COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Digitalisation of justice in the European Union A toolbox of opportunities
Date: 2020-12-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: access to the courts, area of freedom, security and justice, artificial intelligence, coronavirus disease, digitisation, electronic government, epidemic, exchange of information, judicial cooperation, legal system

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 2.12.2020  COM(2020) 710 final  COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Digitalisation of justice in the European Union   A toolbox of opportunities {SWD(2020) 540 final}  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Access  to  justice  and  facilitating  cooperation  between  Member  States  are  among  the  main 
objectives  of  the  EU’s  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice  enshrined  in  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning  of  the  European  Union1.  The  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  in  its  Article  47 
guarantees right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial2. Effective justice systems are also 
essential for the functioning of the internal  market  and a prerequisite for economic  growth. 
Access to justice needs to be maintained and to keep pace with change, including the digital 
transformation affecting all aspects of our lives.  

In the past decade the Commission and the Member States have acknowledged the need for 
effective justice systems and have taken a number of initiatives that have produced positive 
results  as  regards  the  digitalisation  of  justice.  However  much  more  remains  to  be  done. 
Furthermore,  beyond  the  immediate  health  and  economic  impact,  the  COVID-19  crisis  has 
created a wider variety of challenges also for the justice systems in the Union and beyond its 
immediate borders. 

On the one hand the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for the EU to accelerate 
national  reforms  to  digitalise  judicial  institutions’  handling  of  cases,  parties’  and  lawyers’ 
exchange of information and documents, and continued easy access to justice for all.3 It has 
thus given an extra impetus to the efforts conducted by Member States in making the best use 
of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) tools in their justice systems. On the 
other  hand,  the  considerable  impact  on  the  functioning  of  national  justice  systems  has  also 
adversely affected EU cross-border judicial cooperation, leading in many cases to delays and 
obstacles to access to justice for individuals and businesses alike4.  

The COVID-19 crisis has thus underlined the need to strengthen the resilience of the justice 
system  across  the  EU.  It  has  also  stressed  the  importance  to  further  cooperate  with  its 
international partners, and promote best practices also in this policy area. This represents an 
important  component  of  a  society  based  on  European  values,  and  of  a  more  resilient 
economy.  

In her political  guidelines5, the President  of the European Commission  undertook to  ensure 
that Europe ‘strives for more’ by grasping the opportunities of the digital age within safe and 
ethical  boundaries.  The  recent  2020  Strategic  Foresight  report6  recognises  the  crucial 
importance  of  the  digital  transformation  of  public  administrations  and  justice  systems 

1   Article 67 TFEU. 
2   Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 391–407). 
3     See 2020 rule of law report — the rule of law situation in the European Union (COM(2020) 580 final). 
4   To  compile  an  overview  of  the  challenges  that  national  justice  systems  have  been  facing  during  the 
COVID-19 crisis, the Commission collected information on its impact and national response measures;   
https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_impact_of_the_covid19_virus_on_the_justice_field-37147-en.do 
In the context of the European arrest warrant, for example, while no Member State has generally suspended 
the execution of surrenders, in some cases it had become impossible to transfer the requested person to the 
issuing  state,  mostly  due  to  travel  restrictions  and  flight  cancellations.  The  feasibility  of  each  transfer  has 
been assessed case by case. Transfers by land (e.g. between neighbouring states) have generally continued to 
take place unless borders are closed. 

5   https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en.pdf 
6   https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/new-push-european-democracy/strategic-

foresight/2020-strategic-foresight-report_en  

1 

 
 
 
                                                           
throughout the EU. The transition should work for all, putting people first and opening new 
opportunities for different stakeholders. It should therefore address a broad range of issues.  

The European Council7 and the European Parliament8 have both recognised the pivotal role 
of  digitalisation  in  helping  to  relaunch  and  modernise  the  EU  economy  following  the 
COVID-19 crisis. 

In  the  July  2020  Security  Union  Strategy,  the  Commission  committed  to  actions  to  ensure 
law enforcement and justice practitioners can better adapt to new technology, in particular by 
having  access  to  new  tools,  acquire  new  skills  and  develop  alternative  investigative 
techniques9. 

The Council Conclusions on Access to justice — seizing the opportunities of digitalisation10  
of  13  October  2020  set  out  specific  proposals  for  the  mutual  reinforcement  of  policies 
relating to effective access to justice and digitalisation. 

Against this background, it is essential that the EU brings the digitalisation of justice up to 
full speed. While a lot has been done already, significant work ahead remains to be conducted 
both  at  national  and  at  European  level  to  further  strengthen  the  resilience  of  the  justice 
systems and boost their capacity to work online. The Commission’s experience with regard to 
eGovernment  is  that  digital  transformation  is  one  aspect  of  the  structural  reforms  of  the 
justice  systems  which  should  positively  impact  the  systems.  As  part  of  such  reforms,  the 
processes and the design of the systems supporting them need to be always developed with 
the citizens and business in mind. 

To reap the full benefits of digital technologies in judicial proceedings, the objective of this 
Communication is hence two-fold: at the national level, it aims at further supporting Member 
States to move ahead their national justice systems towards the digital era, by enhancing the 
cooperation and digital uptake of the different national judicial authorities, for the full benefit 
of citizens and business; and at the European level it aims at further improving cross-border 
judicial cooperation between competent authorities. This would concern in particular further 
digitalising  public  justice  services,  promoting  the  use  of  secure  and  high-quality  distance 
communication  technology  (videoconferencing),  facilitating  the  interconnection  of  national 
databases  and  registers,  and  promoting  the  use  of  secure  electronic  transmission  channels 
between competent authorities.  

This Communication is setting out a new approach to the digitalisation of justice based on a 
‘toolbox’  –  a  comprehensive  set  of  legal,  financial  and  IT  instruments  to  be  used  by  the 
various actors in our justice systems according to their needs. 

The  design  and  implementation  of  the  digitalisation  of  justice  must  ensure  full  respect  of 
fundamental  rights,  as  enshrined  in  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European 
Union11. This approach would thus de facto ensure that everyone in our Union can make full 

7   A roadmap for recovery – towards a more resilient, sustainable and fair Europe, endorsed on 23 April 2020. 
8   Resolution  of  17  April  2020  on  EU  coordinated  action  to  combat  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  its 

consequences. 

9   COM/2020/605 final 
10   OJ C 342I, 14.10.2020, p. 1 
11   Such as the rights to the protection of personal data, to a fair trial and to a fair remedy, including for those 
with  no  access  to  digital  tools  or  the  necessary  skills  to  use  them,  and  taking  account  of  the  situation  of  the 
elderly and disadvantaged individuals. 

