52013XG1221(02)&from=EN, accessed on 15.03.2018 

Page 43 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

The  participating  Member  States  expect  that  the  Action  will  continue  in  the  next  Action 
Plan 2019-2023.  

Main  challenges  indicated  are  of  administrative  nature  as  indicated  by  13  responses, 
followed  by  technical  challenges  with  8  responses  and  legal  ones  with  4  replies.  More 
specifically,  the  administrative  constraints  are  related  to  the  process  of  updating  the 
static content that is indicated as a time-consuming task due to necessary manual work. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1.   

5.1.2.  Action no.1b): e-Justice Portal, expansion of the static content  

Ongoing 

Successful 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Administrative constraints 

The  work  on  updating  and  expanding  the  content  of  the  Portal  is  conducted  by  the 
Commission,  with  direct  contributions  from  Member  States,  the  EJN-civil  and  the  legal 
professionals. A new content initiative can be proposed by the Member States, the EJN-
civil,  the  Commission  or  other  stakeholders.  Once  approved,  the  Commission  proceeds 
either with issuing a questionnaire to be filled in by the respective content providers, or 
with encoding the content directly in the Portal.  

The  scope  of  the  e-Justice  Portal  project  includes  a  broad  range  of  topics  with  the 
objective  to  assist  businesses,  legal  practitioners  and  judicial  authorities  and  facilitate 
access  of  citizens  to  judicial  and  legal  information.15  The  European  e-Justice  Portal 
contributes in a practical way to the removal of barriers, such as providing information in 
23 languages and a wealth of links to relevant websites and documents.16 

The objective of this Action includes the expansion of the static content on the e-Justice 
Portal. Expansions are done based on ad hoc suggestions by the Member States or other 
stakeholders. No specific number of expansions was agreed on in advance.  

According  to  94%  of  those  who  replied  to  the  question  on  its  status,  the  Action  is 
ongoing. On average, 15 to 20 new topics are added on the Portal per year, and due to 
the  nature  of  the  action,  it  is  a  continuous  work  to  be  done  by  the  Member  States  and 
the Commission. 

In  response  to  the  question  on  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  of  the  Action,  67%  of 
the respondents indicated that the Action is successful.  

In terms of the relevance of the project/desired scope, 9 replies indicated that the Action 
should continue within its current scope, while 5 believe that the Action’s scope should be 
expanded,  and  6  responses  suggested  that  some  innovative  aspects  should  be  included 
in the future.  

The participating Member States expect that the Action would continue in the next Action 
Plan 2019-2023.  

The  main  challenges  are  of  administrative  nature  as  indicated  by  9  responses,  followed 
by  technical  challenges  with  5  responses  and  legal  ones  with  2  responses.  More 

15   Draft strategy on European e-Justice 2014-2018, 2013/C 376/06, 21.12.2013, par 11, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52013XG1221(02)&from=EN, accessed on 15.03.2018 

16   e-Justice Portal JoinUp, e-Justice Portal launched, news 19.07.2010, https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/news/ejustice-portal-

launched, accessed on 15.03.2018 

Page 44 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

specifically, inclusion of new static content takes place on ad-hoc basis, with an average 
of  15  to  20  new  topics  added  per  year.  However,  one  of  the  main  problems  is  that  the 
Member States do not provide content for suggested new topics, due to lack of resources 
and time constraints.  

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1.  

5.1.3. Action no. 1c): e-Justice Portal, inclusion of functionalities  

Ongoing 

Successful 

Innovate 

Technical  

The objective of this Action is the inclusion in the Portal of various dynamic functionalities 
defined in the e-Justice Action Plan.   

According  to  84%  of  those  who  replied  to  the  question  on  the  status,  the  Action  is 
ongoing. 

In  response  to  the  question  on  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  of  the  action,  42%  of 
respondents indicated that the Action is successful.    

In terms of the relevance of the project/desired scope, 4 replies indicated that the Action 
should  continue  within  its  current  scope,  4  believe  that  the  scope  should  be  expanded, 
while 5 replies indicated that innovative aspects should be included in the future.  

The  main  challenges  are  of  technical  nature  as  indicated  by  5  responses,  followed  by 
administrative challenges with 4 responses and legal ones with 2 out of 11 responses.  

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1.  

5.1.4.  Action no. 2: European e-Justice Portal - Information relating to minors   

Ongoing 

Successful 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Administrative constraints 

This  project  is  related  to  the  preparation  and  the  publication  of  information  concerning 
the  involvement  of  minors  in  judicial  proceedings.  The  target  audience  are  judicial 
practitioners and citizens of the Member States. 

The  Working  Party  on  e-Law  (e-Justice)  has  established  an  expert  group  chaired  by 
France to achieve this purpose17. 

The main objective of this project is to complement the e-Justice Portal with an overview 
of the roles minors can have during different judicial procedures (e.g. victims, suspects, 
convicted  persons).  Furthermore,  this  overview  should  then  also  include  a  link  between 
the procedural rights associated with each of these different roles.   

17   Expert group on minors - Draft mandate, Council of the European Union, 11707/15, 04.09.2015. 

Page 45 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

In  order  to  do  this,  it  was  necessary  to  carry  out  a  number  of  activities:  to  evaluate 
which  data  are  already  available  online,  to  collect  the  national  relevant  information,  to 
draw  an  inventory  of  the  European  legislations  and  to  examine  the  need  for  an  online 
static content. 

Based on the responses received to the question on the status, 82% of the respondents 
indicated that the Action is still ongoing.   

In  response  to  the  question  on  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  of  the  action,  4 
responses  indicated  that  the  Action  is  successful,  while  3  assessed  the  Action  as  of 
neutral  effectiveness  and  2  replies  indicated  it  as  unsuccessful.  Similar  mixed  feedback 
regarding the Action’s effectiveness was also received during the interviews.  

In terms of the relevance of the project/desired scope, 6 replies indicated that the Action 
should  continue  within  its  current  scope,  1  that  the  Action  scope  should  be  expanded, 
while 2 believe that the Action should be closed.  

Main  challenges  are  of  administrative  nature  as  indicated  by  8  responses,  followed  by 
technical challenges with 2 responses and legal  ones with 1 response. More  specifically, 
the administrative constraints are related to a turbulent start of the project and a lack of 
clear  communication  between  the  stakeholders.  Another  main  challenge  to  this  project 
was significant delays in collecting information from the Member States.  

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.1.5.  Action no. 3: Penitentiary establishments 

Completed 

Neutral 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Administrative constraints 

This  project  relates  to  the  publication  of  information  for  legal  professionals  and  public 
authorities whose work is related to prisoners. 

This project has been entrusted by the  Working Party on e-Law (e-Justice) to an expert 
group chaired by Hungary.18 

The  scope  of  this  project  includes  the  examination  of  the  possibilities,  by  an  expert 
group,  for  publishing  a  static  content  page  on  penitentiary  establishments  and  also  for 
establishing a dynamic search tool. 

The  main  objective  of  the  project  is  to  provide  information  about  the  competences  and 
the  location  of  the  European  penitentiary  establishments  in  Member  States,  and  give 
information about the facilities and services they offer19. The concrete result should be a 
solution such as a search tool intended for professionals whose work relates to prisoners. 

According to 62% of respondents to the question on its status, this Action is completed.  

In  response  to  the  question  on  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  of  the  Action,  56%  of 
respondents assessed the  Action as  of neutral effectiveness. Similar feedback about the 
Action’s  effectiveness  was  also  received  during  the  interviews.  A  number  of  Member 
States questioned the added value of this project and having the information included in 
the Portal.  

18   Expert group on penitentiary institutions - Proposal for a mandate, Council of the European Union, 8645/16, 04.05.2016. 
19   For example: medical services, special accommodations for a couple, etc. 

Page 46 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

In  terms  of  the  relevance  of  the  project/desired  scope,  3  responses  indicated  that  the 
Action  should  continue within its  current  scope,  and  2  that  the  Action  should  be  closed. 
Also  1  respondent  indicated  that  some  innovative  aspects  should  be  included  in  the 
future and 1 replied that the overall scope of the action should be expanded.  

The main challenges indicated are administrative as selected by 3 responses, followed by 
5 responses, which did not specify any constraints.  

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1.  

5.1.6.  Action no. 4: European e-Justice Portal – e-Justice for practitioners in criminal 

matters (Knowledge Management initiative on criminal matters) 

Ongoing 

Successful 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Technical 

This  project  is  related  to  the  work  of  2  European  organisations:  Eurojust  and  the 
European  Judicial  Network  in  criminal  matters  (EJN-criminal).  Eurojust  is  a  European 
Union  body  established  in  2002.  The  objective  of  this  organisation  is  to  “stimulate  & 
improve the coordination of investigations and prosecution among the competent judicial 
authorities  of  the  European  Union  Member  States  when  then  deal  with  serious  cross-
border and organised crime”.20 

EJN-criminal  is  a  network  of  contact  points  of  EU  Member  States.  This  network  was 
created to improve the cooperation between EU Member States in criminal matters. This 
cooperation  concerns  as  much  legal  as  practical  work.  Its  purpose  is  to  combat  serious 
crime, in particular organised crime, corruption, drug trafficking and terrorism.21 

The  objective  of  this  project  is  to  make  practical  experiences  related  to  EU  criminal 
justice available to all relevant European judicial authorities. 

Based  on  the  responses  received,  50%  of  respondents  indicated  that  the  Action  is 
ongoing. As the web site of EJN-criminal has not yet been integrated into the Portal, the 
future of the project is unclear.  

In  response  to  the  question  on  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  of  the  Action,  40%  of 
those who replied to this question indicated that the project is successful.  

In  terms  of  the  relevance  of  the  project/desired  scope,  3  responses  indicated  that  the 
Action  should  continue  within  its  current  scope,  while  2  selected  the  option  of  ‘don’t 
know’.  

The main challenges are of technical nature as indicated by 1 response. The remaining 4 
replies indicated other, or no issues or challenge related to this project.   

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.1.7. 

 Action no. 5: European e-Justice Portal – Open data on justice 

20   Eurojust. European e-Justice Portal, https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_eurojust-23-en.do, accessed on 13/03/2018. 
21   EJN in criminal matters, European e-Justice Portal, https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_ejn_in_criminal_matters-22-

en.do, accessed on 13/03/2018. 

Page 47 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Completed 

Successful 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Administrative; Technical; Legal 
constraints 

The  EU  is  actively  promoting  open  data.  Apart  from  the  revision  of  the  Public  Sector 
Information (PSI) Directive, the EU itself is opening up its data sets via the EU Open Data 
Portal  (EU  ODP),  created  by  Commission  Decision  2011/833/EU  as  the  single  point  of 
access  to  open  data  produced  by  the  EU  institutions,  agencies  and  other  bodies.  It 
provides  easy  access  and  enhanced  discoverability  to  EU  data  via  a  catalogue  of 
metadata.  Further  to  the  Decision,  Commission  services  have  the  obligation  to  feed  the 
portal with data produced for or by them while other institutions and bodies are invited to 
join.  Next  to  the  EU  Open  Data  Portal  there  exists  ‘European  Data  Portal’  (EDP)  which 
offers  one  unified  entry  point  to  datasets  held  by  national  authorities,  as  they  are  also 
available on national data portals. The main difference between ODP and EDP lies in the 
fact  that  EU  ODP  gives  access  to  European  data  held  by  European  Union  institutions, 
while EDP is a European gateway to data held by national institutions. EDP was launched 
in beta version in October 2015.22  

The  status  of  the  data  of  the  European  e-Justice  Portal,  which  were  of  interest  to  be 
made  available  as  open  data  was  not  fully  clear,  and  therefore,  the  Expert  group  was 
formed to examine this issue.  

The  objective  of  the  work  of  the  Expert  group  on  Open  Data  was  to  give 
recommendations about the use of Open Data in the area of e-Justice. The expert group 
on  Open  Data  was  expected  to  make  an  inventory  on  which  data  within  the  context  of 
the European e-Justice Portal could and should be made available as open data, and how 
this could be organised, both legally and technically. 

The  Expert  group  on  Open  Data  prepared  a  report23  and  a  note24  with  its  conclusions.  
This document contains an inventory of the data collections which are already present on 
the  e-Justice  Portal.  The  Expert  group  also  gives  recommendations  about  whether  and 
how  they  should  be  made  available  as  Open  Data.  In  addition,  some  instructions  are 
mentioned about the adaptation of the legal notice on the e-Justice Portal in order to be 
aligned  with  the  legal  framework  of  the  PSI  Directive.  The  implementation  of  the 
recommendations of the Working Party on e-Law (e-Justice) is still ongoing.  

According to 43% of the responses received for the question on the status, the Action is 
completed.  

Regarding  the  effectiveness/perceived  level  of  success,  50%  of  respondents  to  this 
question indicated that the implementation of the Action is successful.    

With  regard  to  the  desired  scope  of  the  Action,  2  responses  indicated  that  the  Action 
should continue within its current scope, 1  response indicated  that the Action should be 
closed, while 2 selected the option ‘don’t know’. 

Main  constraints  identified  are  technical,  legal  and  administrative  as  2  responses  were 
received for each indicator.  

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1.  

22   Expert group on Open Data. Council of the European Union, 6992/15, 13.03.2015. 
23   Report on Expert group on Open Data, Council of the European Union, 11786/15 REV 1, 13.10.2015. 
24   Expert group on Open Data - Information note, Council of the European Union, 12986/15, 14.10.2015. 

Page 48 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

5.1.8.  Action Fiche no. 6: European e-Justice Portal - Information and assistance for 

citizens to resolve fundamental rights problems 

Ongoing 

Successful 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Administrative 

Fundamental rights have been strongly emphasized in EU policy since the establishment 
of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) in 200725 and the entry into 
force of the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009, when the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 
the EU became legally binding. The Working Party on e-Law (e-Justice) set up an Expert 
group in May 201526. The group was chaired by the Finnish delegation27.  

The  expert  group  worked  in  contact  with  the  FRA.  This  organisation  has  the  mission  to 
provide  assistance  and  to  share  their  experience  concerning  fundamental  rights  to  EU 
institutions and Member States28. 

FRA  has  developed  a  search  tool  to  provide  easy  contact  with  the  national  non-judicial 
bodies  dealing  with  the  protection  of  fundamental  rights in  the  EU  Member  States.  This 
tool  is  called  CLARITY  and  is  supplied  with  information  communicated  by  the  Member 
States. 

The  objective  of  this  Action  is  twofold:  first,  to  provide  dedicated  information  on 
fundamental rights in the e-Justice Portal; second, the integration of the CLARITY tool of 
FRA into the Portal. 

The  Expert  group  analysed  the  existing  content  available  on  the  e-Justice  Portal  and 
evaluated  the  need  to  reorganise  the  pages.  The  conclusions  of  this  debate  were 
consolidated  in  a  report29  with  recommendations  to  the  Commission  and  the  Member 
States. 

The  search  tool  has  been  integrated  into  the  e-Justice  Portal  under  the  name  FRIT 
(Fundamental Rights Information Tool). It was finalised in October 2016 and is available 
in the 23 official EU languages30. 

According  to  55%  of  responses  received  to  the  question  on  the  status,  the  Action  is 
completed.  In  contrast  to  this  result,  according  to  the  interview  with  the  responsible 
Action  Leader,  this  Action  was  indicated  to  be  still  ongoing  as  it  requires  further 
improvements. It is foreseen to have a well-defined process for a systematic and regular 
content update complemented with the development of e-Learning materials and training 
modules. 

Regarding  the  effectiveness  of  the  Action,  60%  of  those  who  replied  to  this  question 
indicated  that  the  Action  is  successful.  Interviewees  had  a  similar  opinion,  since  they 
assessed the project either as being successful or of neutral effectiveness. 

25   Council Regulation (EC) No 168/2007 of 15 February 2007 establishing a European Union Agency for Fundamental 

Rights 

26  Expert Group on Fundamental Rights – Assistance to Citizens, Council of the European Union, 6993/15 REV 1, 

15.04.2015 (http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6993-2015-REV-1/en/pdf). 

27  Implementation of the Multiannual European e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018, Council of the European Union, 

15771/14, 21.11.2014 (http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15771-2014-INIT/en/pdf). 

28  Role of the Fundamental Rights Agency, European Commission website, https://ec.europa.eu/info/aid-development-
cooperation-fundamental-rights/your-rights-eu/eu-charter-fundamental-rights/application-charter/role-fundamental-
rights-agency_en, accessed on 21.03.2018. 

29  Expert Group on Fundamental Rights – Assistance to Citizens – Final report, Council of the European Union, 13227/16, 

21.10.2016. 
  Expert Group on Fundamental Rights – Final report, 13227/16, p.4. 

30 

Page 49 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Concerning  the  desired  scope  of  the  Action,  7  respondents  indicated  that  the  Action 
should  continue  within  its  current  scope,  while  2  respondents  selected  that  the  scope 
should be expanded and also innovative aspects should be included.    

The  main  challenges  identified  are  administrative  as  indicated  by  4  replies,  while  1 
respondent selected technical constraints and 5 answered ‘don’t know’.  

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1.  

5.1.9.  Action Fiche no. 7: European e-Justice Portal – Judicial auctions   

Ongoing 

Successful 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Technical 

A  judicial  auction  is  a  process  through  which  a  public  auction  of  the  debtor's  assets  is 
arranged  with  the  purpose  of  raising  the  sum  of  money  needed  to  satisfy  a  creditor’s 
claim.  There  are  different  types  of  judicial  auctions  in  the  EU  countries,  whose  national 
law provide for the relevant legal framework. In some EU countries a judicial auction can 
be held online, thus avoiding participants appearing personally before the judge or in the 
Court  or  in  other  public  or  private  fora.  What  was  needed  is  one  system,  which  would 
allow  citizens  to  get  information  as  well  as  to  access  judicial  auctions  in  other  Member 
States.31 

The purpose of this Action is to enable access to judicial auctions in other Member States, 
which is currently difficult since there is no common system, such as a web portal, which 
gathers all the information on auction listings. 32 

To date, 14 Member States opted to participate in the project on  a voluntary basis. The 
project is divided into two phases: in the first phase, only static content is added to the 
e-Justice Portal. The second phase should result in the introduction of the interactive tool 
which will allow users to search through the listings giving access to the auctioned goods 
from other Member States, as well as to redirect to the national pages where the bidding 
could be further carried out.  

The  work  on  the  project  is  ongoing,  and  the  second  phase  started  only  in  terms  of 
discussions. The Italian delegation, as a Chair, proposed in October 2017 how the search 
fields  should  look  (what  information  Member  States  should  provide  in  order  to  have  a 
standardised  system,  which  can  be  machine  translated  in  all  official  languages).33  It  is 
also  foreseen  that  Member  States  insert  a  link  leading  to  the  relevant  page  (public  or 
private)  or  an  address  of  the  person  or  authority  which  will  provide  the  further 
information on the topic.34 

Regarding  the  status  of  the  Action,  92%  of  those  who  replied  to  this  question indicated 
that the Action is ongoing.  

Concerning  the  perceived  level  of  success  of  the  Action,  55%  of  respondents  indicated 
that  the  Action  is  successful.  Similar  feedback  with  regard  to  the  Action’s  effectiveness 
was also received during the interviews.  

31     Judicial  auctions.  E-Justice  Portal,  https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_judicial_auctions-473-en.do 

,  accessed  on 

20.03.2018    

32     Phase 2 of the project on interconnection of judicial auctions systems. Counsel of the European Union, Document No. 