2 

 
 
                                                           
use of new or additional digital tools in the justice area. It is therefore essential to ensure that 
also persons with disabilities and children have effective access to justice on equal basis with 
others12. Factoring in security considerations in the design and rollout of digital solutions in 
the  field  of  justice  is  essential  to  promote  their  uptake  and  to  build  citizens’  trust. 
Furthermore,  by  improving  access  to  justice,  digitalisation  will  also  help  to  strengthen  the 
rule of law in the EU. 

2.  CHALLENGES FOR JUSTICE SYSTEMS IN THE DIGITAL AGE 

There  are  various  inherent  challenges  for  and  differences  across  Member  States.  Each  year 
since 2013, the Commission has published an EU justice scoreboard13 presenting a snapshot 
also  with  respect  to  digitalisation  of  judicial  systems  across  the  Member  States,  for 
example as  regards  online  access  to  judgments  or  online  claim  submission  and  follow-up. 
Two  recent  studies  analyse  the  use  of  innovative  technologies14  and  the  particular  issue  of 
digital criminal justice15.  

The  Commission  has  carried  out  an  in-depth  analysis  and  is  presenting  a  mapping  of  the 
digitalisation of justice in all Member States in the staff working document16 accompanying 
this Communication. It reveals a different level of progress amongst the Member States. 

For example: 

 

 

individuals can access an electronic file of their ongoing cases in 10 Member States in 
all types of civil law procedure; 

in the context of criminal law, victims can access an electronic file in seven Member 
States and defendants in nine; 

  evidence can be submitted to a court exclusively in digital format in the context of all 

types of criminal proceedings in 13 Member States; 

 

in civil and commercial law, digital evidence is admissible in all types of proceedings 
in 10 Member States.  

Overall, the results portray a very varied landscape across the Member States. The EU justice 
scoreboard  and  the  mapping  show  that  many  areas  of  justice  could  benefit  from  further 
digitalisation. 

With certain exceptions17, one area where a slow pace of digitalisation has been encountered 
relates  to  registers  and  databases.  Individuals,  businesses  and  legal  practitioners  all  have 

12   As indicated in article 13 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to which the EU 

and all Member States are party to. 

13   https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-law/eu-justice-

scoreboard_en  

14   Study on the use of innovative technologies in the justice field; 

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4fb8e194-f634-11ea-991b-01aa75ed71a1/language-
en 

15   Cross-border digital criminal justice; 

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e38795b5-f633-11ea-991b-01aa75ed71a1/language-
en  

16   SWD(2020) 540 

3 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
difficulties in accessing the information to which they are entitled. In many cases, such access 
is not available online, resulting de facto in a number of inefficiencies. 

Another issue in EU justice is the persisting use of paper files, which continues to dominate 
national and cross-border judicial proceedings. EU legal procedures require the exchange of 
information  between  the  competent  national  authorities,  often  involving  the  use  of 
standardised  forms  or  large  volumes  of  data.  However,  current  EU  legislation  does  not 
stipulate  the  medium  or  detailed  arrangements  for  such  transfers.  As  a  result,  most 
communication  remains  paper-based, 
in  cross-border 
exchanges  (mainly  with  regard  to  speed,  reliability,  traceability  and  cost),  complicating 
individuals’  and  businesses’  access  to  information,  and  slowing  down  exchanges  between 
Member State authorities. 

thus  generating 

inefficiencies 

Lack of forward planning and coordination have led to the creation of a variety of national IT 
tools, resulting in challenges for achieving swift cross-border interoperability. This has led to 
an  increase  of  the  use  of  paper  files  at  the  national  level.  To  address  this  issue,  while 
protecting the investments already made, Member States have explored various approaches to 
the digitalisation of cross-border judicial cooperation. These endeavours took place mostly as 
voluntary  initiatives  between  the  Member  States,  associations  of  legal  practitioners  and  the 
Commission. While this cooperation has produced a number of effective tools (in particular 
e-CODEX18), Member States have not yet made consistent use of these solutions.  

In  order  to  effectively  support  the  relevant  Member  States’  authorities  in  the  fight  against 
cross-border crime, EU justice and home affairs  (JHA) agencies  and bodies have identified 
the need to enhance their digital cooperation capabilities19. They have had to face a number 
of challenges, such as a lack of state-of-the-art digital infrastructure, a trusted communication 
channel  and  the  necessary  applications  for  the  exchange  of  evidence  between  national 
authorities  and  between  those  authorities  and  the  EU  agencies  and  bodies.  It  is  therefore 
essential that agencies and bodies such as the EU Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation 
(Eurojust), the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), the European Anti-Fraud Office 
(OLAF) and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) agree 
on  a  common  approach  that  ensures  smooth  and  secure  cooperation  with  Member  States, 
while complying with the applicable legal framework, in particular as regards personal data 
protection. 

To sum up, it is essential that the EU and its Member States overcome these obstacles so as to 
make access to justice an integral part of Europe’s Digital Decade. This concerns all actors in 
the justice system. 

17   Such  as  the  digitalisation  of  Member  States’  business  registers,  interconnected  through  the  Business 

Registers Interconnection System - see Section 3.4 of this Communication. 

18   e-Justice Communication via Online Data Exchange; 
19   As  part  of  the  digital  criminal  justice  study  (see  footnote  29),  inter  alia,  the  following  JHA  agencies  and 

bodies provided input: Eurojust, Europol and the EPPO.  

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
3. A TOOLBOX FOR THE DIGITALISATION OF JUSTICE 

This Communication proposes a toolbox for the digitalisation of justice, in order to tackle the 
challenges  identified  above  and  move  the  justice  sector  forward  in  the  digital  area.  The 
Commission  is  proposing  an approach that takes into account  the Member States’ differing 
national circumstances, national competences, and fully respects the principles of subsidiarity 
and  proportionality.  At  the  same  time,  to  achieve  a  fully-fledged  area  of  freedom,  security 
and  justice,  it  is  important  that  all  Member  States  work  towards  reducing  the  existing 
digitalisation  gaps,  fragmentation  between  national  justice  systems  and  leverage  the 
opportunities available under the relevant EU funding mechanisms. 