13895/17, 31.10.2017 

33     Idem 
34     Phase 2 of the project on interconnection of judicial auctions systems. Council of the European Union, Document No. 
       13895/17, 31.10.2017 

Page 50 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

In  response  to  the  question  on  the  desired  scope  of  the  Action,  6  replies  indicated  that 
the Action should continue within its current scope, 4 respondents believe that the scope 
should be expanded, while 2 believe that some innovative aspects should be included in 
the future.    

The  main  challenges  are  of  technical  nature  as  indicated  by  5  responses,  followed  by 
legal  challenges  with  4  responses  and  administrative  ones  with  2  responses.  The 
remaining  3  replies  indicated  the  option  of  ‘no  constraints  identified’.  More  specifically, 
technical  constraints  are  related  to  IT  systems  which  are  assessed  as  not  meeting  the 
needs of the users, while legal constraints refer to legal differences of the Member States 
concerning the data sharing. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1.  

5.1.10.  Action Fiche no. 8: European e-Justice Portal - Judicial official announcements 

Completed 

Neutral 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Administrative; Technical 

The  aim  of  this  Action  is  to  make  information  on  the  electronic  publication  of  national 
official announcements available on the e-Justice Portal.  

The scope includes: 

1)  gathering information on the online access to official announcements with a view 

to make this information available on the Portal, 

2)  examining  the  legal  frameworks  and  practices  within  the  Member  States  with 
regard  to  the  protection  of  personal  data  included  in  these  announcements  and 
formulating technical recommendations on this topic, 

3)  publication of official judicial and governmental announcements which are not of a 
legislative  nature,  or  do  not  in  any  other  sense  contain  binding  rules,  and  which 
are  published  in  electronic  form  in  (electronic)  State  Gazettes  and/or  Official 
Journals.35 

Regarding  the  status  of  the  Action,  55%  of  respondents  indicated  that  the  Action  is 
completed.   

Concerning the effectiveness/level of success of this Action, 55% of those who replied to 
the question, indicated that the Action is of neutral effectiveness.   

On  the  desired  scope  of  the  Action,  2  replies  indicated  that  the  scope  should  be 
expanded,  5  that  the  Action  should  continue  within  its  current  scope,  while  2  of  the 
responses indicated that the Action should be closed.   

The  main  challenges  are  technical  and  administrative  as  indicated  by  3  respondents 
received for each, together with 2 respondents who indicated legal constraints.  

5.1.11.  Action no.9: Consumer database   

35   Questionnaire on the publication of official announcements. Council of the European Union, Document No. 6404/17, 

20.02.2017. 

Page 51 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Ongoing 

Successful 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Administrative; Technical 

The consumer strategy of the EU is laid out in the European Consumer Agenda that was 
launched  in  2012  by  the  European  Commission.36    The  agenda  focuses  on  four  main 
pillars37: 

  Promoting consumer safety; 
  Enhancing knowledge of consumer rights; 
  Strengthening the enforcement of consumer rules; and 
 

Integrating consumer interests into key sectorial policies. 

EU  consumer  law  covers  the  whole  business  to  consumer  relationship  (B2C)  with 
horizontal  EU  Directives.  The  Consumer  Directives  require  Member  States  to  achieve  a 
particular result, without dictating the means to achieve such result. This leads to some 
differences  across  Member  States  in  terms  of  legal  requirements  and  practices. 
Therefore,  a  mapping  of  how  the  Consumer  Directives  have  been  transposed  in  each 
Member State, together with the administrative practice, case law, and doctrine and legal 
literature is key to ensure the protection of EU consumers. 

The  overall  objective  of  this  project  is  to  give access  to  information  concerning  national 
law  on  consumer  issues  to  citizens  and  build  a  Consumer  Law  Database  that  includes 
both  EU  law  and  national  law  of  the  EU  Member  States.  The  database  will  cover  11 
directives in total. 

In  particular,  the  Consumer  Law  Database  application  will  include  the  transposition 
measures (in national language and English) of the directives mentioned above, case law, 
and literature. The data will be kept up to date based on the information provided by the 
Member  States,  while  the  application  will  be  fully  maintained  by  the  European 
Commission.  It  will  provide  more  transparency  to  all  stakeholders  involved  and  more 
awareness to consumers. 

There was no single database containing all EU and national legislation on consumer law, 
including the translations of the existing consumer protection law of each Member State 
in English, available to users. 

The  Commission,  therefore,  first  combined  the  content  of  two  existing  databases 
(Consumer  Law  Compendium,  already  offline,  and  the  Unfair  Commercial  Practices 
Database)  and  updated  the  content  under  a  separate  contract,  before  moving  towards 
the establishment of a common database in the e-Justice Portal. The go-live is foreseen 
for mid-July 2018.  

According to 50% of the respondents the project is ongoing, which is also confirmed by 
an Action Leader during the interview.  

Concerning the effectiveness of the project, 40% of respondents indicated that the Action 
is successful.    

36   A  European  Consumer  Agenda  –  Boosting  confidence  and  growth.  European  Commission,  COM  (2012)  225  final, 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/consumer_agenda_2012_en.pdf 

37     European Consumer Agenda. European Commission webpage, https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/consumers/consumer-

protection/consumer-strategy_en, accessed on 13.03.2018 

Page 52 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Concerning  the  scope  of  the  Action,  3  respondents  indicated  that  the  Action  should 
continue  within  its  current  scope,  1  that  innovative  aspects  should  be  included,  and  3 
selected the option ‘don’t know’. 

As far as the challenges are concerned, 1 respondent indicated technical constraints and 
another one administrative challenges. 4 stakeholders selected the option ‘don’t know’. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.1.12.  Action no. 10a: Insolvency Registers 

Completed 

Successful 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Legal 

The  objective  of  this  Action  was  to  create  one  single  point  of  access  at  EU  level  where 
citizens  and  companies  involved  in  cross-border  proceedings  can  search  for  companies 
and see if they are subject to insolvency proceedings. Such a system would be beneficial 
for businesses which want to minimise their risks, or to foreign creditors.  

The  final  objective  is  to  have  the  interconnection  for  all  Member  States;  however,  the 
scope  of  this  Action  was  to  achieve  interconnection  of  those  insolvency  registers  from 
Member  States  which  volunteered  to  join  this  pilot  project.38  This  first  version  - 
Insolvency  Registers  Interconnection  (or  IRI  first  version,  v.1.0)  -  currently  provides 
access  to  a  limited  number  of  Member  States’  registers  and  has  been  operational  as  of 
2014.39 So far IRI 1.0 provides access to the registers of 9 Member States.  

According  to  64%  of  the  responses  to  the  question  on  the  status,  the  Action  is 
completed.      

Regarding the effectiveness/level of success of the action, 27% scored the Action as very 
successful,  while  45%  of  respondents  indicated  that  the  Action  is  successful.  A  highly 
positive  feedback  about  the  action’s  effectiveness  was  also  received  during  the 
interviews. 

Concerning the desired scope of the Action, 6 responses indicated that the Action should 
continue  within  its  current  scope,  2  respondents  each  indicated  that  the  Action  scope 
should  be  expanded  and  innovative  aspects  should  be included in  the  future.  Another  2 
responses opted that the project should be closed.  

The  main  challenges  are  of  legal  nature,  as  indicated  by  4  respondents.  Technical  and 
administrative constraints were indicated each by 2 respondents. The remaining group of 
8  responses  indicated  other,  or  not  to  be  aware  of  specific  constraints  related  to  this 
Action.  

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.1.13.  Action no. 10b: Insolvency Registers – all Member States 

38   European  Union,  Multiannual  European  e-Justice  Action  Plan  2014-2018.  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union  C 
182,     14.06.2014,https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52014XG0614(01)&from=EN,  
accessed on 15.03.2018. 

39     Idem 

Page 53 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Ongoing 

Successful 

Continue ‘as-is’ -same scope 

Technical 

The  scope  of  this  Action  is  to  ensure  transparency  of  insolvency  proceedings  opened  in 
the  EU.  Access  to  insolvency  information  at  EU  level  brings  advantages  to  businesses, 
practitioners and citizens involved in cross-border activities. 

A first pilot project - Insolvency Registers Interconnection (IRI v1.0) – interconnected the 
insolvency registers of a limited number of the Member States via a search tool on the e-
Justice Portal available since 2014.40 The second version of this system, IRI 2.0, aims to 
address  the  interconnection  of  all  the  Member  States’  registers  providing  insolvency 
information.  The  legal  basis  for  this  project  is  created  by  the  revised  Insolvency 
Regulation.41    Further  to  this  Regulation,  an  implementing  act  should  be  adopted  which 
defines the technical specifications relating to the EU system and the deployment of the 
EU-wide interconnection. 

This second version of  the interconnection  should be operational by  mid-2019. Contrary 
to  the  voluntary  work  carried  out  in  the  past,  all  Member  States  now  have  a  legal 
obligation  to  set  up  electronic  national  insolvency  registers,  containing  all  information 
relating to insolvency proceedings opened in their territories which the Regulation defines 
as  "mandatory".  At  the  end  of  the  project,  it  is  expected  to  have  around  30  registers 
interconnected42.  

The  objective  of  this  concrete  Action  is  to  create  an  interconnection  of  the  insolvency 
registers of all Member States.43  

  That  system  shall  be  composed  of  the  insolvency  registers  and  the  European  e-
Justice  Portal,  which  shall  serve  as  a  central  public  electronic  access  point  to 
information in the system. 

  The system shall provide a search service in all the official languages of the Union 
in order to make available the mandatory information and any other documents or 
information included in the insolvency registers which the Member States choose 
to make available through the European e-Justice Portal. 

  All of the Member States (except Denmark) participate in the project. 

According to 92% of the responses received to the question on the status, the Action is 
ongoing.  

It  is  important  to  mention  that  the  original  planning  suffered  some  delays,  but  the 
deadline for the adoption of the Commission implementing act set for 26 June 2019 can 
still  be  met.  The  preparation  of  the  implementing  act  was  delayed  due  to  outstanding 
issues relating to the payment solution to be used in the system. More specifically, some 
Member  State  registers  require  a  fee  payment  before  providing  access  to  information. 
The  payment  system  for  this,  which  will  be  developed  to  also  address  similar  needs  in 
other e-Justice projects, is not yet ready.   

40     European Union, Multiannual European e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018. Official Journal of the European Union C 

182, 14.06.2014, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52014XG0614(01)&from=EN,  
accessed on 15.03.2018 

41   Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings, 

OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 19–72. 
Interview with the responsible Action Leader. 

42  
43     European Union, Multiannual European e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018. Official Journal of the European Union C 

182, 14.06.2014, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52014XG0614(01)&from=EN,  
accessed on 15.03.2018 

Page 54 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

In  response  to  the  question  on  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  of  the  Action,  43%  of 
those who replied indicated that the project is successful.   

In  terms  of  the  relevance  of  the  project/desired  scope,  12  replies  indicated  that  the 
Action  should  continue  within  its  current  scope,  1  that  the  scope  should  be  expanded, 
while  2  of  the  replies  indicated  that  some  innovative  aspects  should  be  included  in  the 
future. 

Most  Member  States  highlighted  the  importance  of  the  project  and  the  necessity  to 
include it in the next Action Plan 2019-2023, as the project will continue beyond 2018.  

The  main  challenges  are  of  technical  nature  as  indicated  by  9  responses,  followed  by 
legal  constraints  with  4  responses  and  administrative  constraints  with  3  replies.  The 
technical  constraints,  more  specifically,  are  often  related  to  (1)  ICT  problems,  the 
absence of information or the required data to be included in the Portal (2) discussion on 
the preferred communication channels and the use of technology, and (3)  payment tool 
still  to  be  developed.  The  legal  issues  are  more  related  to  the  discussions  about  data 
protection and the way the search tool would function. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.1.14.  Action no. 11: Business registers 

Ongoing 

Successful 

Expand 

Technical 

The  interconnection  of  business  registers  at  the  EU  level  is  a  system  facilitating  the 
cooperation  of  national  business  registers.  Its  aim  is  to  provide  public  access  to 
information on companies in a cross-border context.44 On 8 June 2017, this system went 
live  and  presently  interconnects  the  business  registers  of  all  the  EU  Member  States 
(some Member States have not yet joined). Through the system, anyone can search for 
information  on  companies  in  the  registers  of  all  EU  Member  States  (as  well  as  Iceland, 
Liechtenstein and Norway) via  the European  e-Justice Portal.  It also  ensures that all EU 
business registers can communicate to each other electronically in a safe and secure way 
and share information on foreign branches and cross-border mergers of companies.45 The 
system’s formal name is Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS).46 

In terms of scope, BRIS aims to create a system in which: 

  Citizens can access accurate information about companies across the EU from one 
single  access  point,  leading  to  increased  consumer  confidence  in  cross-border 
transactions;  

  Businesses  benefit  from  reduced  administrative  burden  related  to  certain  cross-

border obligations and  

44   Business registers at European level. European e-Justice Portal, https://e-

justice.europa.eu/content_business_registers_at_european_level-105--maximize-en.do, accessed on 12.03.2018. 

45     Vivian BAAS, Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS). CEF Digital website, 

https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=46992657, accessed on 12.03.2018. 

46     Business registers at European level. European e-Justice Portal. 

Page 55 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

  Public  administrations  benefit  from  increased  legal  certainty  and  faster  cross-

border procedures.47 

The BRIS system consists of: 

  A core services platform, named "European Central Platform" (ECP); 
  The business registers of all the Member States; 
  The  e-Justice  Portal  which  serves  as  the  European  Electronic  Access  Point  to 

information on companies. 

Based on the answers received to the questionnaire, and from the interviews carried out 
in the course of this project, all interviewees have  a positive opinion about  this project. 
The  system  is  functioning  very  well,  and  at  this  time  BRIS  has  25  countries  connected 
out of the intended scope of 31 countries of the EU/EEA. With regard to the technology, a 
need was highlighted for integration of the payment tool. 

Based  on  the  responses  received  to  the  question  on  the  project  status,  57%  of  the 
respondents  indicated that the project is ongoing.       

In  response  to  the  question  on  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  of  the  Action,  29% 
indicated  that  the  Action  is  very  successful  and  57%  of  respondents  say  that  it  is 
successful.  A  similar  very  positive  feedback  about  the  Action’s  effectiveness  was  also 
received during the interviews.   

In  terms  of  the  relevance  of  the  project/desired  scope,  12  responses  indicated  that  the 
Action  scope  should  be  expanded,  5  believe  that  the  Action  should  continue  within  its 
current  scope,  while  7  believe  that  some  innovative  aspects  should  be  included  in  the 
future. 

With  respect  to  innovative  aspects  and  the  expanding  scope  most  respondents  refer  to 
the  payment  tool  which  still  has  to  be  added.  There  is  also  the  notion  to  expand  the 
scope  to  commercial  partners.  In  several  interviews  an  idea  was  suggested  of 
interconnecting  the  registers  of  BRIS  with  insolvency  registers  and  land  registers  which 
should be explored in the context of the implementation of money-laundering legislation.  

The participating Member States expect that the Action would continue in the next Action 
Plan  2019-2023  until  the  final  objective  is  reached,  i.e.  the  implementation  of  the 
payment tool.  

The main challenges identified are of technical nature selected by 12 responses, followed 
by administrative challenges with 6 responses and legal ones with 4 responses. The main 
point mentioned relates to the missing payment tool. Another issue mentioned is related 
to the overall challenges in coordination of the Member States and finding a compromise 
among the Member States considering their diverse situations.  

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1.  

5.1.15.  Action no. 12: Land Registers   

Ongoing 

Successful 

Expand scope 

Administrative 

47     Connecting Europe success story: The Business Register Interconnection System (BRIS). CEF Digital website, 

https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/wiki/display/CEFDIGITAL/2017/09/19/Business+Register+Interconnection+System, 
accessed on 12.03.2018. 

Page 56 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Land  registers  help  to  facilitate  land-related  administrative  tasks  for  citizens,  legal 
professionals,  state  authorities,  private  companies  and  other  interested  parties.  The 
official  register  information  is  open  (in  a  majority  of  EU  countries)  to  banks,  creditors, 
business partners and consumers in order to enhance transparency and legal certainty in 
European Union markets.48 

The  Land  registers  at  Member  State  level  provide  a  service  consisting  of  registrations, 
examinations  and  storage  of  land  and  property  information  such  as  location  and 
ownership. The accessibility of the Land registers varies between the Member States.49 

The  scope  of  this  Action  is  to  facilitate  the  interconnection  of  Land  registers  of  those 
Member  States  who  choose  to  participate  on  a  voluntary  basis  and  enable  cross-border 
search on the e-Justice Portal. 

The  objective  is  to  start  a  pilot  project  with  a  few  Member  States,  and  to  show  the 
possibilities  of  the  Land  registers  Interconnection  to  demonstrate  how  the  data  will  be 
displayed.  

Based  on  the  answers  received  to  the  question  on  the  status,  75%  of  the  respondents 
indicated that the Action is ongoing.  

The pilot project started in March 2018 with  2 Member States participating,  Austria and 
Estonia. 2 other Member States (The Netherlands and Sweden) are interested  in joining 
as well.50  

In  response  to  the  question  on  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  of  the  Action,  19%  of 
the respondents indicated that the project is very successful and 25% marked it as being 
successful.      

In  terms  of  the  relevance  of  the  project/desired  scope,  4  responses  indicated  that  the 
Action  should  continue  within  its  current  scope,  while  7  respondents  believe  that  the 
Action scope should be expanded, and 5 that some innovative aspects should be included 
in  the  future.  Respondents  pointed  out  that  a  payment  tool  still  needs  to  be  developed 
and  connected.  As  regards  to  expanding  the  scope,  it  is  mentioned  that  the  land 
registers,  together  with  BRIS  and  insolvency  registers,  could  help  preventing  fraud  and 
money laundering.  

The  participating  Member  States  expect  that  the  Action  would  be  included  in  the  next 
Action  Plan  for  the  2019-2023  period,  with  the  continuation  of  the  pilot  project  and  the 
implementation of the system in all the Member States. 

Main  challenges  are  of  administrative  nature  as  indicated  by  10  responses,  followed  by 
legal challenges with 8 and technical ones with 7 responses.   

Based on the interviews, the political sensitivity of this project is highlighted and the fact 
that  some  Member  States  expressed  scepticism  about  it.  The  following  technical 
challenges  are  mentioned:  data  protection  aspects;  inclusion  of  a  payment  tool  for 
Member  States  that  charge  a  fee;  no  existence  of  electronic  land  registers  in  some 
countries and also  the challenge of interconnecting several existing registers as it is the 
case for some Member States. Based on this finding, the necessity of defining a common 
data  structure  for  capturing  the  existing  data  from  Member  States  is  indicated  as  a 
priority. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1.  

48   Land register. e-Justice Portal, https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_land_registers-107-en.do, accessed on 15.03.2018 
49   Land registers in Member States. E-Justice Portal, https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_land_registers_in_member_states-

109-en.do, accessed on 15.03.2018 
Interview with the Action Leader  

50  

Page 57 of 104 

 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

5.1.16.  Action no. 13: Interpreters and translators Databases 

Ongoing 

Neutral level of success 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Expand 

Legal; Administrative 

to 

system 

select  and  appoint 

Most  EU  Member  States  have  a 
court 
translators/interpreters.51 Finding a legal translator or an interpreter is currently possible 
by  accessing  national  databases  of  translators  and/or  interpreters.  However,  such 
databases  do  not  exist  in  all  Member  States.  Occasionally,  the  websites  of  Ministries  of 
Justice  or  higher  regional  courts  will  have  a  link  to  official  or  semi-official  registers  of 
qualified  translators/interpreters.  The  European  Legal  Interpreters  and  Translators 
Association  (EULITA)  worked  on  creating  a  platform  to  find  a  translator  or  interpreter 
across borders.52 One of the projects under EULITA is the LIT Search (Legal Interpreters 
and Translators). It is a project pilot for a database of legal interpreters and translators. 
Connected  Member  States  or  regions  should  update  their  LIT  database  or  create  one, 
then it will be linked with the LIT Search database at EU level.53 

The  scope  of  this  Action  is,  with  the  collaboration  of  EULITA,  to  give  the  EU  citizens  a 
platform  allowing  to  find  a  legal  translator  or  interpreter  across  borders,  for  any 
language.54  

One  of  its  main  objectives  is  to  enhance  the  presence  of  the  platform  before  the 
Competent  Authorities  and  stakeholders  in  order  to  raise  awareness  about  the  essential 
role of trained translators and interpreters in legal settings, and in particular, about the 
importance of a high-quality level of legal translation and interpretation.55 

The objectives for this project are: 

  Prepare  a  report  with  recommendations  for  Member  States  on  how  to  set  up  a 
national  or  regional  LIT  register  and  an  implementation  tool  for  the  Commission 
about  this  database  with  the  aim  to  interconnect  the  Member  States’  national 
databases with interpreters and translators so they would be accessible from one 
place, i.e. the e-Justice platform. 
Integration of the LIT search tool and database in the e-Justice Portal. 

 

Based  on  the  answers  to  the  question  on  the  status,  43%  of  the  respondents  indicated 
that  the  Action  is  ongoing,  which  has  been  also  confirmed  by  the  Action  Leader  during 
the interview. 

Having in mind that the objectives of the Action were twofold, i.e. the preparation of the 
report  and  the  integration  of  the  LIT  Search  tool  in  the  e-Justice  Portal,  this  gives  an 
explanation  for the  mixed  opinion  of  the  respondents  on  the  status  of  this  Action:  the 
report has been completed, while the LIT Search tool has not yet been implemented. This 
explains the ongoing status of the Action indicated by the Action Leader. 

In the matter of the effectiveness of the project, 33% of those who replied indicated that 
the Action is of neutral effectiveness.    

51     Find a legal translator or an interpreter. E-Justice Portal, https://e-

justice.europa.eu/content_find_a_legal_translator_or_an_interpreter-116-en.do, accessed on 16.03.2018 

52     EULITA home, http://eulita.eu/wp/, accessed on 25.01.2018 
53     LIT Search final report published. EULITA, 21.06.2017, http://eulita.eu/wp/842/, accessed on 16.03.2018 
54     EULITA home, http://eulita.eu/wp/, accessed on 25.01.2018 
55     Daniela Amodeo Perillo, President’s welcome. EULITA, April 2017,  http://eulita.eu/wp/, accessed on 16.03.2018 

Page 58 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Regarding the relevance of the project/desired scope, 2 replies indicated that the Action 
should continue within its current scope and 2 respondents believe that the Action scope 
should be expanded, while  2 and 1 response  was  received for options ‘other’ and ‘don't 
know’, respectively.  

The  participating  Member  States  expect  that  the  Action  will  continue  in  the  next  Action 
Plan 2019-2023. Since no solution has yet been implemented, it is suggested to proceed 
with the integration of the LIT search tool and the database in the e-Justice Portal.     

The  challenges  indicated  are  equally  legal  and  administrative  with  2  responses  each 
selecting both options. 3 responses stated that there are no issues or challenges related 
to this project.   

5.1.17.  Action no. 14: Help for the translation of judicial acts   

Ongoing 

Neutral    

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Administrative constraints  

The Action was launched by the French Ministry of Justice and was called Babellex. This 
project was also co-financed by Commission Action Grants. Babellex is envisaged to be a 
space that allows the court, legal professionals and individuals to have direct access to a 
list  of  legal  translators  and  interpreters.  It  also  facilitates  the  sharing  of  certain 
translations already done.56 

The scope of the project is to create an online space where legal translators can be asked 
for help in any legal proceedings requiring translation or interpretation services.57 

The objective of this project includes the establishment of a database of translators, able 
to  provide  translations  of  judicial  acts.  This  database  would  be  accessible  through  a 
search engine on the e-Justice Portal. 

Based on the answers to the question on the status, 75 % of respondents indicated that 
they  did  not  know  the  status  of  the  Action.  However,  based  on  the  interview  with  the 
Action Leader, it is stated that the project is ongoing and is currently in test phase in one 
Member State. Thus, the current status of the project is indicated as ongoing.  

In  response  to  the  question  on  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  of  the  Action,  33%  of 
those that replied to this question indicated that the Action is of neutral effectiveness.   

In  terms  of  the  relevance  of  the  project/desired  scope,  1  respondent  indicated  that  the 
scope of the Action should continue within its current scope, 1 indicated ‘other’,  while 2 
replies selected the option ‘don’t know’.  

The  question  on  the  challenges  was  answered  by  very  few  respondents,  where  1  reply 
indicated administrative challenges and 2 respondents selected the option ‘don’t know’.  

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1.    

56     Babellex, l’accès aux langues pour le droit dans l'UE. Ministère de la Justice de France, 06.06.2016, 

http://www.justice.gouv.fr/europe-et-international-10045/babellex-lacces-aux-langues-pour-le-droit-dans-lue-
28953.html, accessed on 16.03.2018 

57     Mid-term review of the Multiannual European e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018, Council of the European Union, 

9806/16, 2 June 2016, http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9806-2016-INIT/en/pdf 

Page 59 of 104 

 
 
   
     
   
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

5.1.18.  Action Fiche no. 15: Registers of judicial experts 

Not Started 

Not applicable as the project 
did not start 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Judicial experts are appointed by judges to contribute to the quality of  judgments. They 
can  provide  an  answer  to  those  questions  that  require  specialized  knowledge  of  and 
experience  with  a  subject,  of  which  the  judge  does  not  possess  such  knowledge  or 
experience.  A  third  party,  the  expert,  will  thus conduct  a  part  of  the  assessment  of  the 
facts.58  Some  lists  of  judicial  experts  already  exist  connected  to  countries,  regions  or 
courts themselves. The activities of legal experts are regulated in legal standards in some 
countries, but not all (20 out of 28)59.  

The  aim  of  this  Action  was  to  create  a  common  register  for  judicial  experts.  This  would 
allow  the  creation  of  an  interactive  search  tool  on  the  e-Justice  Portal.  The  European 
Expertise and Expert Institute submitted in 2015 a proposal for EUDEX, which concerned 
the  creation  of  a  central  directory  for  judicial  experts.  However,  the  project  did  not 
receive funding and it therefore did not start.  

5.1.19.  Action Fiche no. 16: Find a Judicial Expert 

Ongoing 

Neutral 

Continue ‘as-is’ -same scope 

Legal; Administrative 

The European Expertise and Expert  Institute (EEEI)  started the "Find an expert" project 
co-financed  by  the  European  Commission.  EEEI  is  working  on  creation  of  a  set  of 
factsheets  to  be  published  on  the  e-Justice  Portal,  which  would  provide  a  link  to  all 
existing  registers/databases  of  the  Member  States  with  complementary  information 
about  how  the  databases  are  structured  as  well  as  an  information  sheet  about  the 
system of expert evidence and the selection of experts in that Member State. Having this 
option  would  allow  users  to  find  the  experts  EU-wide  in  particular  domains,  in  order  to 
employ them in their judicial proceedings. The  project is at an early stage and the final 
results are expected in 2019.  

Based on the responses to the question on the status, 57% of the respondents indicated 
that the Action is ongoing.  

Regarding the level of success of the Action, 40% of respondents selected that the Action 
is of neutral effectiveness.    

Concerning  the  desired  scope  of  the  Action,  3  replies  indicated  that  the  Action  should 
continue within its current scope, 1 selected the option ‘don’t know’ and 1 answered with 
‘other’. Interviewees believe that the project should continue within its current scope.  

58     Flip van Spaendonck, Nico Keijser, Trema, Quality assurance of expert’s reports in civil law, 21.07.2014, 

http://gb.experts-institute.eu/IMG/pdf/2014_07_21_quality_assurance_of_expert_s_reports_in_civil_law.pdf, accessed 
on 16.03.2018 

59     Civil-law expert reports in the EU: national rules and practices. DG for Internal Policies, Policy Department C: Citizens’ 

rights and constitutional affairs, , 2015, p.15, 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2015/519211/IPOL_IDA(2015)519211_EN.pdf, accessed on 
16.03.2018 

Page 60 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

The constraints identified for this Action are administrative and technical each selected by 
1  respondent.  More  specifically  administrative/organizational  issues  are  related  to  tasks 
of 7 working groups, where one group is dealing with  4 Member States. In some cases, 
the  instructions  were  not  clear,  so  for  some  Member  States  no  responses  to  the 
questionnaire were received, but this is improved.  

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.1.20.  Action no. 17: Interconnection of registers of wills 

Completed 

Successful 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Legal constraints 

Legislation  on  succession  differs  among  the  Member  States.  The  European  e-Justice 
Portal  has  an  information  page  about  succession  with  links  to  legislations  of  every 
Member  State.60  Some  Member  States  have  an  online  register  of  wills.  In  national 
registers citizens can officially register their will online, or others can consult the register 
whether  a  deceased  person  had  a  will  registered  there.  The  interconnection  of  registers 
of wills aims to simplify searches and transfers of information regarding wills. 

All  the  information  about  how  to  use  these  registers  is  assembled  by  the  European 
Network of the Registers of Wills Association (ENRWA)  or ARERT and presented on their 
webpage. 

The objectives of this project were twofold: first, to analyse possible options of expanding 
the  electronic  exchange  of  succession-related  information  between  the  EU  Member 
States,  and  second,  to  create  XML  schemas  for  an  electronic  European  certificate  of 
succession. 

Regarding the status, according to 75% of the respondents, the Action is completed.   

In  response  to  the  question  on  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  of  the  Action,  8%  of 
respondents indicated it very successful and 38% that it is successful.   

While the initial thinking was to base the initiative on the Estonian model, in the course 
of the project the expert group abandoned this idea resulting in an unfinished study and 
recommendation paper.  

In  terms  of  the  relevance  of  the  project/desired  scope,  2  responses  indicated  that 
innovative aspects should be included, 2 indicated that the scope of the project should be 
expanded,  8  replies  indicated  that  the  scope  of  the  Action  should  continue  within  its 
current scope and 2 response was ‘other’. 

In  continuation  of  the  current  scope,  most  stakeholders  indicated  that  work  should 
continue towards an actual implementation of an interconnection system. This could be a 
tool designed by the Commission or by a new expert group. Another option mentioned is 
that the project could be completely handed over to ARERT as they currently have their 
system in place with 15 registers already connected.     

A  third  suggested  option  is  that  the  registers  currently  maintained  by  ARERT  would  be 
interlinked  via  the  e-Justice  Portal.  There  were  discussions  on  the  different  possibilities 

60   General Information on Succession, e-Justice Portal, https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_succession-166-en.do, accessed 

on 19.03.2018. 

Page 61 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

related to this Action. However, at the time of writing this report, there were no further 
concrete activities undertaken. 

The  participating  MS  expect  that  the  Action  will  continue  in  the  next  Action  Plan  2019-
2023, with the implementation of an actual interconnection. 

The  main  challenges  are  legal,  indicated  by  6  replies  received,  while  technical  and 
administrative constraints are each selected by 3 respondents. For a detailed description 
of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.1.21.  Action no. 18: Electronic European Certificate of Succession 

Ongoing 

Neutral level of success 

Continue 
scope 

‘as-is’ 

- 

same 

Administrative; Legal 

The  European  Certificate  of  Succession  (ECS)  is  a  document  issued  by  the  authority 
dealing  with  the  succession  for  use  by  heirs,  legatees,  executors  of  wills  and 
administrators  of  the  estate  to  prove  their  status  and  exercise  their  rights  or  powers  in 
other  Member  States,  without  any  special  procedure  being  required.61  A  European 
succession certificate is automatically recognised in all EU countries. The original plan of 
the  EU  for  creating  this  certificate  of  Succession  dates  to  the  year  201262  with 
implementation in 201463. 

The  scope  of  this  project  pertains  to  succession  certificates  with  the  aim  to  simplify  the 
settlement of estates within the EU. A certificate of inheritance or a European Certificate 
of  Succession  is  generally  required  to  prove  the  status  of  an  heir  or  a  legatee  in  an 
inheritance.64 

The  objective  of  this  Action  is  to  conduct  a  study  investigating  the  possibility  of 
establishing and interconnecting national ECS registers.  

Based on the 33% of the responses received to the question on the status, the Action is 
ongoing. This status was also confirmed during the interviews.   

In  response  to  the  question  on  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  of  the  Action,  50%  of 
those who replied to this question selected that the Action is of neutral effectiveness.    

In  terms  of  the  relevance  of  the  project/desired  scope,  3  responses  indicated  that 
innovative aspects should be included, 2 indicated that the scope should be expanded, 4 
responses indicated that the Action should continue within its current scope, 1 considered 
that the project should be closed, and 1 respondent selected the option ‘don’t know’. As 
an enlargement of the scope it is suggested that a follow-up study is carried out in order 

61  National  information  and  online  forms  concerning  Regulation  No.  650/2012  on  succession,  e-Justice  Portal,  https://e-

justice.europa.eu/content_succession-380-en.do, accessed on 19.03.2018 

62   REGULATION (EU) No 650/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on  jurisdiction, 
applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in 
matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession European Commission, 4 July 2012, 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32012R0650&from=EN, accessed on 19.03.2018 

63   COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1329/2014 establishing the Forms referred to in Regulation 
(EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and 
enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the 
creation of a European Certificate of Succession, European Commission, 9 December 2014,  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32014R1329&from=EN, accessed on 19.03.2018 

64   General information on succession – Germany, e-Justice Portal, https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_succession-166-de-

en.do, accessed on 19.03.2018 

Page 62 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

to bring more clarification from the interested Member States. Furthermore, as a part of 
the overall promotional campaign of the e-Justice Portal, the use of the forms should also 
be promoted.  

The  participating  Member  States  expect  that  the  Action  will  continue  with  a  second 
phase, i.e. implementation of the electronic certificate in the next Action Plan 2019-2023. 

The challenges identified are administrative and legal.  Respondents also expressed their 
concerns about the trust in these certificates. Other issues mentioned include issues with 
banks not recognizing the certificates in which case citizens were forced to go via a court. 
For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.1.22.  Action no. 19: Register of representation rights and powers of legal 

representatives 

Not started 

Not applicable as the project did 
not start 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

In  daily  activities  there  is  a  need  to  prove  the  power  of  attorney  or  guardianship.  This 
highlights the problem which is related to the control of the right of representation.  

Information  about  the  representatives  of  legal  entities  can  be  found  in  the  business 
register, but powers granted by natural persons or custody information cannot usually be 
verified  without  the  submission  of  a  corresponding  document  and  the  verification  of  its 
validity.   

Based on the response from the questionnaire the project has never started.   

5.1.23.  Action Fiche no. 20: Find a Judicial Officer 

Ongoing 

Successful 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Technical; Legal 

Within  the  different  legal  and  judicial  systems  of  the  Member  States  of  the  European 
Union (EU), there is a wide range of legal professions such as lawyers, notaries, judges, 
prosecutors  and  bailiffs/judicial  officers.  Members  of  legal  professions  do  not  hold  the 
same  titles  in  all  Member  States,  and  their  role  and  status  can  vary  considerably  from 
one  Member  State  to  another.65  Apart  from  lawyers,  European  Union  law  does  not 
regulate the conditions for exercising as a legal professional. The bailiffs/judicial officers' 
profession is regulated by the law of the individual Member State and these regulations 
differ  from  one  Member  State  to  another.  Depending  on  the  Member  State, 
bailiffs/judicial officers  can be public authorities (court staff)  or independent authorities. 
Moreover,  while  the  bailiffs/judicial  officers  are  competent  authorities  for  enforcement, 
only some of them are also responsible for the service of documents. 

Members of this profession are represented at European level by the European Chamber 
of  Bailiffs/Judicial  Officers  (CEHJ)  and  also  at  international  level  as  part  of  the 

65    Legal professions. E-Justice Portal: https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_professions-29-en.do, accessed on 

20.03.2018 

Page 63 of 104 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

International Union of Judicial Officers (UIHJ66 ).67 The CEHJ has developed a search tool 
for bailiffs, thanks to EU co-funding, named “Find a Bailiff”. 

The aim of this Action is to develop and integrate the “Find a Bailiff” search tool on the e-
Justice Portal, which would help users to find a bailiff in the EU Member States.  

The project aims to create a search engine on the e-Justice Portal, which will help users 
to find bailiffs similarly to already existing "Find a lawyer" and "Find a notary" tools. 

Tools for finding legal professionals in EU countries currently do not contain the option for 
finding  a  bailiff.    In  the  Justice  Programme  Work  Programme  for  2018  "Find  a  Bailiff 
(FAB)"  is  set  as  one  of  the  main  priorities  in  the  framework  of  enhancing  existing  or 
ongoing e-Justice portal projects.68 

Based on the responses to the question on the status, 50% of respondents indicated that 
the Action is ongoing.  

Regarding  the  level  of  success  33%  of  respondents  answered  that  the  Action  is 
successful.  

Concerning  the  desired  scope  of  the  Action,  1  respondent  indicated  that  the  innovative 
aspects  should  be  included,  1  that  the  scope  should  be  expanded,  2  that  the  action 
should continue within its current scope, while 1 selected the option ‘don’t know’.   

The  constraints  faced  for  this  Action  are  legal  and  technical  with  1  response  for  each 
option,  while  2  respondents  chose  the  option  ‘other’.  More  specifically,  the  legal 
constraints  refer  to  the  fact  that  Member  States  regulate  differently  the  institution  of 
judicial  officers/bailiff.  As  a  result,  it  is  very  challenging  to  map  the  competences  and 
scope of the work of bailiffs.  

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.1.24.  Action Fiche no. 21: European Case Law Identifier – ECLI 

Ongoing 

Successful 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Administrative 

The  European  Case  Law  Identifier  (ECLI)  is  a  standard  developed  with  the  aim  to 
facilitate access to relevant case and solve technical interoperability barriers. Easy access 
to  judicial  decisions  of  other  Member  States  is  of  growing  importance  in  reinforcing  the 
role of the national judge in applying and upholding EU law. Searching for, and citation of 
judgments  from  other  Member  States  is  seriously  hampered  by  differences  in  national 
case  law  identification  systems,  citation  rules  and  technical  fields  describing  the 
characteristics of a judgment. 

66   International Union of Judicial Officers (UIHJ): https://www.uihj.com/en/ 
67    Legal professions. E-Justice Portal: https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_professions-29-en.do, accessed on 

20.03.2018 

68   Commission Implementing Decision of 19.12.2017 concerning the adoption of the work programme for 2018 and the 

financing for the implementation of the Justice Programme, 19.12.2017  C(2017) 8520: 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/other_eu_prog/justice/wp/justice-awp-2018_en.pdf  

Page 64 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

The main goal of the European Case Law Identifier (ECLI) is to facilitate the correct and 
unequivocal  citation  of  judgments  from  European  and  national  courts.  A  set  of  uniform 
metadata will help to improve search facilities for case law.69 

In the past numerous pan-European case law databases were established, but due to the 
different  identifiers  and  the  non-standardised  metadata  such  solutions  faced  many 
technical and accessibility constraints.70 With the advent  of the  ECLI  standard, one can, 
for example, search via the ECLI Search Engine on the e-Justice Portal - using a uniform 
identifier  or  specific  metadata  which  will  suffice  to  find  all  occurrences  of  the  ruling  in 
provided by all participating data providers.   