The tools of the proposed toolbox are broadly categorised as follows: 

1.  Financial support to Member States, to harness the potential for creating long-term 

impact; 

2.  Legislative  initiatives,  to  set  the  requirements  for  digitalisation  in  order  to  promote 
better access to justice and improved cross-border cooperation, including in the field 
of Artificial Intelligence; 

3.  IT tools, which can be built upon in the short to medium term and used in all Member 
States.  It  is  important  that  existing  and  new  IT  tools  are  interoperable  by  default, 
accessible  for  persons  with  disabilities,  user-centred,  fast,  secure,  reliable,  resilient 
and data-driven20, and ensure privacy, data protection and transparency; 

4.  Promotion  of  national  coordination  and  monitoring  instruments  which  would 
allow  regular  monitoring,  coordination,  evaluation  and  exchange  of  experiences  and 
best practices. 

The  toolbox  comprises  binding  and  non-binding  measures.  Mandatory  digitalisation  seems 
necessary, for example, in the area of cross-border judicial cooperation procedures, to enable 
effective and swift cross-border communication. Other tools that may not be binding include 
opportunities for information-sharing and the exchange of best practices.  

Any  action  relating  to  the  digitalisation  of  justice  must  be  implemented  in  full  compliance 
with fundamental rights, such as the rights to the protection of personal data, to a fair trial and 
to an effective remedy, and the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity. 

Furthermore,  the  digitalisation  process  must  take  full  account  of  the  needs  of  the 
disadvantaged  groups.  Digital  technologies  are  becoming  increasingly  user-friendly  and 
accessible to a large majority, regardless of age, level of education and accessible for persons 
with disabilities. At the same time, institutional, organisational and technical measures must 
ensure full access to justice by disadvantaged groups and people in situation of vulnerability, 
such as children or older people, who may lack the requisite means or digital skills. Victims 
of crime should also be able to benefit from digital tools in accordance with every victim’s 
specific needs. 

The  right  to  a  fair  trial  and  effective  legal  remedy  must  be  guaranteed.  In  particular,  in 
criminal proceedings in a digital environment, care should be taken to avoid any interference 

20   Making  use  of  increasingly  available  data,  in  accordance  with  the  European  data  strategy  outlined  in  the 

Commission Communication, A European strategy for data (COM(2020) 66 final). 

5 

 
 
                                                           
with the rights of defence, including the right of access to a lawyer and the right of access to 
material evidence. Likewise, in civil proceedings, the equality of arms must be ensured. 

3.1.  Financial support to Member States 

Developing  adequate  IT  systems  for  use  in  the  field  of  justice  requires  time  and,  more 
importantly, resources. A comprehensive strategy to tackle the digitalisation of justice in the 
EU therefore needs to address access to funding. 

The  digitalisation  of  justice  systems,  the  uptake  of  existing  digital  solutions  and  the 
introduction  of  new  ones  require  significant 
infrastructure,  design, 
implementation,  maintenance  and  training21.  To  achieve  a  sufficient  pace  of  change,  a 
twofold approach is needed:  

investments 

in 

 

financial  support  for  Member  States  to  start  the  true  digital  transformation  of  their 
justice systems; and  

  support for implementing EU-wide initiatives. 

Every means available should be used to support the transition to digital justice, including the 
new cohesion policy instruments, the new ‘justice’ and ‘digital Europe’ programmes, as well 
as the Recovery and Resilience Facility.  

The  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility  aims  in  fact  at  supporting  the  national  investments 
and  reforms  that  are  essential  for  a  sustainable  recovery22.  This  is  why,  when  setting  out 
guidance to help Member States to prepare and present their recovery and resilience plans for 
the implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility, the Commission stressed that the 
digital transformation of the justice sector is one of the domains in which Member States are 
strongly  encouraged  to  focus  reforms  and  investments23.  National  initiatives  in  this  regard 
can be counted towards the 20% digital expenditure target under the Recovery and Resilience 
Facility, in order to realise a ‘Europe fit for the digital age’. 

The  Commission’s  2021-2027  cohesion  policy  proposals  recognise  the  broad  need  for 
digitalisation  and  strengthen  the  link  with  the  country-specific  recommendations  under  the 
European Semester, which have identified the digitalisation of justice as a priority for some 
Member  States  since  201624.  Therefore,  Member  States  should  make  the  most  of  the 
opportunities  in  the  new  programming  period,  in  particular  under  the  European  Regional 
Development Fund25 and the European Social Fund Plus. 

21   Training  for  justice  professionals  on  digital  tools  and  technologies  is  addressed  in  the  Commission 
Communication,  Ensuring  justice  in  the  EU  —  a  European  judicial  training  strategy  for  2021-2024 
(COM(2020) 713). 

22   The Commission will exercise scrutiny to ensure that the same investments are not financed twice. The RRF 
aims  to  finance  additional  investments  and  not  to  crowd  out  investments  that  could  be  achieved  through 
other mechanisms. 

23   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/3_en_document_travail_service_part1_v3_en_0.pdf 
24   Croatia since 2016, Cyprus since 2017, Belgium since 2018 and Greece in 2020. 
25   In  particular,  under  Policy  Objective  “A  smarter  Europe”  by  promoting  innovative  and  smart  economic 
transformation”,  Specific  Objective  “Reaping  the  benefits  of  digitalisation  for  citizens,  companies  and 
governments”. Investments should be consistent with the national or regional smart specialisation strategies 
and contribute to smart economic transformation. 

6 

 
 
                                                           
The  Technical  Support  Instrument26  will  provide  support  to  all  Member  States  in  the 
implementation  of  structural  reforms  including  in  the  justice  area.  The  Commission  has 
already considerable experience in the implementation of projects related to digitalisation of 
justice  systems  in  several  Member  States  under  the  current  Structural  Reform  Support 
Programme (SRSP). 

The  Commission’s  experience  with  regard  to  eGovernment  is  that  digital  transformation  is 
one aspect of the structural reforms of the justice systems which should positively impact the 
systems themselves (Governance, Human Resource management, Case management, etc.). A 
prerequisite for digitalisation of the systems is the reengineering of those processes and the 
design  of  the  systems  supporting  them,  always  with  the  citizens  and  businesses  in  mind. 
Digital  transformation  structural  reform  without  high-level  process  reengineering  in  mind, 
would be of limited impact. 

As regards digitalisation initiatives with an EU dimension, support should be available under 
the new Justice programme and the  Digital Europe programme. Both instruments  foster 
the  digitalisation  of  justice,  for  example  by  supporting  the  establishment  of  interoperable27 
solutions  for  more  efficient  cross-border  cooperation  and  interconnecting  registers  and 
databases. The Digital Europe programme will also provide opportunities for piloting multi-
sectoral  innovative  technology  initiatives,  in  particular  those  based  on  AI  and  distributed 
ledger (blockchain) technologies. 