Currently, ECLI is an ongoing project with visible results. Further implementation of the 
ECLI in case law repositories and interconnection with the e-Justice Portal is set as one of 
the priorities for 2018.71  

Seventeen  Member  States  have  already  adopted  ECLI.  Some  of  them  completed  the 
implementation,  while  in  others  this  process  is  underway  or  has  not  yet  started.  Every 
Member  State  using  ECLI  must  appoint  a  governmental  or  judicial  organization  as  the 
national ECLI coordinator.72  

According  to  59%  of  the  respondents  to  the  question  on  the  status,  the  Action  is 
ongoing.   

Regarding  the  level  of  success  of  the  Action,  47%  of  those  who  replied  to  this  question 
marked the Action as successful.  

Concerning the desired  scope  of the  Action, 8  replies stated that the innovative aspects 
should  be  included,  4  that  the  scope  should  be  expanded,  9  that  the  action  should 
continue within its current scope, while 2 of them selected the option ‘don’t know’ and 1 
the  option  ‘other’.  Similar  feedback  with  regard  to  the  action’s  effectiveness  was  also 
received during the interviews. 

The  constraints  identified  are  primarily  administrative  and  technical:  4  respondents 
indicated  legal  constraints  in  project  implementation,  6  selected  technical  and  8 
administrative  constraints.  Administrative  constraints  referred  to  the  lack  of  human 
resources in an organisation to support the implementation of the ECLI standard. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.1.25.  Action Fiche no. 22: European Legislation Identifier – ELI 

Ongoing 

Successful 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Administrative; Technical 

The European Legislation Identifier (ELI) is a system to make legislation available online 
in  a  standardised  format,  so  that  it  can  be  accessed,  exchanged  and  reused  across 
borders.  First common standards on ELI were included in the first Council Conclusions on 

69   European Case Law Identifier (ECLI). E-Justice Portal:  https://e-

justice.europa.eu/content_european_case_law_identifier_ecli-175-en.do 

70     Idem 
71   Commission Implementing Decision of 19.12.2017 concerning the adoption of the work  programme for 2018 and the 
financing  for  the  implementation  of  the  Justice  Programme,  European  Commission,    C(2017)  8520,  19.12.2017, 
(http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/other_eu_prog/justice/wp/justice-awp-2018_en.pdf 

72   European Case Law Identifier. E-Justice Portal: https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_european_case_law_identifier_ecli-

175-en.do, accessed on : 20.03.2018 

Page 65 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

ELI, adopted in 2012. An updated version has been adopted in late 2017. ELI is funded 
under  Action  "Facilitating  the  exchange  of  legislation  data  in  Europe",  which  falls  under 
the  Interoperability  Solutions  for  European  Public  Administrations  (ISA²)  Programme.  
Implementation of ELI is part of a wider effort led by the Publications Office in the area of 
standardisation  of  metadata  and  development  of  common  vocabularies.  The  overall 
objective is to ensure that various information systems, both on the EU level and beyond, 
use the same ‘language’ to exchange information.   

So far, 12 national legislation publishers  have adopted ELI. However, this is an evolving 
figure, as more foresee to implement it in the future.  The aim is to have all EU Member 
States on board. 

ELI  comes  as  a  response  to  the  problem  of  not  being  able  to  refer  in  a  unique  and 
commonly  acceptable  way  to  EU  and  national  legislation,  thus  hindering  the  exchange 
and  sharing  thereof.  ELI  proposes  a  unique  identifier  (HTTP  URI),  which  should  be 
recognisable, readable and understandable by both humans and computers. In addition, 
ELI  proposes  a  set  of  metadata  elements  to  describe  legislation  in  compliance  with  a 
recommended  ontology.  ELI  aims  to  take  into  account  not  only  the  complexity  and 
specificity  of  regional,  national  and  European  legislative  systems,  but  also  changes  in 
legal  resources  (e.g.  consolidations,  repealed  acts,  codes  etc.).  ELI  has  been  carefully 
constructed to respect the legal and constitutional differences between Member States.73 

According to 89% of those who replied to the question on status, this Action is ongoing.   

Regarding the effectiveness of the Action, 13% of respondents indicated that the Action 
is very successful and 50% that it is successful.   

Concerning  the  desired  scope  of  the  Action,  3  replies  indicated  that  the  innovative 
aspects  should  be  included  in  the  future,  2  that  the  scope  of  the  Action  should  be 
expanded,  5  that  the  Action  should  continue  within  its  current  scope,  1  that  the  Action 
should be closed and also 1 respondent selected the option ‘don’t know’. 

The main challenges indicated are of technical and administrative nature as selected by 4 
respondents, while 4 answered with ‘other’, and 1 ‘don’t know’. One  of the  respondents 
elaborated  that  the  complexity  in  implementation  derives  from  the  fact  that  it  is 
necessary to involve a number of diverse stakeholders. The project can only progress if it 
is  supported  and  adopted  by  other  governmental  legislation  publishers.  This  requires 
significant work in terms of coordination and efforts synchronisation. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.1.26.  Action Fiche no. 23: Semantic interoperability 

Ongoing 

Successful 

Expand 

Technical 

Given the complexity of each national system's legal terms, and the disparities between 
them, the need has been identified for a project to draw up glossaries on Member States' 
legislation. Producing a glossary on national legislation is an even greater challenge than 
doing  so  at  European  level.  This  is  because,  firstly,  the  relevant  knowledge  is  spread 
across  a  number  of  centres,  making  the  groundwork  of  collecting  legal  vocabularies  a 
prerequisite.  Secondly,  as  each  system  stands  in  its  own  right,  in  a  multilingual 
environment,  similar  terms  from  two  Member  States  may  have  different  meanings,  or 

73   ISA2 Work programme 2018. European Commission, 20.03.2018, pp 407-410 

Page 66 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

different  terms  may  have  a  similar,  or  related,  meaning.  It  is,  therefore,  necessary  to 
assemble a tree structure of the relevant connections.74 

The  aim  of  this  Action  is  to  achieve  semantic  interoperability  through  the  creation  of 
linguistic  equivalencies  in  metadata  and  the  creation  of  lists  of  terms  with  their 
equivalents in all official languages of the EU. 

Legivoc  is  a  project  initiated  by  the  French  delegation  which  has  delivered  an  initial 
outline  of  a  glossary  compiled  from  some  national  glossaries.75  The  aim  of  the  Legivoc 
terminology  database  is  to  facilitate  the  Member  States'  understanding  of  European 
Union (EU) laws and provide an interoperable terminology system. Such a system could 
be  used  in  particular  within  the  framework  of  legal  computer-based  projects  regarding 
access  to  EU  Member  States'  laws  and  the  promotion  of  exchanges  of  legal information 
between European networks for legal or judicial cooperation. 

EuroVoc is a multilingual, multidisciplinary thesaurus covering the activities of the EU. It 
contains terms in 23 EU official languages, plus in the languages of three countries which 
are  candidates  for  EU  accession.  EuroVoc  is  managed  by  the Publications  Office,  which 
moved 
thesaurus  management  and  semantic  web 
technologies  conformant  to  W3C  recommendations,  as  well  as  the  latest  trends  in 
thesaurus standards.76 

to  ontology-based 

forward 

The sustainability of these projects is assured by the Publications Office, which develops 
them in cooperation with both national and EU institutions. 

According to 80% of the responses received to the question on the status, this Action is 
ongoing.   

Regarding  the  level  of  success  of  the  Action,  67%  of  respondents  indicated  the  Action 
successful.  

Concerning the desired scope of the Action, 1 respondent stated that innovative aspects 
should be included, 4 replies indicated that the scope of the Action  should be expanded, 
while 1 response indicated that the Action should continue within its current scope.  

The  challenges  identified  are  of  technical  nature  as  selected  by  3  responses. 
Administrative and legal constraints are each selected by 2 respondents. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1.   

5.2. 

B: Access to courts and extrajudicial procedures in cross-border 
situations 

5.2.1.  Action Fiche no. 24a: Court database - unique identification of entities within the 

judicial domain 

Completed 

Successful 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Technical 

74     Notices  from  European  Union  Institutions,  Bodies,  Offices  and  Agencies,  Report  on  access  to  law  (2015/C  97/03), 

Official Journal of the European Union, 24.03.2015 

75   http://legivoc.org/   
76   About EuroVoc. EuroVoc website: http://eurovoc.europa.eu/drupal/?q=abouteurovoc, accessed on 20.03.2018 

Page 67 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

The Court Database provides the means  for citizens and practitioners to find competent 
courts for various legal instruments.  

The objective of this Action was the creation of unique identification of entities within the 
judicial domain in all Member States (this is one of the projects where all Member States 
participate). Currently, 15 instruments are covered. 

The  additional  objective  of  the  Action  is  to  establish  an  automatic  update  mechanism 
between the national court database(s) and the  European Court Database thus avoiding 
manual intervention by the Member States. Update of information currently differs from 
state  to  state.  Some  Member  States  have  an  automatic  update  mechanism  established, 
but  not  all  use  the  same  application,  so  some  Member  States  still  rely  on  manual 
updates.  Therefore,  information  on  the  e-Justice  Portal  is  not  always  up  to  date. 
Automatic  update  support  was  developed  under  the  e-CODEX  project,  and  all  Member 
States are welcome to implement it according to their interest and capacities. The Court 
Database has been available to users of the Portal since November 2015.  

According to the 47% of the respondents, this Action is completed, while 53% considered 
that the Action is ongoing. The Action Leader confirmed the completeness of the Action.   

In  response  to  the  question  on  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  of  the  Action,  6% 
assessed  it  as  very  successful  and  56%  indicated  that  the  Action  is  successful.  Similar 
feedback  with  regard  to  the  action’s  effectiveness  has  been  received  also  from  the 
interviews. 

In  terms  of  the  relevance  of  the  project/desired  scope,  6  respondents  indicated  that 
innovative aspects  should be included, 7 that the scope  should be expanded and 8 that 
the  Action  should  continue  within  its  current  scope.  One  respondent  stated  that  the 
action should be closed.  

Main  constraints  are  of  technical  nature  as  indicated  by  10  respondents,  followed  by 
administrative challenges with 8 responses and legal ones with 2 replies. The remaining 2 
respondents selected the option ‘other’ and the option ‘don’t know’.  

More precisely, technical constraints referred to different legal systems in Member States 
highlighting  a  need  for  additional  efforts  to  increase  the  interoperability  between  the 
systems. Synchronization of the system is needed. Administrative issues are reflected in 
the fact that the Action depends on different departments of Member States' authorities 
which  creates  a  strong  coordination  challenge.  Legal  obstacles  originate  from  diverse 
legal systems in the Member States, which also introduces a challenge. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.2.2.  Action Fiche no. 24b: Court database - improving the content and functioning of 

the court database (extension of the scope by coverage of European and national 
instruments) 

Ongoing 

Successful 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Administrative 

The main objective  of  this Action is to improve the content and functioning of the court 
database  (extension  of  the  scope  by  increased  coverage  for  European  and  national 
instruments).  The  project  also  aims  to  enhance  the  automatic  update  mechanism 
established  with  Action  24a  between  the  national  court  database(s)  and  the  Court 
Database  at  the  e-Justice  Portal,  thus  avoiding  manual  interventions  by  the  Member 
States. 

Page 68 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

As of the  end of 2017,  fifteen instruments are  concerned with two more to be added in 
2018.  The  dedicated  section  on  the  Portal  is  expected  to  expand  further,  with  other 
instruments  and  Member  States  joining  in  providing  information.  The  main  issue  is  the 
need  to  broaden  the  scope  of  the  database.  There  is  a  need  for  coordination  between 
Member States and the Commission, in order to transmit the relevant information.  

The Portal is the first client using the Court Database data, but in the future the system 
can be used in other contexts.  

The obligation for Member States to provide the data on their competent courts (contact 
details  and  their  competence  for  different  European  cross-border  instruments)  originate 
from different EU legal bases. 

Based  on  the  responses  regarding  the  project  status,  68%  indicated  that  the  Action  is 
ongoing. 

In  response  to  the  question  on  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  of  the  Action,  47% 
indicated that the Action is successful.  

In terms of the relevance of the project/desired scope, 5 respondents indicated that the 
innovative aspects should be included, 7 that the scope should be expanded and 9 noted 
that  the  action  should  continue  within  the  current  scope.  One  stakeholder  selected  the 
option ‘other’. 

The  results  of  the  survey  show  that  4  respondents  indicated  legal,  9  technical  and  11 
administrative constrains faced during the implementation of this Action. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.2.3.  Action Fiche no. 24c: Court database - service interfaces which allow automatic 

searching of the court database by national and European e-Justice applications   

Completed 

Successful 

Expand the scope 

Administrative; Technical 

The  objective  of  this  Action  is  the  creation  of  programmatic  (service)  interfaces  which 
allow  automatic  searching  in  the  Court  Database  by  national  and  European  e-Justice 
software applications. 

This has been achieved in 2017 – since then the European Court Database allows citizens 
and  companies  to  search  manually  and  also  carry  out  automatic  searches  by 
programmatic means.  

According  to  the  50%  of  responses  received,  this  Action  is  completed.  During  the 
interview,  the  Action  Leader  explained  that  the  programmatic  interface  which  allows 
automatic  searching  of  the  court  database  by  national  and  European  e-Justice 
applications is established, which completes the Action.   

In  response  to  the  question  on  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  of  the  Action,  67% 
indicated  that  the  Action  is  successful.  Similar  feedback  with  regard  to  the  Action’s 
effectiveness,  meaning  that  the  Action  is  successful,  was  also  received  during  the 
interviews.   

In terms  of the  relevance  of the project/desired scope,  results show that 3 respondents 
indicated  that  the  innovative  aspects  should  be  included,  4  that  the  scope  should  be 
extended, 3 that the Action should continue within the current scope and 1 that it should 
be closed. 2 respondents selected the answer ‘other’.  

Page 69 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

The main challenges indicated are of technical and administrative nature as indicated by 
4  respondents.  1  response  indicated  legal  constraints,  while  2  respondents  selected  the 
option ‘don’t know’. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.2.4.  Action no. 25: Dynamic forms (EPO, Small Claims and Taking of evidence)   

Completed 

Successful 

Innovate 

Technical constraints 

Some  EU  legal  instruments  provide  standard  forms  that  can/should  be  used  by  citizens 
and  legal  practitioners  within  specific  civil  and  commercial  proceedings.  These  standard 
forms  are  available  on  the  e-Justice  Portal,  where  users  can  directly  fill  them  in 
electronically, or download them as PDF (Portable Document Format). These forms hence 
represent a practical tool for judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters.77  

There  are  67  dynamic  forms  available  on  the  e-Justice  Portal.  However,  only  a  few  of 
them (5-6 forms) are actually destined for use by citizens, while the rest are intended for 
use by legal practitioners and the courts' staff.  

The Commission is in charge of maintaining the forms. Member States are involved in the 
substance of the forms when negotiating the relevant legal instruments. 

The objective of this project is to make the following dynamic forms available online via 
the e-Justice Portal: 

  European Payment Order (EPO)78; 
  Small Claims79; 
  Taking of Evidence80; 
  Compensation to crime victims forms81; 
  European enforcement order forms82; 
 
  Legal aid forms84; 
  Matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility forms85; 
  Maintenance obligations forms86; 

Judgments in civil and commercial matters forms83; 

 77   Dynamic forms. European e-Justice portal, https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_small_claims_forms-177-en.do, accessed 

on 26.03.2018. 

78     European Payment Order forms. European e-Justice portal, https://e-

justice.europa.eu/content_european_payment_order_forms-156-en.do, accessed on 23.04.2018. 

79     Small Claims, European e-Justice portal, https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_small_claims_forms-177-en.do, accessed 

on 23.04.2018. 

80   Taking of Evidence forms. European e-Justice portal, https://ejustice.europa.eu/content_taking_of_evidence_forms-160-

en.do, accessed on 26.03.2018. 

81     Compensation to crime victims’ forms. European e-Justice portal, https://e-

justice.europa.eu/content_compensation_to_crime_victims_forms-272-en.do, accessed on 26.03.2018. 

82     European enforcement order forms. European e-Justice portal, https://e-

justice.europa.eu/content_european_enforcement_order_forms-270-en.do, accessed on 26.03.2018. 

83     Judgement in civil and commercial matters forms. European e-Justice portal, https://e-

justice.europa.eu/content_european_enforcement_order_forms-270-en.do, accessed on 26.03.2018. 

84     Legal aid forms. European e-Justice Portal, https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_aid_forms-157-en.do, accessed on 

26.03.2018. 

85     Matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility forms. European e-Justice Portal, https://e-

justice.europa.eu/content_matrimonial_matters_and_matters_of_parental_responsibility_forms-271-en.do, accessed on 
26.03.2018. 

Page 70 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

  Serving documents forms87; 
  European Account Preservation Order forms88; 
  Mutual recognition of protection measures forms89. 

The dynamic forms should be user-friendly and easy to fill in. They should be available in 
all EU official languages, in both their online and PDF version. 

All  of  the  dynamic  forms  mentioned  above  are  available  in  the  official  languages  of  the 
EU on the e-Justice Portal. They can be filled in and sent online to the competent court or 
downloaded as a PDF file, filled in offline and sent by e-mail.  

The  goal  of  the  project  has  been  attained.  The  Commission  monitors  on  a  regular  basis 
the use of dynamic forms (i.e. how many of them are generated or downloaded). 

According to 83% of respondents to the question on the status, the Action is ongoing. In 
contrast to this result, the Action Leader stated that the Action is completed.   

Regarding  the  effectiveness/level  of  success,  58%  of  the  respondents  to  this  question 
indicated  that  the  implementation  of  the  Action  was  successful.  Some  respondents 
pointed  out  some  aspects  to  be  improved,  such  as  the  readability  of  the  forms  or  the 
need to have a search for the competent authorities in the form itself. 

Concerning  the  scope  of  the  project,  6  respondents  indicated  that  innovative  aspects 
should be included, 5 mentioned that the Action should continue within its current scope, 
and 5 that the scope should be expanded. Only 1 stakeholder selected the option ‘other’. 

Based  on  the  information  collected  during  the  interviews,  there  is  now  room  for  the 
Action's scope to be widened so as to make available a larger number of forms on the e-
Justice Portal.  

As  far  as  the  challenges  are  concerned,  5  responses  indicated  technical  constraints,  4 
mentioned  administrative  obstacles,  and  2  indicated  legal  constraints.  2  stakeholders 
selected the option ‘don’t know’. 

5.2.5.  Action no. 26: ODR (Online-dispute resolution) 

Completed 

Neutral 

Continue ‘as-is’ -same scope 

Technical 

The  Online  Dispute  Resolution  (ODR)  platform,  established  by  EU  Regulation  No. 
524/2013 (ODR Regulation), has the aim to create “a single point of entry for consumers 
and traders seeking the out-of-court resolution of disputes”.90 It was launched in January 
2016, and made available to the public on 15 February 2016. 

86     Maintenance obligation forms. European e-Justice portal, https://e-

justice.europa.eu/content_maintenance_obligations_forms-274-en.do, accessed on 26.03.2018. 

87     Serving documents forms. European e-Justice portal, https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_serving_documents_forms-

269-en.do, accessed on 26.03.2018. 

88     European Account Preservation Order forms. European e-Justice portal, https://e-

justice.europa.eu/content_european_account_preservation_order_forms-378-en.do, accessed on 26.03.2018. 