Proposed actions 
Support  the provision  of new services for citizens 
and  companies  through  digitalisation  of  justice 
systems and relevant public services under the new 
Cohesion Policy instruments 
Prioritise  the  inclusion  of  digitalisation  of  justice 
actions  in  the  national  Recovery  and  Resilience 
Plans  
Submit requests in the framework of the Technical 
Support  Instrument for the digitalisation of justice 
systems 
Offer  financial  support  under  the  ‘justice’  and 
‘digital  Europe’  programmes  (2021-2027)  for 
initiatives  enabling  the  digitalisation  of  justice  at 
EU level 
Implement  concrete  projects  for  the  digitalisation 
of  national  justice  systems  and  relevant  public 
services,  e.g. building  electronic  registers  and 
databases,  case  management  systems  and  secure 
communication  channels,  and  equipping  judicial 

By whom?  
Commission 
Member States 

/ 

By when? 
Ongoing  until 
2027 

Member States 

Member States 

Ongoing  until 
2026 

Ongoing  until 
2027 

Commission 
Member States 

/ 

Ongoing  until 
2027 

Member States 

Ongoing  until 
2027 

26   Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Technical Support 

Instrument (COM/2020/409 final). 

27   The Commission has announced its intentions to evaluate the European interoperability framework (EIF) in 
order to assess the support it gives governments to set up interoperable digital public services (i.e. services 
that are fully available online and usable by businesses and citizens in any EU country). The initiative will 
also  propose  a  new  interoperability  strategy  for  EU  governments.  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-
regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12579-Interoperable-digital-public-services-European-Interoperability-
Framework-evaluation-strategy 

7 

 
 
                                                           
authorities  with  videoconferencing 
ensuring accessibility in digitalisation 

tools  and 

3.2.   Making  the  digital  channel  the  default  option  in  EU  cross-border  judicial 

cooperation 

To  date,  the  digitalisation  of  cross-border  judicial  cooperation  procedures  has  been  based 
mostly  on  voluntary  initiatives  between  the  Member  States28.  However,  this  approach  has 
reached  its  apparent  limits.  For  example29,  in  the  area  of  civil  and  commercial  law,  seven 
Member  States  use  digital  communication  tools for  all  relevant  EU  legal  instruments  when 
communicating with other competent authorities, six use them in a limited context, and seven 
currently do not use them at all. This fragmentation generates sustained inefficiencies – inter 
alia,  the  continued  use  of  the  paper  channel  results  in  unnecessary  financial  costs  and 
negative environmental impact. Moreover, the use of digital communication tools on its own 
does  not  address  the  needs  of  fully  digitalised  procedures,  which  requires  appropriate  legal 
arrangements. 

The Commission has already proposed a new approach to digitalisation in relation to certain 
EU legislation. On 31 May 2018, it proposed amendments to the Regulation on the Service of 
Documents30  and  the  Regulation  on  the  Taking  of  Evidence31.  Among  other  things,  these 
Regulations  establish  a  legal  framework  for  communication  between  national  authorities  in 
the  context  of  cross-border  cooperation.  The  Commission  impact  assessments32  clearly 
showed that the current  paper-based cooperation presents a number of deficiencies,  with  an 
adverse impact on the cost and effectiveness of judicial proceedings. To ensure the relevance 
of  the  procedures  in  an  increasingly  digital  world,  the  proposed  amendments  provide  for 
electronic transmission as the default channel for communication and document exchange33. 
In  June  2019,  the  EU  adopted  the  Restructuring  and  Second  Chance  Directive34,  which 
allows for viable business in distress to be rescued and honest, but bankrupt individuals to be 
given a second chance. One of its objectives is gradually to digitalise insolvency procedures, 
which will help to reduce their cost and length. 

28   Currently, only a few Member States are taking part in a pilot project to exchange European payment orders 

digitally. 

29   See accompanying staff working document. 
30   Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  amending  Regulation  (EC) 
No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the service in the Member States of judicial 
and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents) (COM/2018/379 final). 
31   Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1206/2001  of  28  May  2001  on  cooperation  between  the  courts  of  the  Member  States  in  the  taking  of 
evidence in civil or commercial matters (COM/2018/378 final). 

32   SWD/2018/285 final. 
33   The Regulations were adopted at the end of November 2020.  
34   Directive  (EU)  2019/1023  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  June  2019  on  preventive 
restructuring  frameworks,  on  discharge  of  debt  and  disqualifications,  and  on  measures  to  increase  the 
efficiency of procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt, and amending Directive 
(EU) 2017/1132 (Directive on restructuring and insolvency) (OJ L 172, 26.6.2019, p. 18). 

34   Directive  (EU)  2019/1023  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  June  2019  on  preventive 
restructuring  frameworks,  on  discharge  of  debt  and  disqualifications,  and  on  measures  to  increase  the 
efficiency of procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt, and amending Directive 
(EU) 2017/1132 (Directive on restructuring and insolvency) (OJ L 172, 26.6.2019, p. 18). 

8 

 
 
 
                                                           
On  the  basis  of  this  experience,  as  announced  in  its  2021  Work  Programme35,  the 
Commission  will  take  a  step  further  and  propose  legislation  on  the  further  digitalisation  of 
judicial  cooperation  procedures  in  civil,  commercial  and  criminal  matters.  Such  a  proposal 
could: 

  Require  Member  States  by  default  to  use  digital  channels  for  cross-border 

communication and data exchanges between competent national authorities; 

  Require  Member  States  to  accept  electronic  communication  for  cross-border 
procedures involving citizens and businesses, without ruling out the use of paper; 
  Guarantee  that  the  solutions  and  principles  set  out  in  the  eIDAS  Regulation36  are 

referenced and used, in particular: 

o 

the principle that electronic document shall not be denied legal effect and 
admissibility as evidence in legal proceedings solely on the grounds that it 
is in electronic form; 

o  electronic  identification37  and  signatures/seals  should  become  acceptable 
for  the  digital  transmission  of  judicial  documents  and  their  appropriate 
assurance levels agreed.  

  Provide  a  basis  for  the  processing  of  personal  data,  within  the  meaning  of  the 
General  Data  Protection  Regulation38  and  applicable  Union  rules  on  data  protection 
and determine the responsibilities of different controllers and processors; 

  Ensure that any electronic access points established for use by the general public cater 

for persons with disabilities39; 

 

In order to ensure that national IT systems are interoperable and able to communicate 
with  each  other,  lay  down  the  broad  architecture  of  the  underlying  IT  system  for 
digital communication. 

The  process  of  digitalising  EU  judicial  cooperation  would  certainly  entail  non-negligible 
costs.  In  this  regard,  Member  States  should  be  able  to  benefit  from  EU  financial  support. 
Generic IT solutions developed at EU level, for use by all Member States, could be a major 
cost-reduction measure. 

Proposed action 

By whom? 

By when? 

35   https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2021-commission-work-programme-key-documents_en 
36   Regulation  (EU)  No  910/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  electronic  identification 
and  trust  services  for  electronic  transactions  in  the  internal  market  and  repealing  Directive  1999/93/EC 
(OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 73). 

37   Digital Identity is an essential enabler of the Single Market and a key driver of the digital transformation of 
public administration. Based on the political mandate received from the European Council, the Commission 
will propose a revision of the eIDAS Regulation in order to enable Europeans to benefit from a universally 
accepted European Digital Identity, which can be used in all online proceedings, public or private requiring 
the  use  of  electronic  identification  and  authentication  online.  These  developments  are  also  relevant  and 
important for the justice field and should be taken into account. 

38   Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection 
of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and 
repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance). 

39   In line  with the accessibility  requirements for  electronic communication services set out in Directive (EU) 
2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the accessibility requirements 
for products and services (OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, p. 70-115). 

9 

 
 
                                                           
Legislative  proposal  on  the  digitalisation  of  cross-
border  judicial  cooperation  (see  Commission  work 
programme for 2021) 

Commission 

Q4 2021 

3.3.   Artificial intelligence (AI) 

A  Commission  study40  has  shown  that  the  rate  of  uptake  of  new  technologies,  such  as 
artificial  intelligence,  varies  between  and  within  Member  States,  but  is  generally  slow 
everywhere.  The  use  of  AI  applications  can  bring  a  lot  of  benefits,  such  as  making  use  of 
information  in  new  and  highly  efficient  ways,  and  improve  access  to  justice,  including  by 
reducing the duration of judicial proceedings. At the same time, the potential for opacity or 
biases  embedded  in  certain  AI  applications  can  also  lead  to  risks  and  challenges  for  the 
respect and effective enforcement of fundamental rights, including in particular the right to an 
effective remedy and fair trial41.  

To make use of the opportunities offered by AI technologies, while addressing the associated 
risks, in the follow-up to the White Paper on AI from February 2020, the Commission opened 
a  public  consultation  and  received  views  from  various  stakeholders  on  the  use  of  AI 
applications in the justice area as a possible high-risk use case, in particular if used as part of 
decision-making  processes  with  significant  effects  on  the  rights  of  persons42.  The  proposed 
requirements  in  the White Paper on increased transparency, human oversight,  accuracy and 
robustness  of  these  systems  aim  to  facilitate  their  beneficial  use,  while  ensuring  that 
fundamental  rights  (including  non-discrimination  based  on  sex,  racial  or  ethnic  origin, 
religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation) are respected and rule of law and due 
process  principles upheld. The use of Artificial  Intelligence tools  can support, but  must not 
interfere with the decision-making power of judges or judicial independence.  

Recent  Commission  research43 has shown that judicial authorities are increasingly adopting 
AI-based applications.  Of particular interest  in  the field  of  justice  are the anonymisation of 
court  decisions,  speech-to-text  conversion  and  transcription,  machine  translation,  chatbots 
supporting access to justice and robot process automation44.  

As in other sectors, the use of AI applications in the justice sector  could be very beneficial. 
Better  coordination  at  EU  level  could  avoid  duplication  of  national  efforts  and  create 
significant synergies. It could also ensure interoperability and ultimately transform good pilot 
projects  into  EU-wide  solutions.  Many  AI  solutions  currently  in  use  are  based  on 

40   Study on the use of innovative technologies in the justice field; 

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4fb8e194-f634-11ea-991b-01aa75ed71a1/language-
en 

41   These issues are presented in the Council of Europe’s European Ethical Charter on the use of AI in judicial 
systems. The Charter also includes guidance on how to address the challenges and use AI technologies in a 
way  that  is  respectful  of  the  rights  of  all  parties  concerned.  https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/cepej-
european-ethical-charter-on-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-judicial-systems-and-their-environment 
42   White  Paper  On  Artificial  Intelligence  -  A  European  approach  to  excellence  and  trust,  19.02.2020, 

COM(2020) 65 final. 

43   As further illustrated in the staff working document accompanying this Communication and the Study on the 

use of innovative technologies in the justice field;   
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4fb8e194-f634-11ea-991b-01aa75ed71a1/language-
en 

44   Automation  of  processes  such  as  organisation,  planning  and  facilities  management,  prioritisation, 

categorisation and allocation of documents and tasks by robots. 

10 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
machine-learning  technologies,  which  require  systems  to  be  ‘trained’  with  relevant  data. 
Therefore, increasing the availability of public datasets produced by the judiciary45 for re-use, 
inter alia, with various AI solutions should be explored and pursued, in full compliance with 
personal data protection rules, as set out in the Communication European strategy for data46. 

While  the  advantages  of  introducing  AI-based  applications  in  the  justice  system  are  clear, 
there are also considerable risks associated with their use for automated decision-making and 
‘predictive policing’ / ‘predictive justice’. The Commission considers that certain uses of AI 
applications in the justice sector pose particular risks to fundamental rights. This perspective 
was  shared  by  stakeholders  such  as  European  and  national  bar  associations,  legal 
practitioners, academics  and civil  society organisations in  their reactions to  the open public 
consultation  on  the  AI  white  paper  (February-June 2020)47.  As  a  follow-up  to  the  White 
Paper,  the  Commission  is  working  on  a  general  framework  to  address  the  risks  of  AI 
technologies, including notably of high-risk AI applications. For applications that pose a high 
risk,  potential  biases  need  to  be  addressed.  To  that  effect,  the  Commission  is  considering 
requirements  concerning  possible  testing  of  applications,  and  the  need  to  provide  relevant 
documentation on their purposes and functionalities.  

Where  machine  learning  is  used,  the  risks  of  biased  outcomes  and  potential  discrimination 
against  women  and  particular  groups,  such  as  persons  with  a  minority  ethnic  or  racial 
background, are high and must be addressed. Therefore, special attention should be paid  to 
the  quality  of  the  training  data  used48,  including  its  representativeness  and  relevance  in 
relation to the purpose and the context of the intended application and how these systems are 
designed and developed to ensure that they can be used in full compliance with fundamental 
rights.  The opacity of certain  AI applications  can be a challenge with  regard to  the need to 
justify  decisions,  the  equality  of  arms  concerning  parties  in  judicial  proceedings,  and  other 
principles.  Appropriate  safeguards  are  needed  to  guarantee  the  protection  of  fundamental 
rights,  including  equal  treatment  and  data  protection,  and  to  ensure  the  responsible, 
human-centric development and use of AI tools where their use is in principle appropriate. 