89     Mutual recognition of protection measures forms. European e-Justice portal,   https://e-

justice.europa.eu/content_mutual_recognition_of_protection_measures_forms-556-en.do, accessed on 26.03.2018. 
90     Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online 
dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC 
(Regulation on consumer ODR), OJ L 165, 18.6.2013, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013R0524 

Page 71 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Through  the  ODR  platform,  consumers  that  experience  problems  with  their  online 
purchases  can  now  make  a  complaint  and  have  it  solved  by  an  independent  dispute 
resolution authority, avoiding having to go to court.91 The platform is available in all EU 
official languages, as well as Icelandic and Norwegian. Consumers living in an EU Member 
State, Iceland, Norway or Lichtenstein can use it during their disputes with traders based 
in  those  same  countries.  The  ODR  platform  contributes  to  the  functioning  of  the  EU 
Digital Single Market and helps achieve a high level of consumer protection by providing 
a  fast,  effective,  impartial  and  extrajudicial  approach  to  the  resolution  of  disputes 
between consumers and traders.92 

After submitting their complaint through the platform, consumers have to agree with the 
trader  on  an  impartial  body  to  solve  the  dispute.  The  platform  then  notifies  the  entity 
chosen about the complaint. Once the complaint is resolved, the outcome is transmitted 
to the parties through the platform.93 

The  goal  of  this  Action  was  to  develop  an  ODR  platform  that  is  user-friendly  and  that 
ensures the privacy protection of its users. 

The  European  Commission  was  assisted  by  an  Expert  Group  to  prepare  and  test  the 
prototypes of the platform. In total, four testing exercises were completed: three on-site 
and  one  remote  with  60-80  participants.  Based  on  the  feedback  received  during  these 
exercises, the Commission adjusted the platform, which was set up in January 2016. 

As the national Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) entities need to be connected to the 
platform  in  order  to  receive  the  complaints,  Member  States  were  required  to  establish 
national  lists  of  certified  ADR  entities  and  notify  those  lists  to  the  Commission.  The 
platform was launched in 2016.   

According  to  40%  of  responses  received  to  the  question  on  the  status,  the  Action  is 
ongoing. However, contrary to this result, the Action Leader indicated that the Action is 
completed.   

Regarding the effectiveness/level of success, based on 33% of the responses received to 
this question, the Action is marked as of neutral level of effectiveness.   

The Commission conducted a performance analysis94 of the platform in order to measure 
its uptake. The findings of the analysis show that the platform has been very appreciated 
by  consumers.  During  the  first  year  (i.e.  2016),  more  than  24  000  complaints  were 
submitted  on  the  platform  (2  000-3  000  complaints  per  month).  The  website  receives 
160 000 unique visitors per month. 

Nevertheless,  the  platform  could  still  be  improved:  80%  of  consumer  complaints  are 
automatically closed due to a lack of response from the traders. Although this percentage 
seems  very  high,  at  least  40%  of  the  automatically  closed  complaints  were  actually 
solved  outside the platform.  In other words,  after  receiving the complaint, the trader in 
these cases decided to contact the consumer through channels other than the platform in 
order to solve the issue. The Commission aims at increasing the traders’ engagement. In 
this  sense,  the  Commission  has  reworked  the  homepage  of  the  platform  in  December 

91     Online Dispute Resolution. European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/?event=main.home2.show, 

accessed on 13.03.2018 

92     Article 1 of EU Regulation No 524/2013 of 21 May 2013, ibid. 
93     Online Dispute Settlement. European Commission, ibid. 
94     Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the functioning of the European Online 

Dispute Resolution platform established under Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer 
disputes. European Commission, 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/first_report_on_the_functioning_of_the_odr_platform.pdf, accessed in 
24.04.2018. 

Page 72 of 104 

 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

2017.  Improved  messaging  (automatic  notifications)  and  the  optimised  layout  for  the 
consumer’s and trader’s dashboard should be implemented by the end of May 2018. 

Concerning the scope of the project, 3 respondents indicated that the action should 
continue within its current scope, 1 stakeholder selected the option ‘other’, and 2 the 
option ‘don’t know’. 

As  far  as  the  challenges  are  concerned,  1  respondent  indicated  technical  constraints 
faced  during  the  implementation  of  this  Action,  while  the  other  2  respondents  selected 
the option ‘don’t know’. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.2.6.  Action no. 27: Find a mediator 

Ongoing 

Not successful 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

No replies received 

The  objective  of  this  Action  is  to  create  a  tool  or  service  that  allows  users  to  find  a 
mediator  throughout  the  EU.95  Mediators  are  trained  professionals  whose  work  focusses 
on  resolving  disputes  out  of  court.  One  of  the  main  fields  where  the  role  of  mediators 
often  comes  into  play  is  in  cross-border  family  disputes  and  parental  child  abduction 
cases.96 

According to 50% of the responses received to this question, the Action is ongoing.  

Regarding  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  of  the  Action,  25%  of  those  who  replied  to 
this  question  indicated  that  the  Action  is  not  successful,  while  50%  answered  ‘don’t 
know’.    

In terms of the relevance of the project/desired scope, 2 replies indicated that the scope 
of  the  Action  should  continue  within  its  current  scope  and  1  that  innovative  aspects 
should be included. On the question regarding constraints, no replies were received.   

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.2.7.  Action no. 28: e-Service of documents 

Completed 

Successful 

Innovate; Expand 

Administrative constraints 

e-Service  of  documents  is  connected  to  the  e-CODEX  project,  an  IT  system  built  to 
improve  cross-border  judicial  cooperation.  E-CODEX  aims  to  allow  entities  involved  in 
cross-border legal procedures to send and receive documents electronically in a fast and 
secure way.97 

95    Find a mediator, e-Justice Portal, https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_find_a_mediator-117-en.do, accessed on 21.03.2018 
96    Cross-border family mediation, e-Justice Portal, https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_crossborder_family_mediation-372-

en.do?clang=en, accessed on 21.03.2018 

97  Inception  Impact  Assessment,  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Justice  and  Consumers  Ref.  Ares 

(2017)3600084, 17 July 2017. https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-3600084_en 

Page 73 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Several  Member  States  foresee  the  electronic  service  of  documents  in  their  national 
legislative  framework.  Nevertheless,  there  are  differences  across  Member  States 
concerning  the  electronic  service  of  documents  (e.g.  scope,  technical  solutions, 
stakeholders involved). Therefore, an inventory of the different practices in the Member 
States was deemed necessary in order to have a comprehensive overview on the state of 
play about the use of this method. 

Enabling the electronic service of documents in cross-border proceedings could allow for 
significant savings in terms of legal costs, time, and paper waste. This method of service 
of documents could contribute to the better efficiency of judicial systems.98 

The main goal of this Action is to make an inventory of practices on the electronic service 
of documents in Member States and possibly on the solutions to serve documents across 
borders. 

This  Action  is  led  by  France,  and  is  strongly  supported  by  experts  from  the  European 
Chamber  of  Bailiffs/Judicial  officers.  France  is  also  chairing  the  Expert  group  on  the  e-
Service  of  documents  (part  of  the  Working  Party  on  e-Law  (e-Justice),  in  close 
collaboration with the Council Expert group on e-CODEX.  

The  e-Service  Expert  group  prepared  a  report  bringing  together  the  replies  of  two 
questionnaires carried out and including the input of the Commission as well. The report 
includes a mapping of the state of play in most of the Member States99, the obstacles, as 
well as recommendations for the Commission. The report was presented to the Working 
Party on e-Law (e-Justice) on 27 April 2018 and the project is hence completed.  

According  to  82%  of  those  who  replied  to  the  question  on  the  status,  this  Action  is 
ongoing.  However,  contrary  to  this  result,  the  Action  Leader  indicated  this  Action  as 
completed. This is explained that the respondents to the questionnaire maybe referred to 
the work carried out in the Me-CODEX project on e-service of documents which is indeed 
ongoing.  

Regarding  the  effectiveness/level  of  success,  40%  of  those  who  replied  to  this  question 
indicated  that  implementation  of  this  Action  is  successful  and  10%  further  being  very 
successful.   

Concerning  the  scope  of  the  project,  4  respondents  indicated  that  the  scope  should  be 
expanded, and 4 considered that innovative solutions should be included. 2 respondents 
indicated that the Action should continue within its current scope, 1 stakeholder selected 
the option ‘other’, and another one the option ‘don’t know’. 

As  far  as  the  challenges  are  concerned,  5  respondents  indicated  administrative 
constraints,  4  mentioned  technical  constraints,  and  3  indicated  legal  constraints.  1 
stakeholder selected the option ‘other’, and 3 the option ‘don’t know’. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.2.8.   Action Fiche no. 29: European Investigation Order (EIO)  

Ongoing 

Successful 

Continue ‘as-is’ -same scope 

Technical; Legal 

98     European judicial systems: Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No. 24. European Commission for the 

Efficiency of Justice 
(CEPEJ).https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/2016/publication/CEPEJ%20Study%2024%20-
%20IT%20report%20EN%20web.pdf 

99    According to the information collected during the interview, the report covers two thirds of the Member States. 

Page 74 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Based on the Council Conclusions of June 2016, the Commission was mandated with the 
task  to  build  a  secure  online  portal  for  electronic  requests  and  responses  concerning  e-
evidence  and  the  corresponding  procedures,  including  optional  use  of  automated 
translation  of  such  requests,  as  well  as  for  their  tracking  and  tracing.  The  e-Evidence 
Platform  comprises  national  solutions  and  a  Reference  Implementation  solution  to  be 
developed by the Commission. 

The business objective of the e-Evidence exchange processes is to allow and facilitate the 
exchange of information between competent authorities of the Member States by: 

  Facilitating judicial cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member 

States in relation to proceedings in criminal matters; 

  Facilitating  judicial  cooperation  between  the  competent  authorities  of  Member 
States in order to improve cross-border access to evidence on the basis of the EIO 
(including electronic evidence); 

 

Improving the transparency of the process; 

  Reducing the complexity and resource-intensity of such requests. 

The scope of the e-Evidence Platform will allow the preparation and exchange of e-Forms 
in the field of European Investigation Order (EIO) and Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA). It 
will be built so that it can be extended to other e-Forms domains and aims at: 

•  Simplifying the tasks of the Member States; 
•  Reducing the operational risks; 
•  Supporting the extension and continuous improvements of the business process to 

new requirements; 

•  Getting a visibility on the e-Evidence Portal usage by producing statistics. 
•  Easing  the  exchange  of  information  between  the  Member  State  Administrations 

(MSAs); 

•  Supporting new requirements which are not yet supported by the current tools if 

any. 

The  Platform  will  be  also  used  for  obtaining  electronic  evidence  that  is  already  in  the 
possession of the competent authorities of the executing state. 

A  Council  expert  group  on  e-Justice  has  been  set  up  to  address  issues  relating  to  the 
ongoing  development  and  maintenance  of  specific  technical  solutions  for  cross-border 
communication between competent authorities in the area of justice.100  

On 9 November 2016, an expert meeting was organised to discuss options for the digital 
system for the e-Evidence Platform. The expert meeting provided important guidance for 
the  set-up  of  the  system.  The  meeting  was  followed  by  a  letter  of  22/12/2016  sent  to 
Member  States  to  clarify  their  preference  on  two  remaining  issues:  the  organisation  of 
the  Reference  Implementation  and  storage  capacity.  Two  options  were  proposed:  a 
centralised  and  a  decentralised  solution  for  each  one  of  them.  Another  question  was 
whether the Commission should build a reference solution for the preferred option. 

The current status of the Action is as follows: 

•  The  Commission  is  developing  an  e-Evidence  Reference  Implementation  to  be 
provided  to  Member  States  as  an  installation  package.  This  package  will  be 
deployed and operated by the Member States themselves; 

100    Mid-term review of the Multiannual European e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018, Council of the European Union, 

9806/16, 2 June 2016, (http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9806-2016-INIT/en/pdf) 

Page 75 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

• 

In  the  meantime,  the  Commission  is  building  editable  PDF  versions  of  the  forms 
set  out  in  the  Annexes  to  the  EIO  Directive.  Upon  completion,  these  PDF  forms 
will be made available on the website of the European Judicial Network in criminal 
matters. 

According  to  78%  of  those  who  replied  to  the  question  on  the  status,  this  Action  is 
ongoing.   

Regarding the effectiveness/level of success, 50% of respondents indicated this Action as 
successful.     

Concerning  the  desired  scope  of  the  Action,  7  replies  indicated  that  the  Action  should 
continue within its current scope, while 3 answers each were received for the options that 
the scope should be expanded with inclusion of innovative aspects.  

The main challenges identified are or technical and legal nature as 4 replies are received 
for each, while 3 replies indicated administrative constraints. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.3. 

C. Communication between judicial authorities 

5.3.1.  Action no. 30: Videoconference  

Completed 

Successful 

Innovate; Expand 

Technical 

Videoconferencing  (VC)  is  a  tool  that  can  be  used  to  increase  efficiency  in  cross-border 
legal proceedings. It is already deployed in many Member States at national level and it 
is now being promoted at the European level.101 

In  2014,  the  Council  Working  Group  on  e-Law  (e-Justice)  published  a  report  on  cross-
border  VC  (prepared  by  its  Expert  Group  on  Videoconferencing)  to  help  improve  the 
overall  functioning  of  e-Justice  systems  at  both  national  and  European  level.  In  the 
report,  it  was  stated  that  the  problems  are  mainly  due  to  technical  and  organisational 
issues, such as: 

Incompatible technical standards; 
 
Insufficient bandwidth on IP connection / ISDN bandwidth restrictions; 
 
  Security measures like firewalls that prevent contact being established; 
  Contact information of the relevant people and the details of relevant competent 

courts are not always up to date; and 

  Translation and interpretation issues, and lack of agreement on which time zone 

to be used to determine when the VC starts. 

Based  on  the  findings  of  the  Expert  Group,  the  Council  adopted  Recommendations  on 
cross-border videoconferencing in June 2015.102 

Use of videoconference tools is already foreseen in the Taking of Evidence Regulation103.  
Article 10 (4) of the Regulation provides that the requesting court may ask the requested 

101  Videoconferencing  As  A  Part  Of  European  E-Justice  Booklet.  European  Commission,  2009,  https://e-

justice.europa.eu/content_videoconferencing-69-en.do, accessed on 26.03.2018. 

102    Council Recommendations on cross-border videoconferencing, 9206/15. Council of the European Union, 

http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9206-2015-COR-1/en/pdf 

Page 76 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

court to use communications technology for the performance of the taking of evidence, in 
particular by using videoconference and teleconference. 

The aim of this action is to promote the practical use of cross-border  videoconferencing 
and  the  sharing  of  best  practices  and  expertise  on  organisational,  technical  and  legal 
aspects.  

In  the  context  of  the  project  “Handshake”  66  bilateral  videoconferencing  tests  were 
carried out. The purpose of this exercise was to identify the conditions (e.g. atmosphere 
in  the  room,  echo,  and  quality)  necessary  to  establish  and  conduct  a  successful 
videoconference. The project stakeholders, together with the Expert Group, subsequently 
drafted  a  report  establishing  a  list  of  best  practices.  In  addition,  they  also  developed  a 
request form that Member States could use to make the request for a videoconference.  

According  to  53%  of  those  who  responded  to  the  question  on  the  status,  this  Action  is 
completed.   

Concerning  the  effectiveness  of  the  project,  53%  of  respondents  indicated  that  the 
implementation of this Action has been successful.  

The Expert Group has successfully conducted all the videoconferencing tests and has also 
created  a  request  form.  Nevertheless,  some  points  could  still  be  improved  such  as  the 
promotion of the use of videoconferencing. Other stakeholders explained that the project 
could have gone further, (e.g. by developing interactive tools). 

Concerning  the  scope  of  the  project,  8  respondents  indicated  that  innovative  solutions 
should  be  included,  6  that  the  scope  should  be  expanded,  4  that  the  Action  should 
continue within its current scope, and 3 stakeholders selected the option ‘don’t know’. 

Concerning  the  expansion  of  the  scope,  it  was  mentioned  during  the  interviews  that 
further  efforts  shall  be  made  in  order  to  develop  for  example  technical  guidelines  and 
raise  awareness  among  all  stakeholders  on  the  benefits  of  using  videoconferencing  in 
cross-border cases.  

As far as the challenges are  concerned, 9 respondents indicated technical constraints, 5 
indicated  legal  obstacles,  and  4  mentioned  administrative  challenges.  3  stakeholders 
selected the option ‘other’, and 2 answered ‘don’t know’. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.3.2.  Action no. 31: e-APP (Electronic Apostille programme) - (including e-Registers of 

Apostilles) 

Completed 

Successful 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Technical 

The HCCH (The Hague Conference on Private International Law) encourages the Member 
States to adopt the use of e-APP. The scope of the e-APP project includes developing an 
electronic  system  for  the  issuance  and  verification  of  Apostilles  issued  under  the  Hague 
Convention  of  5  October  1961  Abolishing  the  Requirement  of  Legalisation  for  Foreign 
Public Documents.  

103   COUNCIL REGULATION(EC)No 1206/2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of 

evidence in civil or commercial matters; see: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001R1206&from=EN 

Page 77 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

The  program  is  gaining  traction  at  the  international  level  and  requires  the  adoption  of 
two  sub-systems  (e-apostille  and  e-register).  Details  of  the  program  are  still  under 
international  discussion.  The  e-APP  Action  aims  at  developing  an  electronic  apostille 
system  in  the  framework  of  the  Convention  of  5  October  1961  Abolishing  the 
Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents.  

The main objectives of this Action are twofold: (1) setting up a working group aiming  at 
examining the current e-APP models in use within Europe (including the model in Spain) 
and making recommendations to other Member States who are considering implementing 
the  e-APP,  and  (2)  assisting  other  countries  in  developing  the  e-APP  system,  together 
with the HCCH.  

Based  on  the  interview  with  the  Action  Leader  it  is  stated  that  the  objectives  of 
examining  the  current  e-APP  model  in  use,  and  making  recommendations  to  the  other 
Member States which consider implementing the e-APP, are met. Also, the countries with 
interest in developing the e-APP system receive assistance. Therefore, the status for this 
Action is completed.   

Regarding  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  of  the  Action,  50%  of  the  respondents 
replied that the implementation has been successful.   

In  terms  of  the  relevance  of  the  project/desired  scope,  3  responses  indicated  that  the 
Action  should  continue  within its  current  scope  and  1  that  innovative  aspects  should  be 
included. During the interviews a need was highlighted to make the project more visible.  

As regards to the issue of including this project into the next Action Plan 2019-2023, the 
participating  Member  States  have  not  yet  come  to  an  agreement.  Some  mention  that 
although  the  Apostille  is  still  needed  now,  its  use  may  decrease  with  the  new  EU 
Regulation104  to  facilitate  the  free  circulation  of  certain  public  documents.  Others  argue 
that  the  project  has  a  high  priority,  because  the  increased  cross-border  cooperation 
requires  more  electronic  public  documents  to  be  issued,  and  the  only  way  to  have 
effective  circulation  of  these  electronic  public  documents  is  to  use  the  e-APP  and  the 
Apostille.  

To  the  question  on  the  challenges  3  replies  indicated  technical  constraints  and  1  reply 
indicated  administrative  and  legal  constraints,  respectively.  The  main  technical  issues 
faced were mostly related to the lack of resources and capacities of  the IT departments 
in the responsible Ministries. Legal issues refer to the complications of different Member 
State legal systems.  

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.3.3.  Action no. 32: i-Support  

Ongoing 

Successful 

Innovate; Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Administrative; Technical 

The  objective  of  i-Support  is  to  develop  an  electronic  case  management  and  secure 
communication  system  for  the  cross-border  recovery  of  maintenance  obligations  (e.g. 

104   Regulation (EU) 2016/1191 on promoting the free movement of citizens by simplifying the requirements for presenting 
certain public documents in the EU (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3A230101_2 ) 

Page 78 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

alimony  and  child  maintenance)  under  the  EU  2009  Maintenance  Regulation105  and  the 
2007 Hague Child Support Convention106.   

The scope of the Action is to create a system that will facilitate an effective cross-border 
recovery  of  maintenance  obligations  by  providing  a  secure  and  easy  way  of 
communication  between  the  responsible  authorities  dealing  with  maintenance  matters. 
The  i-Support  Electronic  Case  Management  and  Secure  Communication  System 
(ECMSCS)  provides  an  efficient  solution  to  support  the  public  administrations  to  deliver 
the best services in an efficient and effective way.107 

The Action's main objectives are to advertise the system to all of the Member States and 
to support the HCCH i-Support project. 

According  to  75%  of  those  who  replied  to  the  question  on  the  status,  this  Action  is 
ongoing.  

In  response  to  the  question  on  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  of  the  Action,  57%  of 
respondents  indicated  that  the  implementation  of  the  Action  is  successful.  Respondents 
are optimistic about the system, as it is rather easy to implement. Additionally, there are 
already experiences at the international level (e.g. the U.S. state of California and Brazil) 
using the system.  

In  terms  of  the  relevance  of  the  project/desired  scope,  3  responses  indicated  that  the 
scope  of  the  Action  should  continue  within  its  current  scope  and  3  replies  denote  that 
innovative aspects should be included.  

The HCCH remains committed to support the implementation of this Action  by providing 
a  platform,  organise  conferences,  carry  out  awareness  raising  activities  and  provide 
financial support. 

The  challenges  identified  are  of  technical  and  administrative  nature,  i.e.  3  responses 
indicated technical and, similarly, 3 indicated administrative constraints. 1 reply indicated 
legal issues, 2 selected other and 1 answer indicated ‘don’t know’.  

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.3.4.  Action no. 33: Cooperation with the website of the European Judicial Network in 

criminal matters   

Ongoing 

Neutral level of success 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Administrative 

The European Judicial Network in criminal matters (EJN-criminal) is a network of national 
contact  points  for  the  facilitation  of  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters.  The  EJN-
criminal  was  created  in  1998.108  National  Contact  Points  are  working  prosecutors, 

105   Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement 
of  decisions  and  cooperation  in  matters  relating  to  maintenance  obligations;  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009R0004&from=en 

106   CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY OF CHILD SUPPORT AND OTHER FORMS OF 

FAMILY MAINTENANCE (Concluded 23 November 2007);  https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-
text/?cid=131   

107  General Description of the i-Support Project, HCCH Hague Conference on Private International Law,  

https://assets.hcch.net/upload/descr_isupport_en.pdf, accessed on 21.03.2018 

108    About EJN, EJN European Judicial Network, https://www.ejn-crimjust.europa.eu/ejn/EJN_StaticPage.aspx?Bread=2, 

accessed on 21.03.2018 

Page 79 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

investigating judges or other persons who deal almost exclusively with matters related to 
international  cooperation.  The  National  Contact  Points  are  designated  by  each  Member 
State  from  central  or  other  authorities  carrying  out  international  judicial  cooperation, 
both  in  general  and  for  certain  forms  of  serious  crime,  such  as  organised  crime, 
corruption, drug trafficking and terrorism.109 

The  scope  of  the  EJN-criminal  is  to  improve  judicial  cooperation  between  the  Member 
States  of  the  European  Union  at  a  legal  and  practical  level  in  order  to  combat  serious 
crime,  in  particular  organised  crime,  corruption,  drug  trafficking  and  terrorism.110  The 
objectives  of  this  Action  is  to  improve  the  content  of  the  EJN-criminal's  website  and  to 
include it in the e-Justice Portal.     

According to 86 % of those who replied to the question on status, this Action is ongoing.  

The  integration  process  of  the  EJN  website  turned  out  to  be  more  demanding  than 
expected,  which  caused  a  delay  and  the  final  migration  has  not  yet  taken  place. 
Currently, the Commission and the EJN-criminal are discussing the following two possible 
scenarios: first, to keep the website outside of the e-Justice Portal or, to migrate it to the 
Portal. If the latter option is chosen, the integration in the Portal would take place in the 
course of the next Action Plan for the 2019-2023 period.  

Until  the  decision  is  taken,  it  has  been  discussed  to  broaden  the  scope  of  the  Portal's 
information pages pertaining to EJN-criminal.  

In  response  to  the  question  on  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  of  the  Action,  71%  of 
those  who  replied  to  this  question  indicated  that  the  level  of  success  of  the  Action  is 
neutral.  

In terms of the relevance of the project/desired scope, 4 replies indicated that the Action 
should  continue  within  its  current  scope,  1  that  the  Action  scope  should  expand,  and  2 
replies selected the option of ‘don’t know’.  

The  participating  Member  States  expect  that  the  Action  will  continue  in  the  next  Action 
Plan 2019-2023. 

Concerning the challenges, 2 replies indicated administrative issues, 1 indicated technical 
constraints, and 3 replies indicated ‘other’ constraints without specifying them. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1.  

5.4. 

D. Horizontal issues 

5.4.1.  Action no. 34a: Automated machine translation - first inclusion in the e-Justice 

Portal   

Completed 

Neutral level of success 

Expand the scope 

Other constrains 

109    Assistance in International Cooperation in Criminal Matters for Practitioners. European Judicial Network and EuroJust, 

https://www.ejn-
crimjust.europa.eu/ejnupload/News/Paper%20on%20judicial%20coopereation%20in%20criminal%20matters_EJN_EJ.
pdf, accessed on 21.03.2018 

110    EJN in criminal matters, e-Justice Portal, https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_ejn_in_criminal_matters-22-en.do,  

accessed on 21.03.2018 

Page 80 of 104 

 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

The objective of this action is integration of the automated translation system into the e-
Justice  Portal.  This  service  allows  clients  to  use  digital  services  in  the  language  they 
choose, as well as to increase the speed with which documents are handled. 

Inclusion  of  the  machine  translation  feature  in  the  Portal  has  already  been  done.  This 
was MT@EC, developed by the Directorate-General for Translation (DGT) of the European 
Commission  which  enabled  the  translation  of  the  various  content  pages  of  the  Portal.  
MT@EC  translation  engines  are  trained  using  the  vast  Euramis  translation  memories, 
comprising  over  1  billion  documents  in  the  24  official  EU  languages,  produced  by  the 
translators of the EU institutions over the past decades. 

According  to  60%  of  respondents  who  took  part  in  the  questionnaire,  this  Action  is  still 
ongoing.  Based  on  the  interview  with  the  Action  Leader,  it  is  understood  that  the 
automated  machine  translation  is  integrated  to  the  e-Justice  Portal,  which  was  the 
objective of the action, and thus the Action should be marked as completed.   

20%  of  the  stakeholders  who  replied  to  the  question  regarding  the  level  of  success 
assess  this  Action  as  successful,  while  40%  indicated  that  the  Action  is  of  neutral 
effectiveness  and  20%  assessed  it  as  unsuccessful,  while  remaining  20%  selected  the 
option ‘don’t know’.    

In  terms  of  the  relevance  of  the  project/desired  scope,  1  respondent  indicated  that  the 
innovative aspects should be included, 2 that the scope should be expanded, and 2 that 
the Action should be closed. 1 respondent selected the option ‘other’. 

In response to the question on the constraints faced during the project implementation, 
the results show that 2 respondents selected the option ‘other’, while 2 opted for ‘don’t 
know’. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.4.2.  Action no. 34b: Automated machine translation -  improve the quality of 

translation - introduce machine translations 

Ongoing 

Neutral level of success 

Expand the scope 

Other 

Currently, the new version of machine translation is being introduced.  This version is an 
upgrade being done by DGT in cooperation with DG CNECT and the application moves to 
the cloud for performance and adds neural MT engines. This is the technology which has 
superseded statistical MT, on which MT@EC was based. 

The present scope of the Action includes introducing language pairs (which will cover all 
EU official languages) and improving the quality of translation and work on the domain – 
specific  areas,  which,  given  the  special  terminology,  is  very  important  for  the  field  of 
justice.  

In  order  to  improve  the  quality  of  the  translations  more  source  material  has  to  be 
collected and integrated into the system.  

According to the 75% of responses received to the question on the status, this Action is 
ongoing. 

In  response  to  the  question  on  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  of  the  Action,  50% 
stated that the current results are of neutral effectiveness.  

Page 81 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

In  terms  of  the  relevance  of  the  project/desired  scope,  1  respondent  indicated  that  the 
innovative aspects should be included, 2 that the scope should be expanded, 1 that the 
Action should be closed and 1 selected the response ‘don’t know’. 

In  response  to  the  question  on  the  constraints  faced  during  the  implementation  of  the 
Action, 3 respondents indicated ‘other’ issues, and 2 the ‘don’t know’ option. 

5.4.3.  Action no. 35: Promotion of e-Justice (the Portal and e-Justice in general)  

Ongoing 

Neutral 

Innovate; Expand the scope 

Administrative 

In almost all of the Member States, legal procedures are dematerialising and the use of 
information  technologies  in  judicial  proceedings  and  cross-border  cooperation  is 
increasing.  Hence,  the  importance  of  electronic  means  of  communication  is  becoming 
crucial for the efficient functioning of the judiciary in the European Union.  

The  e-Justice  Portal,  one  of  the  main  tools  for  building  the  European  e-Justice  system, 
has been available since 2010.  

The  scope  of  this  Action  pertains  to  targeted  communication  and  outreach  measures  to 
promote  the  work  taking  place  on  e-Justice  at  European  level.  This  work  is  the  joint 
responsibility of the Council of the EU, the European Commission and the Member States 
(e.g. providing links on the web sites of Ministries of Justice). So far limited promotional 
measures were taken. Usually, such activities take place on ad hoc basis in the context of 
the launch of new e-Justice initiatives on the Portal, when new Member States are joining 
existing  systems,  etc.  Overall,  during  the  2014-2018  period,  different  isolated 
promotional  activities  took  place  respectively  on  the  side  of  Member  States  and  the 
Commission,  but  no  dedicated  promotional  campaign  on  the  e-Justice  Portal  has  been 
organised to date. 

Following  the  completion  of  the  re-design  of  the  user  interface  of  the  Portal,  currently 
planned  for  early  2019,  the  Commission  intends  to  organise  a  dedicated  promotional 
campaign to raise better awareness of the benefits of the work being done on  European 
e-Justice and the European e-Justice Portal in particular. 

Based  on  the  information  collected  during  the  interviews,  the  specific  promotional 
activities  could  include  amongst  others:  buying  advertising  space,  producing  visual 
materials, involving the national contact points. 

According  to  88%  of  those  who  replied  to  the  question  on  the  status,  this  Action  is 
ongoing.   

Regarding  the  effectiveness/level  of  success,  41%  of  respondents  find  the  effectiveness 
of this Action neutral.    

Concerning the scope of the Action, 6 stakeholders indicated that the scope of the Action 
should be expanded, and 6 mentioned that innovative aspects should be included. Other 
5  stakeholders  stated  that  the  Action  should  continue  with  its  current  scope,  and  2 
stakeholders selected the option ‘other’.  

As  far  as  challenges  are  concerned,  2  respondents  indicated  legal  constraints,  1 
mentioned  technical  constraints,  4  indicated  administrative  constraints  3  stakeholders 
selected the option ‘other’, and 6 respondents selected the option ‘don’t know’. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

Page 82 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

5.4.4.  Action no. 36a: European e-Justice Portal; Making the Portal more user-friendly   

Ongoing 

Successful 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Legal 

This  Action  aims  at  ensuring  that  the  Portal  evolves  in  terms  of  usability  and  keeps  up 
with modern technological developments.  

After  studying  users’  experience,  the  e-Justice  Portal  was  redesigned,  and  a  so-called 
BETA version was developed and released at the end of 2017. The new version provides 
a better, more user-friendly interface and a new reordered structure of content. 

The Action is currently ongoing, according to 82% of the respondents to the question on 
the Action’s status.  

Concerning  the  effectiveness/level  of  success,  9%  of  those  who  replied  to  the  question 
indicated  that  the  Action  is  very  successful  together  with  36%  of  respondents  who 
indicated that it is successful.   

Concerning  the  scope  of  the  project,  6  stakeholders  indicated  that  the  Action  should 
continue with its current scope, 2 that the Action should be expanded, and 2 noted that 
innovative aspects should be included. One stakeholder selected the option ‘other’, and 2 
answered ‘don’t know’.  

As  far  as  the  challenges  are  concerned,  1  respondent  indicated  legal  constraints  faced 
during the implementation of this action. The rest indicated either the option ‘don’t know’ 
(4  respondents)  or  selected  the  option  ‘other’  (3  respondents).  Amongst  this  other 
option,  a  stakeholders  stated  that  the  platform  is  not  very  user-friendly,  and  that  the 
translations  provided  could  be  improved.  It  was  also  mentioned  that  the  Portal  is  very 
citizen-oriented and does not meet the needs of judicial authorities. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.4.5.  Action no. 36b: European e-Justice Portal - Survey on user needs   

Completed 

Neutral level of success 

Close 

No specific constraints identified 

This Action consists of a survey aiming to understand the Portal’s main problems as well 
as  the  users’  needs.  This  will  ensure  that  the  Portal  evolves  in  terms  of  usability  and 
keeps up with modern technological developments.   

Two  activities  were  conducted  in  the  framework  of  this  action.  First,  the  Commission 
launched a user survey. This activity entailed the preparation of a questionnaire, but also 
the  organisation  of  workshops  and  interviews  with  users.  Second,  the  Commission 
prepared  a  so-called  BETA  version  of  the  Portal  taking  into  account  the  findings  of  the 
first  activity  described  above.  This  second  activity  consisted  of  the  development  of  the 
BETA version, but also some testing exercises with users.  

According  to  50%  of  those  who  replied  to  the  question  on  the  status,  this  Action  is 
completed. During the interview with the Action Leader, this status is confirmed.   

Page 83 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Concerning the effectiveness/level of  success  of the project, 33%  respondents indicated 
that the Action is of neutral effectiveness.   

Concerning  the  scope  of  the  project,  1  stakeholder  indicated  that  the  project  should  be 
closed, while 3 selected the option ‘other’ and 2 answered ‘don’t know’. 

As far as the challenges are concerned, no specific constraints are identified.  According 
to the data collected during the interviews, the project was to some extent challenging to 
implement, as it had to take into account not only the needs of the users, but also those 
of the Member States and the European Commission’s views. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.4.6.  Action no. 37: Multi-channel strategy   

Completed 

Successful 

Continue ‘as-is’ - same scope 

Legal 

The second Multiannual European e-Justice Action Plan (2014-2018) implemented the e-
Justice  Strategy  of  2014,  addressing  the  increasing  necessity  of  multi-channel 
management.  The  idea  behind  a  multi-channel  strategy  is  to  enable  EU  citizens, 
businesses,  legal  professionals  and  authorities  to  access  legal  information,  enter  into 
(cross-border) legal procedures and learn about the proceedings of the legal procedures 
they are involved in – by means of their preferred channel of communication (e.g. social 
media, SMS, mobile apps, etc.) 

The  project’s  purpose  is  the  definition  of  goals  and  methodology  regarding  the 
development of a multi-channel strategy for European e-Justice.  

The  Working  Party  on  e-Law  in  its  e-Justice  formation  has  set  up  an  Expert  Group  on 
Multichannel  Strategy,  chaired  by  the  Netherlands,  to  explore  the  options  for  a  multi-
channel communication strategy. 

The  aim  of  the  multi-channel  strategy  for  e-Justice  is  to  ensure  access  to  legal 
information  and  allow  EU  citizens  and  businesses  to  enter  into  (cross-border)  legal 
procedures and learn about the proceedings of the legal procedures they are involved  in 
through various channels of communication. 

In  the  framework  of  several  meetings  starting  in  February  2016,  the  Expert  Group  first 
discussed the topic of “multi-channel strategy” and defined its scope, in order to identify, 
at  some  later  stage,  ideas  on  the  “best  communication  channels”  between  judicial 
authorities and citizens or businesses to be taken into account in that strategy.  

The  Expert  Group  invited  the  Member  States  to  identify  the  best  channels  to  reach 
citizens through an online questionnaire, which also served the purpose of identifying the 
different  stakeholders.  This  was  followed  by  a  thorough  desk-research  by  the  Expert 
Group into academic literature, national digital strategies, and projects co-funded by the 
Commission (e.g. ‘API for Justice’111 and ‘Pro-CODEX’112). Based on the findings of these 
activities, the Expert Group drafted a report on multi-channel communication strategy.   

111  API for Justice is an EU co-funded project, coordinated by the Dutch Ministry of Justice, investigating the challenges of 

opening up the e-Justice DSI for cross-border legal services, provided by e-CODEX and the e-Justice portal. 

112  Pro-CODEX is an EU co-funded project, coordinated by the Research Institute on Judicial Systems, aiming at support the 
development  of  the  technological  components  necessary  to  link  e-CODEX  and  the  legal  professionals’  applications  at 
national level. 

Page 84 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

The report prepared by the Expert Group was presented to and accepted by the Working 
Party on e-Law (e-Justice) during the first quarter of 2018. The Action has been therefore 
completed. 

According  to  83%  of  those  who  replied  to  the  question  on  the  status,  this  Action  is 
completed.   

Concerning the effectiveness of the project, 50% of the stakeholders indicated that the 
Action is successful.   

Concerning  the  scope  of  the  project,  3  respondents  indicated  that  the  Action  should 
continue  within  its  current  scope,  while  2  mentioned  that  innovative  aspects  should  be 
included,  and  one  stated  that  the  scope  should  be  expanded.  One  stakeholder  selected 
the option ‘other’, and another one the option ‘don’t know’. 

According to the information collected during the interviews, the next steps for a multi-
channel strategy should be the full implementation of e-CODEX in all Member States.  

As far as the challenges are concerned, 3 respondents indicated legal constraints, while 2 
mentioned  technical  difficulties  and  2  others  administrative  ones.  1  respondent  selected 
the option ‘other’, and 2 answered ‘don’t know’. 

In particular, the difference in terms of IT maturity across the Member States is still too 
significant to launch a multi-channel strategy at EU level. There is therefore currently no 
level  playing  field  for  the  introduction  of  a  common  multi-channel  strategy.  For  this 
reason,  the  implementation  of  this  project  as  initially  drafted  in  the  Action  Plan  has  not 
been possible. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.4.7.  Action no. 38: e-Delivery  

Ongoing 

Successful 

Expand 

Technical constraints 

e-Delivery  is  a  network  of  nodes113  for  digital  communications.  It  is  based  on  a 
distributed  model  where  every  participant  becomes  a  node  using  standard  transport 
protocols and security policies. 

At  EU  level,  e-Delivery  is  one  of  the  building  blocks  of  the  European  Commission's 
Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF).114  It  provides  a  secure  and  reliable  solution  to 
electronically  exchange  information  between  citizens,  businesses,  governments  and 
judicial authorities. 