However, the final decision-making must remain a human-driven activity and decision. Only 
a  judge  can  guarantee  genuine  respect  for  fundamental  rights,  balance  conflicting  interests 
and reflect  the constant  changes in  society in  the analysis of a case. At the same time, it is 
important  that  judgments  are  delivered  by  judges  who  fully  understand  the  AI  applications 
and all information taken into account therein that they might use in their work, so that they 
can explain their decisions. The use of AI applications must not prevent any public body from 
giving explanations for its decisions. It is therefore important that judges and prosecutors are 
trained on the use of AI applications49.  

While these issues will be subject to further analysis, certain targeted measures can already 
be proposed, as follows: 

45   In  the  context  of  implementing  Directive  (EU)  2019/1024  on  open  data  and  the  re-use  of  public  sector 

information (OJ L 172, 26.6.2019, p. 56). 

46   COM/2020/66 final 
47   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12270-White-Paper-on-Artificial-

Intelligence-a-European-Approach/public-consultation 

48   Quality of the training data means that the data should be relevant, accurate and representative in relation to 

the purpose and the context of the intended application. 

49   COM(2020) 713 

11 

 
 
                                                           
Proposed actions 
Exchange best practices and lessons learned on the 
use  of  innovative  technologies  in  justice  by 
Member  States  and  the  EU  institutions,  JHA 
legal  professional 
agencies  and  bodies,  and 
organisations;  to  this  end,  the  Commission  will 
organise quarterly expert webinars by topic  
Explore  ways  to  increase  the  availability  of 
relevant  machine-readable  data  produced  by  the 
trustworthy 
judiciary 
machine-learning  AI 
for  use  by 
interested stakeholders, such as judicial authorities 
and legal practitioners, including the private sector 

establishing 
solutions 

for 

By whom? 
Commission 
/ 
Member  States/JHA 
agencies 

By when? 
Q1 2021 
onwards 

and 

Commission 
Member States 

/ 

2021 
onwards 

and 

3.4.   Better IT tools for access to information through the interconnection of registers 

In  order  to  exercise  their  rights  and  have  full  access  to  justice,  individuals  need  access  to 
information. They can already use public information tools such as EUR-Lex50, giving access 
to  legal  information,  and  the  European  e-Justice  portal51,  giving  access  to  information  on 
justice,  but  they  need  better  and  more  efficient  ways  to  access  personal  information  and 
documents.  In  this  context,  it  is  also  important  to  ensure  accessibility  for  persons  with 
disabilities.  Businesses  need  digital  tools  to  access  information,  interact  with  national 
authorities  and  enjoy  effective  access  to  justice.  Digital  access  to  justice  can  facilitate 
operations,  reduce  costs  and  regulatory  burden,  as  well  as  improve  access  to  the  Single 
Market of all businesses, in particular SMEs. Legal practitioners need to be able to give their 
clients the best possible support, in particular by communicating with courts and submitting 
documents safely and efficiently. It is important that national and European authorities have 
appropriate  tools  to  communicate  securely  across  borders  and  to  exchange  evidence  and 
documents.  The  EU  justice  and  home  affairs  agencies  need  efficient  means  to  support 
national authorities and to cooperate effectively among themselves. 

In the past decade, alongside their work on e-government52, the Commission and the Member 
States  have  taken  a  number  of  initiatives  that  have  produced  positive  results  as  regards  the 
digitalisation  of  justice53.  Citizens,  public  authorities  and  companies  already  benefit  from 
digital tools that improve transparency, facilitate access to evidence in criminal proceedings 
and reduce delays and unnecessary administrative costs. For instance, the e-Justice portal is 
the main EU source of legal and practical information in the justice domain for the public at 
large.  It  also  provides  access  to  interconnected  registries,  inter  alia,  through  the  business 

50   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ 
51   https://e-justice.europa.eu/ 
52   While the eGovernment deals with the overall process of the digital transformation of public administrations, 
sectoral emphasis is needed. The focus of e-justice is on the digitalisation of justice systems, the interactions 
between  judicial  and  other  competent  authorities,  and  those  public  services  of  relevance  to  judicial 
proceedings.  More  information  on  the  Commission’s  work  on  eGovernment  can  be  found  here: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/egovernment_en 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/egovernment-action-plan 

53   Further to the implementation of several successive e-justice strategies and action plans (currently the 2019-
2023  strategy  on  e-justice  (Council,  2019/C  96/04)  and  2019-2023  action  plan  on  European  e-justice 
(2019/C 96/05)). 

12 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
registers  interconnection  system  (BRIS)54,  which  brings  together  the  business  registers  of 
Member  States  and  EEA  countries,  provides  public  access  to  information  on  more  than  20 
million limited liability companies across Europe, and enables business registers to exchange 
information on cross-border cases.  

From  case-law  repositories  to  company  information,  Member  States  already  operate  a 
number of registers and databases containing information of public or specific interest. These 
help individuals and businesses and are often crucial for the work of legal practitioners. Many 
such registers have already moved online and in some cases EU-wide interconnections have 
been or are being established.  

Member  States  have  exchanged  criminal  records  information  since  April  201255  using 
reference implementation software made available by the Commission56. This approach was 
strengthened  in  April  2019,  with  the  adoption  of  a  Regulation57  establishing  a  centralised 
system  for  identifying  Member  States  holding  conviction  information  on  non-EU  nationals 
and  stateless  persons  (ECRIS-TCN)58.  Similarly,  exchange  of  information  between 
authorities  and  access  to  multilingual  information  has  been  facilitated  through  the  business 
registers  interconnection  system  (BRIS),  which  gives  access  to  more  than  20  million  EU 
limited  liability  companies,  and  the  insolvency  registers  interconnection  system  (IRI)59. 
Directives  (EU) 2019/115160  and  2019/212161 
the 
digitalisation  of  business  registers  and  the  provision  of  the  information  between  business 
registers and to the public through BRIS62. The land registers interconnection (LRI) is being 
piloted by a small number of Member States, but to exploit its full potential it should extend 

introduce  new  requirements 

to 

54   Established  by  Directive  2012/17/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13 June 2012 
amending  Council  Directive  89/666/EEC  and  Directives  2005/56/EC  and  2009/101/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council as regards the interconnection of central, commercial and companies registers 
(OJ L 156, 16.6.2012, p. 1), now codified by Directive (EU) 2017/1132 of the European  Parliament and of 
the Council of 14 June 2017 relating to certain aspects of company law (OJ L 169, 30.6.2017, p. 46). 