The  CEF  e-Delivery  building  block  is  based  on  the  so  called  “AS4  messaging  protocol”. 
For  the  implementation  of  e-Delivery  in  Europe,  Member  States  have  defined  AS4 
implementation  guidelines  in  the  framework  of  the  e-SENS  Large  Scale  Pilot.115  To  be 

113  In communication networks, nodes are either a connection point, a redistribution point or a communication point. 
114  The Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) supports trans-European networks and infrastructures in three sectors: transport, 

telecommunication and energy. 

115  The e-SENS project (Electronic Simple European Networked Services) helps to “develop digital public services which 
make it easier for companies to do business in their own Member State and elsewhere in the EU -including setting up a 
company, fulfilling legal requirements and taking part in public tenders. It will also link up national digital services for 
citizens who visit a different Member State on holiday, or for work or study”. Source: Press release – Commission 

Page 85 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

able to exchange information with the AS4 messaging protocol, organisations must install 
an Access Point, or use a Service Provider.116 

The  objective  of  e-Delivery  is  to  provide  a  way  to  send  and  receive  secure  messages, 
authenticating  the  sender  and  receiver.  The  e-Delivery  building  block  focuses  on  the 
communication/transmission of documents from judicial authorities. 

There are four main goals behind an e-Delivery implementation:117  

 

Interoperability  (i.e.  implementing  common  technical  specifications  that  enable 
diverse organisations to exchange data and documents); 

  Scalability  and  Performance  (i.e.  enabling  the  growth  of  both  the  number  of 

participants in the data exchange network and the exchanged messages); 

  Security  (i.e.  promoting  mutual  trust  of  all  participants  in  the  data  exchange 

network); and 

  Legal  Assurance  and  Accountability  (i.e.  promoting  transparency  and  mutual 

confidence in the message exchange network). 

The  CEF  e-Delivery  building  block  helps  users  to  exchange  electronic  data  with  each 
other in a secure and reliable way.118 

The  e-Service  of  Documents  Expert  Group  has  been  working  on  the  e-Delivery  building 
block. The technology of e-Delivery has been developed and proven to work in a proof of 
concept,  as  well  as  in  various  pilot  projects  within  e-CODEX.  It  is  already  used  in  the 
context  of  projects  like  BRIS  (Business  Registers  Interconnection  System)119  and  ODR 
(Online  Dispute  Resolution).120  It  is  also  being  included  in  the  e-Justice  Portal  itself, 
enabling  the  connection  of  the  judicial  systems  of  the  Member  States  by  providing  a 
common  standard  for  their  message  exchange  system.  The  use  of  e-Delivery  is  also 
foreseen in the context of the new Interconnection of National Insolvency Registers (IRI), 
and  e-Evidence.  Concerning  the latter,  an  early  version  of  e-Evidence  is  expected  to  be 
ready by 2020. 

As indicated by 77% of respondents to the question on the status, this Action is ongoing.     

As  far  as  the  level  of  success  of  the  project  is  concerned,  36%  of  the  respondents     
considered  the  project  very  successful  and  45%  of  respondents  indicated  that  the 
implementation  of  the  project  has  been  successful.    According  to  stakeholders’  opinion, 
e-Delivery is considered an essential part of the e-CODEX system and has proved itself a 
valuable solution for digital cross-border exchanges. 

Concerning the scope of the project, 7 respondents indicated that the scope should be 
expanded, and 5 that innovative aspects should be included. 3 respondents indicated 
that the project should continue within its current scope. 1 respondent selected the 
option ‘other’. 

announces €13.7 million boost to cross-border digital public services, 14.08.2013. European Commission, 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-778_en.htm, accessed on 27.04.2018. 

116  What is e-Delivery. CEF Digital Website, 

https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/wiki/display/CEFDIGITAL/What+is+eDelivery+-+Overview, , accessed on 27.04.2018.      

117  What are the goals and benefits of e-Delivery. CEF Digital Website, 

https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=46992275, accessed on 27.04.2018. 

118  How does e-Delivery work, CEF Digital website, 

https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/wiki/display/CEFDIGITAL/How+does+eDelivery+work+-+Overview, accessed on 
27.04.2018. 

119  Interconnection of EU Business Registers. e-Justice Portal, https://e-

justice.europa.eu/content_business_registers_at_european_level-105-en.do, accessed on 27.04.2018. 

120  Online Dispute Resolution platform. European Commission, 

https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/?event=main.home.show, accessed on 27.04.2018. 

Page 86 of 104 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Based  on  the  feedback  received  from  the  interviews,  the  next  Action  Plan  on  e-Justice 
should  still  include  e-Delivery  and  develop  it  further.  It  should  be  implemented  in 
additional  areas,  such  as  e-Evidence  (already  the  case),  the  Service  of  Documents 
Regulation  and  the  Taking  of  Evidence  Regulation,  which  are  being  revised.  In  the  new 
version of these two Regulations, the use of e-CODEX might be made mandatory, and e-
Delivery could be hence used in these cases as well. 

As  far  as  the  challenges  are  concerned,  6  respondents  indicated  technical  constraints, 
while  4  stakeholders  mentioned  legal  challenges,  and  4  others  administrative  barriers. 
One stakeholder selected the option ‘other’, and another one answered, ‘don’t know’. 

According  to  the  feedback  received  during  the  interviews,  a  clear  obstacle  for  the 
implementation  of  this  project  has  been  the  lack  of  guarantees  of  sustainability:  e-
CODEX has been working on solutions without any legal basis. Some Member States still 
therefore seem reluctant to invest in the solution developed by e-CODEX. 

In  addition,  costs  (investment  for  the  installation)  and  immediate  benefits  of  e-Delivery 
do  not  seem  balanced  for  some  Member  States.  e-Delivery  has  to  be  used  in  a  specific 
context  (i.e.  for  a  specific  task),  which  requires  a  high  investment  to  install  a  structure 
and IT systems in comparison to the still reduced benefits that the use of e-Delivery can 
currently bring. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.4.8.  Action no. 39: e-Signature 

Ongoing 

Successful 

Expand; Innovate 

Legal constraints 

An e-Signature is the electronic confirmation of one’s intent to agree to the content of a 
document  or  set  of  data  and  to  be  bound  by  the  terms  of  the  signed  document,  at  the 
same time being an authentication of the signing party. 121 In the context of e-CODEX, a 
Circle  of  Trust  agreement  ensures  that  e-signatures  are  mutually  accepted  by  the 
Member States. 

The  e-Signature  building  block  supports  the  creation  and  verification  of  electronic 
signatures.  

This  Action  aims  at  structuring  e-signatures  in  EU-interoperable  formats,  mutual 
recognition and cross-border interoperability. e-Signature constitutes a key building block 
for the European Digital Single Market, as the recognition of e-signatures across borders 
facilitates the exchange of documents required by many online services. 122  

The  eIDAS  Regulation123  applies  to  electronic  identification  schemes  that  have  been 
notified  by  a  Member  State,  and  to  trust  service  providers  that  are  established  in  the 
Union (Article 2 (1)). 

121  What is an electronic signature?, CEF Digital Website, 

https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=46992760, accessed on 26.03.2018.  

122  Ibid. 

123 Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification 
and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC; https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0910&from=EN  

Page 87 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

The  objective  of  e-Signature 
is  the  authentication  of  persons  and  particular 
transmissions. The e-Signature building block aims at supporting the use of cross-border 
interoperable electronic signatures across the EU.   

The eIDAS Regulation enables reliable and secure  electronic interactions between public 
authorities, businesses, and citizens.  

Following  Articles  27  and  37  of  the  eIDAS  Regulation,  Commission  Implementing 
Decision  (EU)  2015/1506-specifies  minimum  formats  of  advanced  electronic  signatures 
and  advanced  seals  to  be  recognised  by  public  sector  bodies  in  order  to  ensure  cross-
border interoperability of the online services offered by then. Since the eIDAS Regulation 
came  into  force,  qualified  e-signatures  have  the  same  legal  effect  as  a  handwritten 
signature, thus providing valuable legal certainty in the context of e-communication. 

According  to  75%  of  those  who  replied  to  the  question  on  the  status,  this  Action  is 
ongoing.    

Concerning  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  of  the  Action,  13%  of  stakeholders 
described  the  implementation  of  this  Action  very  successful  together  with  38%  of  the 
respondents  that  described  it  as  successful.  It  is  indicated  the  need  for  more  selective 
work  still  to  be  done  for  e-Signature  to  be  effective  (e.g.  technical  harmonisation  of 
signing cards; ensuring and developing the physical means for electronic signing such as 
smart cards and certificates).  

Concerning  the  scope  of  the  project,  4  respondents  indicated  that  the  scope  should  be 
expanded,  and  4  other  that  innovative  aspects  should  be  included.  1  stakeholder 
mentioned  that  work  should  continue  within  its  current  scope,  and  one  stakeholder 
selected the option ‘other’. One stakeholder answered ‘don’t know’.  

As  far  as  the  challenges  are  concerned,  4  respondents  indicated  legal  constraints,  3 
indicated technical constraints, 1 mentioned administrative constraints and 3 selected the 
option ‘other’. 2 stakeholders indicated the option ‘don’t know’. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.4.9.  Action no. 40: e-Payment 

Ongoing 

Neutral 

Expand 

Administrative, Technical and Legal 

The  engagement  in  legal  proceedings  in  another  Member  State  may  involve  court  fees, 
which  vary  from  one  EU  country  to  another.  As  payment  of  court  fees  is  subject  to 
national  rules,  each  Member  State  has  established  different  payment  solutions.  The  e-
Payment  CEF  building  block  provides  end  users  involved  in  national  proceedings  with 
information  on  the  relevant  fees  to  be  paid  in  a  cross-border  context  and  uses  national 
payment  systems  to  make  the  payment.  Evidences  of  payment  can  be  provided  to  the 
court electronically e.g. via e-CODEX. 124  

124  e-Justice communication via Online Data Exchange.  e-CODEX, https://www.esens.eu/sites/default/files/e-codex_building-

blocks.pdf, accessed on 26.03.2018.  

Page 88 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

The  idea  behind  e-Payment  is  the  establishment  of  an  interoperability  layer  for  the 
payment  of  court  fees  in  all  Member  States.  This  is  realised  by  using  existing  national 
payment solutions and providing electronic proof of payment to the court. 125   

The  objective  of  the  e-Payment  building  block  is  to  provide  information  on  the  different 
national  court  fees  in  a  cross-border  context  and  enable  secure  electronic  payment  of 
such fees.126 

The  necessity  of  a  common  e-Payment  solution  first  came  up  in  the  BRIS  project.    The 
next  steps  would  be  to  have  a  catalogue  of  all  applicable  court  fees  in  the  different 
Member States. The establishment of a payment service on the e-Justice Portal, enabling 
end users to pay electronically for information and documents as well as other applicable 
fees. 

According  to  67%  of  responses  received  to  the  question  on  the  status,  this  Action  is 
ongoing.   

As far as the level of success of the project is concerned, 80%  of respondents indicated 
that the implementation of the project has been neutral.   

According  to  the  stakeholders,  there  is  a  need  to  support  online  payments  on  the  e-
Justice  Portal,  which  has  been  especially  shown  in  the  context  of  projects  such  as  Land 
Registers Interconnection (LRI), Interconnection of National Insolvency Registers IRI and 
Business  Registers  Interconnection  System  (BRIS).  Even  though  there  is  no  mandatory 
rule stipulating that the payment of fees has to be done at EU level (i.e. through the e-
Justice Portal), redirecting users to national payment systems is not a viable option (due 
to  language  barriers,  technical  problems,  and  others).  On  the  other  hand,  the 
establishment of an EU level payment system is a challenging project as many different 
aspects  must  be  taken  into  account  (e.g.  user-friendliness,  multilingualism,  provision  of 
payment  facilities,  respect  the  EU  VAT  Directive127  and  national  tax  rules,  etc.). 
Additional work is therefore needed on these aspects. 

Concerning the scope of the project, 4 stakeholders pointed out that the scope should be 
expanded, 3 that innovative aspects  should be included (e.g. the payment of court fees 
via e-CODEX), and 2 selected the option ‘don’t know’. One respondent answered ‘other’, 
introducing the idea of having a catalogue of all applicable court fees in the future. 

As  far  as  the  challenges  are  concerned,  2  respondents  indicated  legal  constraints, 
another  2  indicated  technical  ones,  and  2  more  also  mentioned  administrative 
constraints. 2 selected the option ‘don’t know’, and one answered ‘other’. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.4.10.  Action no. 41: e-ID 

Ongoing 

Neutral 

Innovate; Expand; 

Legal; Technical 

125  Ibid. 
126  Ibid. 

127   Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax. Official Journal of the 

European Communities L 347/1, 28.11.2006, http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:347:0001:0118:en:PDF 

Page 89 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

The  CEF  e-ID  building  block128  is  a  set  of  services  ensuring  the  mutual  recognition  of 
national  e-ID  schemes  (including  smartcards,  mobile  and  log-in)  in  order  to  support 
public  administrations  and  private  service  providers  to  provide  their  services  across 
borders and allow EU citizens to use their national e-IDs to access those online services. 
The  mutual  recognition  of  e-ID  schemes  across  Europe  is  regulated  by  the  eIDAS 
Regulation. 129    

The objective of CEF e-ID is supporting the Member States in the implementation of the 
eIDAS  Network  in  order  to  be  able  to  connect  their  national  e-ID  schemes,  i.e.  the 
mutual recognition of e-IDs. By connecting them to the eIDAS Network, service providers 
could provide their services across borders. 

The  use  of  e-IDs  is  constantly increasing,  but not  all  of  the  Member  States  issue  them. 
According  to  the  eIDAS  Regulation  all  online  public  services  that  require  an  e-ID 
assurance  of  'substantial'  or  'high'  level,  must  be  prepared  to  accept  the  notified  e-ID 
schemes  of  other  EU  countries  by  29  September  2018.    Nevertheless,  at  least  with 
regard  to  the  e-Justice  Portal,  there  is  currently  no  practical  use  case  requiring 
identification exclusively using e-ID. Therefore, the potential impact of interoperable e-ID 
has not occurred yet.  

According to 67% of the respondents to the question on status, this Action is ongoing.  

As  far  as  the  level  of  success  of  the  project  is  concerned,  67%  of  respondents  to  this 
question indicated that the implementation of the action has been neutral. 

3  stakeholders  indicated  that  innovative  aspects  should  be  included  and  3  respondents 
mentioned that the scope should be expanded. 2 stakeholders indicated that the project 
should  continue  within  its  current  scope.  1  stakeholder  selected  the  option  ‘other’,  and 
the other one answered, ‘don’t know’. 

As  far  as  the  challenges  are  concerned,  2  respondents  indicated legal constraints  and 2 
other  mentioned  technical  barriers.  2  respondents  indicated  the  option  ‘other’  and  2 
others answered, ‘don’t know’.  

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

5.4.11.   Action no. 42: e-Documents  

Ongoing 

Successful 

Expand 

Administrative 

e-Documents  are  electronic  messages  being  exchanged  between  back  offices  of  the 
Member  States  via  system-to-system  communication.  e-Documents  is  a  technical  e-
Government  solution  that  was  developed  to  reduce  administrative  burden  by  making 
legal documents and legal information available in an electronic format.  

e-Documents  was  a  component  of  the  e-SENS  project  that  aimed  to  improve  cross-
border  digital  public  services  by  building  technical  solutions  such  as  e-ID,  e-Delivery, 

128 CEF building blocks are interoperability agreements between EU Member States, offering basic capabilities “that can be 
used in any European project to facilitate the delivery of digital public services across borders”. Source: About CEF 
building blocks. CEF Digital Home, 
https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/wiki/display/CEFDIGITAL/What+is+a+building+Block accessed on 27.04.2018. 

129  Regulation (EU) No 910/2014, ibid. 

Page 90 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Semantics, e-Signatures and e-Documents. e-Documents was further developed through 
another  large-scale  pilot:  e-CODEX,  an  IT  pilot  built  to  improve  cross  border  judicial 
cooperation, allowing entities involved in legal procedures to send and receive documents 
electronically in a swift and secure way. 130  

The objective of the e-Documents project is to make documents readable by users in all 
Member  States,  regardless  of  differing  means  of  security  and  document  production,  i.e. 
ensuring their interoperability. 

As  previously  explained,  e-Documents  has  been  developed  through  two  large-scale 
pilots:  the e-SENS project (April 2013-March 2017) and the e-CODEX project (December 
2010-May 2016). Furthermore, the Me-CODEX project was initiated in November 2016 to 
ensure a swift and sustainable transition of the e-CODEX project towards sustainability in 
the long run. However, some Member States still do not accept electronic documents in 
judicial  proceedings,  and  actually  only  some  of  them  are  currently  using  the  e-CODEX 
system.131 

According to 83% of responses to the question on the status, this Action is ongoing.   

Regarding  the  effectiveness/level  of  success  50%  of  respondents  to  this  question 
indicated that the implementation of the Action has been successful.  

Concerning  the  scope  of  the  project,  3  stakeholders  indicated  that  the  scope  should  be 
expanded, and 2 that innovative aspects should be included. 2 stakeholders selected the 
option ‘don’t know’.  

As  far  as  the  challenges  are  concerned,  1  respondent  indicated  administrative 
constraints, 1 stakeholder selected the option ‘other’, and 3 answered ‘don’t know’. 

For a detailed description of the Action, see Annex 1. 

130  Inception Impact Assessment,  Ref. Ares  (2017)3600084  , 17  July 2017.  European Commission,  Directorate-
General  for  Justice  and  Consumers,  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-
3600084_en  

131  Automatic  Processing.  European  e-Justice  Portal,  https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_automatic_processing-

280-en.do?init=true, accessed on 12.03.2018. 

Page 91 of 104 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

6. 

Suggestions for the new Action Plan for the 2019-
2023 period  

6.1. 

Domains and initiatives  

The  stakeholders  identified  the  following  five  domains  that  according  to  their  opinion 
should be focus of the next Action Plan:  

  Domain no.1: Artificial intelligence. Projects and studies exploring the use of AI in 

the domain of justice should be included in the next Action plan.   

  Domain no. 2: e-CODEX 
  Domain no. 3: Interconnection of registers (all legal Registers) 
  Domain no. 4: Land registry interconnection  
  Domain no. 5: Continuous development of e-Justice Portal  

Based on the responses received by 40 out of 56 stakeholders (or 71%) on the question 
regarding  the  digitalised  national  ‘end-to-end’  business  processes  9  out  of  40 
respondents (or 22%) indicated of having in place national ‘end-to-end business process’ 
that has been digitalised in their country, 5 out of 40 (or 13%) replied negatively, while 6 
out of 40 (or 15%) stated that the process of digitalisation is partially done.  

Examples of processes would include the following: preparing and submitting the annual 
reports  of  the  business  activities;  submission  of  the  court  documents;  expedited 
procedure  of  a  national  payment  order  and  preparing  and  submitting  property 
registration  applications  and  monitoring  real-time  status  of  proceedings.  Additionally, 
processes  for  online  registration  of  a  company  or  getting  some  personal  documents 
through personal mailboxes, e.g. birth certificates, marriage certificates, etc.  

Regarding the question if some of the identified national ‘end-to-end’ business processes 
could  be  extended  in  the  cross-border  context,  13  out  of  56  stakeholders  (or  23%) 
replied to this question. 7 out of 13 respondents (or 54%) answered positively, 1 out of 
13  (or  8%)  answered  ‘no’  while  2  out  of  13  respondents  (15%)  believe  that  would  be 
worthwhile  exploring  the  existing  ‘end-to-end’  business  as  starting  initiatives  in  the 
cross-border context.   

Page 92 of 104 

22%15%13%50%Are there any major national 'end-to-end' business processess already digitalised?YesPartiallyNoDon't know 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

6.2. 