55   On  the  basis  of  Council  Framework  Decision  2009/315/JHA  (OJ  L  93,  7.4.2009,  p.  23)  and  Council 

Decision 2009/316/JHA (OJ L 93, 7.4.2009, p. 33). 

56   The second implementation report on ECRIS will be adopted soon. 
57   Regulation (EU) 2019/816 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 establishing a 
centralised system for the identification of Member States holding  conviction information on third-country 
nationals  and  stateless  persons  (ECRIS-TCN)  to  supplement  the  European  Criminal  Records  Information 
System and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1726 (OJ L 135, 22.5.2019, p. 1). 

58   The ECRIS-TCN system is now being developed by eu-LISA. 
59   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). 

60   Directive  (EU)  2019/1151  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  June  2019  amending 
Directive  (EU)  2017/1132  as  regards  the  use  of  digital  tools  and  processes  in  company  law  (OJ  L  186, 
11.7.2019, p. 80–104). 

61   Directive (EU) 2019/2121 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 amending 
Directive  (EU)  2017/1132  as  regards  cross-border  conversions,  mergers  and  divisions  (OJ  L  321, 
12.12.2019, p. 1–44). 

62   Directive (EU) 2019/1151 enables and enhances the use of digital tools and processes in the Single Market. 
This  Directive  makes  it  possible  to  form  a  company  and  register  a  branch  fully  online,  and  to  file,  fully 
online,  the  company  documents  required  by  the  business  registers.  The  Directive  provides  the  Business 
Registers’ Interconnection System (BRIS) with new functionalities, including new exchanges of information 
between  EU  business  registers  (i)  on  disqualified  directors  (ii)  cross-border  branches  and  on  changes  to 
company information (iii) new sets of company data available free of charge through the search interface on 
the  e-Justice  Portal.  Directive  (EU)  2019/2121  further  enhances  BRIS  with  new  exchange  of  information 
between  EU  business  registers  and  new  public  information      on  cross-border  conversions,  mergers  and 
divisions. 

13 

 
 
                                                           
EU-wide.  Directive  (EU)  2015/84963  requires  Member  States  to  interconnect  their  national 
beneficial  ownership  registers.  The  beneficial  ownership  registers  interconnection  system 
(BORIS) will serve as a central search service for all related information. This will enhance 
transparency of beneficial ownership in view of better prevention of the use of the financial 
system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing.   

Access  to  national  court  jurisprudence  in  machine-readable  form  is  also  a  precondition  for, 
among  other  things,  greater  transparency,  the  uniform  application  of  EU  law  and  building 
interoperable IT systems. The European case-law identifier (ECLI)64, a uniform identifier that 
uses the same recognisable format for all Member State and EU courts, has been developed to 
facilitate  the  accurate  citation  of  court  judgments.  The  Commission  will  consider  ways  of 
promoting use of the ECLI and possibly make it mandatory. 

Member  States  should  pursue  the  establishment  of  electronic  registers  and  databases  as  a 
priority. Electronic databases are easy to consult, minimise time and cost for users, and are 
resilient  to  crises  such  as  COVID-19.  Digitalising  databases  and  registers  is  a  precondition 
for their interconnection at EU level for the benefit of cross-border users and to support the 
single  market.  The  Single  Digital  Gateway  Regulation65  requires  a  full  digitalisation  of  the 
life  events  and  procedures  for  cross-border  users. 
user 
Interconnections  also  reduce  the  risk  of  fraud  by  facilitating  targeted  research  in  various 
countries at the same time. 

interface  of  certain  key 

The digitalisation of  registers and databases  is  also a key enabler  for  achieving compliance 
with the ‘once only’ principle and the establishment of common European justice data spaces 
in accordance with the European strategy for data Communication. 

to 

recur 

should 

the  use  of 
Furthermore,  whenever  possible,  Member  States 
videoconferencing. The use of videoconferencing in judicial proceedings, where permissible 
by  law,  substantially  reduces  the  need  for  burdensome  and  cost-intensive  travel  and  may 
facilitate proceedings.  While many videoconferencing solutions are already used at national 
level,  the  2019-2023  ‘e-justice’  action  plan66  cites  the  use  of  videoconferencing  in  cross-
border proceedings as a priority. However, this will involve developing national systems in 
close coordination at EU level, in order to ensure mutual trust, interoperability and security. 
Therefore, Member States should regularly exchange information about ongoing work in this 
area and best practices. The use of videoconferencing should not infringe the right to a fair 
trial  and  the  rights  of  defence,  such  as  the  rights  to  attend  one’s  trial,  to  communicate 
confidentially with the lawyer, to put questions to witnesses and to challenge evidence. 

Proposed actions 
Full  Member  State  participation  in  the  Member States 

By whom?  

By when? 
30 June 2021 

63   Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention 
of  the  use  of  the  financial  system  for  the  purposes  of  money  laundering  or  terrorist  financing,  amending 
Regulation  (EU)  No  648/2012  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  and  repealing  Directive 
2005/60/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive  2006/70/EC (OJ L 
141, 5.6.2015, p. 73–117). 

64   Council Conclusions on the European case-law identifier (ECLI) and a minimum set of uniform metadata for 

case law (OJ C 360, 24.10.2019, p. 1). 

65   Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018 establishing a 
single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance and problem-solving 
services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 1–38). 

66   2019-2023 Action Plan European e-Justice (OJ C 96, 13.3.2019, p.9).  

14 

 
 
                                                           
insolvency registers interconnection system 
required by Regulation (EU) 2015/848 
Upgrade  BRIS 
new 
to 
functionalities  required  by  Directive  (EU) 
2019/1151 

support 

BRIS 

support 

Upgrade 
new 
to 
functionalities  required  by  Directive  (EU) 
2019/2121 
Full  participation  of  Member  States  in  the 
interconnection of land registers  
to  develop 
Encourage  Member  States 
videoconferencing  facilities  in  accordance 
with national law in close coordination with 
each  other  and,  where  possible,  use  EU 
funding in this respect 

Commission 
Member States 

/ 

Commission/Member 
States 

First set of changes: 
1 August 2021  
Second set of changes: 
1 August 2023 
31 January 2023 

Commission 
Member States 
Member States 

/ 

2024 

Q1 2021 and onwards 

3.5.   IT  tools  for  secure  cross-border  cooperation  in  civil,  commercial  and  criminal 

matters 

Making  e-CODEX  the  gold  standard  for  secure  digital  communication  in  cross-border 
judicial proceedings 

e-CODEX  is  the  main  tool  for  establishing  an  interoperable,  secure  and  decentralised 
communication  network  between  national  IT  systems  in  cross-border  civil  and  criminal 
proceedings67.  It  is  a  software  package  that  enables  connection  between  national  systems, 
allowing users, such as judicial authorities, legal practitioners and members of the public, to 
send and receive documents, legal forms, evidence and other information in a swift and safe 
manner. e-CODEX is already used by the e-evidence digital exchange system (eEDES) and 
certain  pilot  projects68.  It  is  also  intended  to  underpin  the  decentralised  IT  system  to  be 
established  in  the  context  of  the  new  Service  of  Documents  and  Taking  of  Evidence 
Regulations. 