Use of new technologies  

Blockchain  

In  response  to  the  question  on  the  possible  use  of  emerging  technologies,  such  as 
blockchain  in  the  domain  of  justice,  46  out  of  56  stakeholders  (or  82%)  replied  to  this 
question. 

16  out  of  46  respondents  (or  35%)  indicated  that  the  use  of  blockchain  technologies 
should be used in the domain of justice, or explored as replied by 18 out of 46 (or 39%) 
of respondents. 1 out of 46 (or 2%) replied “Other”, 2 out of 46 (or 4%) indicated “No” 
and 9 out of 46 (or 20%) answered not to know. 

Regarding the current use of blockchain technologies the results show that it is still very 
modest in the domain of justice. A total of 46 out of 56 (or 82%) stakeholders replied to 
this  question,  where  2  out  of  46  (or  4%)  indicated  that  their  organisation  is  using 
blockchain technologies in the justice domain, while 34 out of 46 (or 74%)  are currently 
not leveraging this technology.  

Page 93 of 104 

54%8%15%23%Do you think these processes can be extended in a cross-border context?  YesNoMaybe, as theycould serve as astarting initiativeDon't know35%4%39%2%20%Do you think that some emerging technologies could be used in the domain of justice?YesNoMaybe, it should be furtherexploredOtherDon't know 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Artificial Intelligence 

In response to the question if Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies could be used in the 
domain of justice, a total of 46 out of 56 (or 82%) stakeholders replied to this question.  

19  out  of  46  respondents  (or  41%)  indicated  that  the  use  of  AI  technologies  could  be 
used  in  the  domain  of  justice  or  explored  as  replied  also  by  19  out  of  46  (or  41%)  of 
respondents.  

The current use of AI technologies is rather low based on the response received to this 
question. A total of 46 out of 56 (or 82%) stakeholders replied to this question, where 3 
out of 46 respondents (or 7%) indicated that their organisation is using AI in the justice 
domain, while 37 out of 46 (or 80%) replied negatively.  

Page 94 of 104 

4%74%22%Does your organisation currently use blockchain technologies in the justice domain?YesNoDon't know41%7%41%11%Do you think AI technologies could be used in the domain of justice?YesNoMaybe, it should be exploredpossibilitiesDon't know7%80%13%Does your organisation currently use AI technologies in the justice domain?YesNoDon't know 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

7.  Way forward  

7.1. 

Recommendations cutting horizontally across all Actions  

Based  on  the  stakeholders’  consultations,  the  following  recommendations  are  drawn 
horizontally cutting across all Actions:  

  Focus and prioritise projects based on the best practices. Build on the best 
practices  and  national  experiences  to  focus  and  prioritise  projects/Actions  based 
on the expressed interest of Member States to participate. The main objective and 
criteria  should  be  to  mobilise  a  number  of  Member  States  to  join  and  actively 
participate in the project. Define the leadership roles for each project/Action.  

  Enlarge  and  diversify  stakeholders’  audience.  Encourage  and  ensure 
participation of a wider and diverse stakeholder audience in specific Actions, going 
beyond the specific groups to raise the awareness about the project and its added 
value at the national level and European level.  

  Closer  monitoring  and  reporting.  Introduce  the  elements  and  the  best 
practices  of  a  project  methodology  for  each  Action,  with  clearly  defined  and 
communicated  scope,  objectives  and  organisational  aspects  of  the  project 
together  with  expected  deliverables  and  timeframe.  Design  a  dashboard  for  the 
monitoring of project status and their achievements. 

  Raise 

through 

awareness 

and  designed 
targeted 
communication  strategy.  Design  and  conduct  well-thought  out  and  targeted 
campaigns to raise awareness about the e-Justice projects and their added value 
to  the  professional  communities  and  the  general  public.  Use  different 
communication  channels  and  media  to  ensure  regular  communication  on  the 
progress of projects, beyond the one-off campaign.  

campaigns 

  Independent  assessments.  Conduct  on  a  regular  basis,  independent,  stock-
taking  assessments  on  the  projects’  implementation  with  objective  of  early 
identification of issues and/or constraints affecting their implementation.  

7.2. 

Recommendations per each Action of the e-Justice Action Plan  

Additional recommendations and suggestions are defined per each Action as presented in 
the table below. 

Page 95 of 104 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Title of the Project/Action 

Way forward  

Best practice/Success stories identified 

Project no. 1 (a) updates of the static content, including 
the completion of information on victims of crime. 

-Design, develop and integrate an automatisation tool to help 
Member States in the process of updating the Portal's content.  

-Work on Search Engine Optimisations for the Portal.  

Project no.  1 (b) expansion of the static content (as per 
half-yearly content work plans) 

Project no.1 (c) inclusion of functionalities defined in 
this Action Plan 

Estonia shared its experience with the process 
of keeping its pages up to date. Every year all 
the fact sheets are downloaded and send to the 
people responsible for a topic to check and 
update the content. This practice is indicated as 
a good practice to be explored in the context of 
replicability in other Member States. 

On average about 15 to 20 new topics are 
added on the e-Justice Portal every year. 

The project on Business Registers (BRIS) and 
on Videoconferencing are assessed as very 
successful in terms of their completeness and 
participation of the Member States.   

Project no. 2: European e-Justice Portal - Information 
relating to minors (collecting information relating to 
minors in respect to judicial procedures) 

-Communicate the objectives clearly, scope and added value of 
the project with indication of expected input from MS. 

-Design and use targeted methods for Member State 
consultations process; practice brief and clearly crafted 
questionnaires.  

Project no. 3: Penitentiary establishments (information 
on competence and location of penitentiary 
establishments) 

Project no. 4: European e-Justice Portal (2) - e-Justice 
for practitioners in criminal matters: collecting and 
ensuring availability of practical experiences of judicial 
authorities in the area of EU criminal justice (Knowledge 
Management initiative on criminal matters) 

-On a regular basis, communicate the project status to Member 
States and stakeholders. 

-Communicate to the Member States if a project would be 
continued or stopped.  

Project no. 5: European e-Justice Portal - Open data on 
justice 

-Implement the recommendations of the Working Group on Open 
Data from 2015.  

-Collect data in a reusable and machine-readable format. 

-Develop  user  interface  to  support  automatic  collection  of  data 
and  publishing  of  metadata  instead  of  manual,  which  is  used  at 
the  moment.  Development  of  automatic  solutions  should  be  the 
priority. 

-Define  a  set  of  standard  metadata  to  describe  the  content 
together  with  semantics  with  the  objective  to  improve  the 
interoperability and interlinking. 

-Clarify  aspects  related  to  copyrights  and  licenses  to  remove 
possible concerns with regard to dissemination of data. 

Project no. 6: European e-Justice Portal - Information 

-Member  States 

to  validate 

the  alignment  between 

the 

Page 96 of 104 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

and assistance for citizens to resolve fundamental rights 
problems (guidelines for citizens in order to solve legal 
problems) 

information  provided  in  FRIT  tool  and  those  published  on  the 
content pages of the e Justice Portal. 

-Encourage Member States to provide up-to-date information on 
fundamental rights. 

Project no. 7: European e-Justice Portal - Judicial 
auctions - Information on judicial auctions 

Project no. 8: European e-Justice Portal - Judicial official 
announcements 

Project no. 9: Consumer law database 

Project no. 10: a) interconnection of available 
insolvency registers (currently limited to certain Member 
States) 

-Member States to provide up-to-date information in order to 
ensure that the database provides accurate information, allowing 
for an effective protection of EU consumers. 

Project no. 10: b) interconnection of the insolvency 
registers of all Member States as a result of the future 
amendment of the Insolvency Regulation (legal 
obligation) 

-Motivate and encourage MS to join. 

-Interconnect with the BRIS. 

-Include a payment tool. 

Project no. 11: Business registers 

Project no. 12: Land registers 

-Include information related to applicable fees for some Member 
States. 

-Interconnect BRIS with organisations which fight against money 
laundering. 

-Make interconnection with registers for implementation of anti-
fraud legislation. 

-Interconnect with BRIS and the Insolvency Registers. 

-Include a payment tool. 

Project no. 13: Interpreters’ and translators’ Databases 

-Motivate translators and interpreters to reach a more equal 

Italian 

Italy  has  developed  an  online  system  for 
judicial  auctions,  and  they  are  the  leader  for 
this  action. 
representatives  have 
presented  their  system  in  the  Expert  group,  as 
an  example  of  a  searchable  tool  for  auctioned 
goods.  Inclusion  of  the  interactive  tool  on  the 
e-Justice Portal is expected to be main focus of 
the second phase of the project.      

As participation in the project is on voluntary 
basis, only the interested countries participated 
in the project. The commitment of those 
countries together with a good solution resulted 
in the successful outcome of the project. 

Positive opinion of the Member States about the 
project and expect the continuation of the 
project for the next Action Plan. 

Member States agree that BRIS is a well-
functioning system. It is also seen that citizens 
and companies started to use BRIS directly 
after its launch in June 2017. With the go live of 
BRIS it was immediately visible that there was 
an issue with about 15% of branches, sister 
companies or subsidiaries that had no official 
company behind them. Via BRIS they can be 
identified and linked to the correct company or 
removed from the list. 

Some regions such as Bavaria in Germany are 
preparing to join the LRI. They come from a 
paper-based system and the plan is now to get 
it first functioning on national base and then in 
5 years at European level. 

Page 97 of 104 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Project no. 14: Help for the translation of judicial acts 

Project no. 15: Registers of judicial experts 

Project no. 16: Find a Judicial Expert 

Project no. 17: Interconnection of registers of wills 

Project no. 18: Electronic European Certificate of 
Succession 

Project no. 19: Register of representation rights and 
powers of legal representatives 

Project no. 20: Find a Judicial Officer 

Project no. 21: ECLI 

Project no. 22: ELI 

quality level of services across the Member States. 

-Encourage Member States to support the development of the 
database and to promote its use.  

-Communicate clearly about the status and aim of the project 
toward the Member States. 

-Improve collaboration with EULITA. 

-Improve collaboration with ARERT. 

-Protect the content of the wills. 

-Improve collaboration with ARERT. 

-Increase the transparency of the project status. 

-Work  on  promotion  of  ECLI  among  practitioners  in  the 
participating  Member  States,  as  well  as  in  those  who  have  not 
joined  so 
for  national 
administrations/judiciaries  to  adopt  ECLI).  Leverage  different 
communication channels including social media.  

far  (awareness  raising,  the  need 

-Establish  a  communication  team  which  will  be  in  charge  of 
awareness  raising  campaign,  to  attend  the  events  and  present 
ECLI to the public.  

-Prioritize the uptake of ELI by further Member States, and then 
work on the development and adoption of new features. 

“In  my  view,  it  is  essential  to  remain  involved 
and  influence  the  project  as  far  as  we  can.  It 
appears  to  be  at  an  advanced  stage.  It  takes 
into  account  the  concerns  of  professional 
translators,  while  at  the  same  time  seeking  to 
meet the potential users' need for services in a 
wide variety of languages.”132      

Estonia is one of the Member States that is 
taking a leading role with regard to the public 
administration digitalisation. They are ready for 
interconnection of the register and are 
encouraging other Member States to 
participate.   

Project no. 23: Semantic interoperability - (glossaries, 
such as LEGIVOC) 

-Clarify 
implementation of the Action. 

the  objectives  and  organisational  structure 

for 

IMOLA  II  project  is  an  ambitious  project  as  it 
aims to build semantic interoperability between 
the diverse real rights systems within the EU as 

132 Reiner Heard, vice-president of the International Federation of Translators, http://www.fit-ift.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/translatio2016_3_EN.pdf  

Page 98 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

ELRA  involves  national  land  registry  authorities 
from 23 MS, that have appointed expert contact 
points,  and  with  the  support  of  the  EC.  IMOLA 
II  output  will  be  an  instrument  not  only  to 
interconnect  land  registry  but  to  do  it  with 
effectiveness  in  the  sense  of  facilitating  the 
legal 
real 
understanding  of 
institutions  from  a  wide  disparity  of  systems, 
easing the finding of the most equivalent right. 

rights  and 

thesaurus  EuroVoc 

tool  VocBench  allows 

The  multilingual 
is  a 
cornerstone  for  semantic  interoperability  in  the 
EU  institutions  and  beyond.  The  alignments 
with other specific domain thesauri and national 
vocabularies allow linking domains and national 
jurisdictions.  The  open-source  vocabulary 
management 
the 
collaborative  maintenance  of  vocabularies  and 
contributes to interoperability. It is promoted as 
a  corporate  solution  inside  the  EU  institutions 
and  for  national  public  administrations  by  the 
ISA2  programme.  All  vocabularies,  data  and 
metadata  are  accessible  through  the  open 
Content  and  Metadata  Repository  of 
the 
Publications  Office  "CELLAR"  through  Linked 
Open Data services including REST and SPARQL 
interfaces. 

Project no. 24: a) Court database - unique identification 
of entities within the judicial domain 

Project no. 24: b) Court database - improving the 
content and functioning of the court database 
(extension of the scope by coverage of European and 
national instruments) 

Project no. 24: c) Court database - service interfaces 
which allow automatic searching of the court database 
by national and European e-Justice applications 

-Encourage Member States to provide up-to-date information. 

-Include additional court data in the future (information about 
the languages used, possibility of use the video conference, etc.) 

Several Member States have the automated 
system to update the content, and hence all the 
changes on the national level are visible in the 
e-Justice Portal in a short period of time. 
Estonia is also advanced and is sharing its best 
practices with other Member States. 

Germany insisted that some Member States 
allow the possibility to search for a court by the 
municipality name or postal code as it is 
already the case for some countries. 

Page 99 of 104 

 
  
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Project no. 25: Dynamic forms - (European Payment 
Order (EPO), Small Claims and Taking of evidence) 

-Expand  the  scope  of  the  project  by  development  of  additional 
forms. 

Project no. 26: ODR (Online dispute resolution) 

-Further  promote  the  ODR  platform,  in  particular  amongst 
traders.  Thereby,  promotional  efforts  and  adjustments  of  the 
platform  (e.g.  improved  messaging,  optimised  layout)  could 
contribute  to  an  increased  use  of  the  platform  by  traders  and 
consumers. 

Project no. 27: Find a mediator 

-Increase project transparency among stakeholders. 

Project no. 28: e-Service of documents 

Project no. 29: European Investigation Order 

Project no. 30: Videoconference 

-Address technical issues currently encountered during 
videoconferences in cross-border situations (e.g. interoperability 
between national systems, network connection speed). 

Project no. 31: e-APP (Electronic Apostille programme) - 
(including e-Registers of Apostilles) 

-Motivate more countries to adopt e-APP. 

Project no. 32: i-Support (maintenance obligations) 

-Increase awareness about and motivate more countries to adopt 
i-Support. 

-Translate software in the official languages of the interested 

The ODR platform is a reliable and widely-used 
platform.  Approximately  four  million  visitors 
have  consulted  the  ODR  platform  since  its 
launch in 2016. In addition, 20  176 complaints 
were submitted in 2016, and 32 559 in 2017.   

As  previously  explained,  most  settlements  are 
reached  before  the  complaint  is  transferred  to 
an  ADR  entity.  Data  shows  that  44%  of  the 
complaints  result  in  direct  settlement  between 
the consumer and the trader. Therefore, only a 
small  percentage  of  submitted  complaints  is 
currently  transferred  to  and  handled  by  ADR 
entities. Nevertheless, the platform enables this 
first  contact  between  consumers  and  traders 
and  is  therefore  actively  contributing  to  the 
protection of consumers. 

The report on the outcome of the questionnaire 
by France provides a mapping of the current 
state of play as far as the e-Service of 
documents is concerned in the Member States. 
This report is expected to feed into the proposal 
for a new Regulation on Service of documents. 

Member States have shown big interest for this 
Action, which is reflected in their high 
participation in the preparatory meetings. 
Meetings took place almost every month in 
2017 until early 2018 with 20-24 Member State 
representatives present. 

The e-APP system implemented in Spain as part 
of the e-APP for Europe Project serves as an 
example for the implementation in the other 
Member States, as do the many other e-APP 
systems already implemented throughout 
Europe and the world. 

Page 100 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

Project no. 33: Cooperation with the website of the 
European Judicial Network in criminal matters 

-Remove barriers for integration of EJN-criminal website in the 
Portal.   

Member States. 

Project no. 34: a) Automated machine translation - first 
inclusion in the e-Justice Portal 

Project no. 34: b) Automated machine translation -  
improve the quality of translation - introduce machine 
translations 

-Integrate the latest version of the machine translation no later 
than 25 June 2018 in the Portal.  

Project no. 35: Promotion of e-Justice (the Portal and e-
Justice in general) 

-Carry out targeted awareness campaigns and  a general one for 
stakeholders. 

Project no. 36: a) European e-Justice Portal - Making 
the Portal more user-friendly 

Project no. 36: b) European e-Justice Portal - Survey on 
user needs 

-Ensure that the content and the topics in the e-Justice Portal are 
organised according to users’ needs while at the same time 
taking into account the priorities of the Member States and the 
Commission.  

-Launch  a  survey  on  users’  needs  approximately  every  5  years. 
This activity would ensure that the Portal is kept up-to-date and 
responds to the actual needs of its users. 

Project no. 37: Multi-channel strategy 

-Define 
roadmap 
implementation of a Multi-channel strategy at the EU level. 

concrete 

develop 

actions 

and 

for 

Project no. 38: e-Delivery (transporting information 
securely between the Member States) 

-Further  promote  this  Action  by  simplifying  the  operations  and 
delivering one specific e-Delivery network for each project.  

-Encourage Member States to join the e-CODEX project.   

Project no. 39: e-Signature (signing of documents; 
checking the validity of incoming signed documents) 

-Further promote and encourage use e-Signature at the national 
levels. 

Project no. 40: e-Payment (payment of fees online) 

Project no. 41: e-ID (differentiated access to the e-
Justice portal by authentication through the use of 

-Produce  a  catalogue  including  all  applicable  e-Payment  fees  in 
the different Member States.  

-Include a payment service on the e-Justice Portal, enabling end 
users  to  pay  electronically  for  information  and  documents,  as 
well as other applicable fees. 

-Further promote use of e-IDs at the Member States level.   

The main objective of having the machine 
translations is to have a quick, practical and 
temporary solution, instead of using other 
systems available online, that will give users an 
idea of the document’s content until the official 
translation is received. 

According  to  the  information  collected  during 
the interviews, it would be necessary to launch 
a  survey  on  the  users’  needs  every  5  years,  in 
order  to  ensure  that  the  Portal  properly 
addresses current ones. 

The  Action  Leader  explained that,  although  the 
project  has  not  been  implemented  as  it  was 
initially conceived in the Action Plan, the report 
produced  by  the  Expert  Group  is  a  good  basis 
and  suggests  a  roadmap  to  set  up  a  multi-
channel strategy at EU level. 

Page 101 of 104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

national identity solutions.) 

Project no. 42: e-Document (conversion and semantics. 
Common standards for documents exchanged in cross-
border systems.) 

-Promote the advantages and benefits of e-Document in order to 
increase its use. In addition, the Commission should also prompt 
Member  States  to  join  e-CODEX  in  order  to  ensure  the 
interoperability of the documents exchanged. 

Page 102 of 104 

 
 
 
Evaluation study on the outcome of the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 and the way forward - Final report 

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Page 103 of 104 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D
S
-
0
2
-
1
8
-
7
1
4
-
E
N
-
N

[

C

a

t

a

l

o

g

u

e

n

u

m

b

e

r

]

 DOI: 10.2838/373323