At present, a consortium of Member States and other organisations69 manages e-CODEX. To 
ensure  its  long-term  sustainability,  the  Commission  has  adopted  a  proposal70  to  entrust  its 
further development and maintenance to the EU Agency for the Operational Management of 

67   e-CODEX has been developed and maintained with EU financial support. 
68   e-EDES (for the exchange of European investigation orders and mutual legal assistance requests in criminal 
proceedings); the voluntary digital exchange of claims under the European order for payment and the small 
claims procedure; iSupport (an electronic case management and secure communication system for the cross-
border recovery of maintenance obligations). 

69   Austria,  Belgium,  Croatia,  Czechia,  Estonia,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy, 
Jersey,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Netherlands,  Norway,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Spain,  Turkey,  UK; 
Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe and Council of the Notariats of the European Union. 

70   Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  a  computerised  system  for 
communication cross-border civil and criminal proceedings (e-CODEX system), and amending Regulation 
(EU) 2018/1726 (COM(2020) 712). 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Large-Scale  IT  Systems  in  the  Area  of  Freedom,  Security  and  Justice  (eu-LISA)71.  It  is 
important  to  have  such  legislation  in  force  ready  for  eu-LISA’s  envisaged  takeover  of 
e-CODEX  from  1  July  2023  and  the  Commission  will  therefore  work  closely  with  the 
co-legislators  to  follow  up  on  its  proposal.  Furthermore,  the  upcoming  EU  cybersecurity 
strategy  will  provide  a  cross-cutting  framework,  accompanied  by  legislative  proposals  to 
further enhance the security of network and information systems. 

Broadening the scope of eEDES 

The  e-evidence  digital  exchange  system  (eEDES)  is  an  IT  tool  whereby  Member  State 
authorities  can  securely  exchange  European  investigation  orders,  mutual  legal  assistance 
requests and associated evidence in digital format. At present, authorities send requests and 
receive evidence by (slow) postal or electronic means that do not always ensure the necessary 
levels of security. Against this background and a growing need to secure e-evidence quickly 
in  cross-border  criminal  investigations,  Member  States  called  for  the  creation  of  a  secure 
platform72.  eEDES  is  designed  to  directly  improve  the  efficiency  and  speed  of  existing 
cooperation procedures, while ensuring the security of exchanges and enabling verification of 
the authenticity and integrity of transmitted documents. It is also designed to be interoperable 
with national case management systems. All Member States should swiftly connect to eEDES 
in order to generate true EU added value.  

eEDES  should  be  developed  further.  In  particular,  it  should  be  expanded  to  enable  secure 
communication  between  competent  authorities  and  relevant  service  providers  in  the 
framework of the new e-Evidence Regulation73, when adopted, and between Member States’ 
authorities  and  the  relevant  JHA  agencies.  Going  forward,  the  technical  components 
developed  for  eEDES  could  evolve  into  reusable  tools  for  the  digitalisation  of  EU  cross-
border  civil,  commercial  and  criminal  legal  acts.  In  this  regard,  the  future  scope  of  eEDES 
will  be  laid  down  in  the  legislative  proposal  on  the  digitalisation  of  judicial  cooperation 
procedures. 

Proposed action 
Support  Member  States  by  developing  and 
extending common tools for the digitalisation 
of 
civil, 
commercial  and  criminal  matters  (based  on 
work on eEDES) 

cross-border 

cooperation 

in 

By whom? 
Commission 

By when? 
2024 

71   Regulation  (EU)  2018/1726  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14  November  2018  on  the 
European  Union  Agency  for  the  Operational  Management  of  Large-Scale  IT  Systems  in  the  Area  of 
Freedom,  Security  and  Justice  (eu-LISA),  and  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  1987/2006  and  Council 
Decision 2007/533/JHA and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 99–137). 

72   Council Conclusions on improving criminal justice in cyberspace (9 June 2016); 

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/24300/cyberspace-en.pdf 

73  The  European  Commission  proposed  the  e-Evidence  Regulation  in  April  2018  (COM(2018)225  final 
2018/0108 (COD)). The Council reached a General  Approach on the Regulation at  the  JHA  Council on 7 
December  2018. The  proposal  for  a  Regulation  is  included  in  the  list  of  priority  pending  proposals  of  the 
Commission work programme 2021. 

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
3.6.   Digital criminal justice 

The  modernisation  of  digital  tools  for  judicial  cooperation  and  information  exchange  in 
criminal  investigations  and  proceedings  across  the  EU  is  crucial  in  the  light  of  evolving 
security threats  and the pace of technological  change. JHA agencies and bodies such as the 
EPPO, Eurojust and Europol  need to  be suitably equipped to  fulfil their  mission,  cooperate 
with each other and Member State authorities, and ensure coordination on criminal matters.  

The following measures have been identified as the most urgent in the field of criminal law: 

 

  There is  broad consensus74  on the need to  modernise  Eurojust’s case  management 
system (CMS). This will need to be financially sustained. The Commission will seek 
to support Eurojust in this work including through the ‘Digital Europe’ programme75; 
‘hit/no-hit’ connections76 between Eurojust’s, Europol’s and the EPPO’s CMSs will 
ensure  that  they  are  aware  at  all  times  of  any  links  between  investigations  or 
prosecutions  they  are  working  on,  in  line  with  their  respective  mandates.  These 
interconnections, which will allow these organisations to see whether there is a “hit” 
between  the  information  they  hold  and  information  from  other  EU  agencies  and 
bodies,  are  already  foreseen  in  most  of  the  respective  legal  acts  establishing  these 
organisations – the key is to ensure now that these interconnections work as intended 
by  the  legislation.  In  addition,  there  are  currently  no  provisions  on  hit/no-hit  links 
between  the  EPPO  and  Europol.  Europol’s  legal  framework  should  therefore  be 
amended  accordingly.  The  Commission  will  address  this  as  part  of  its  proposal  to 
strengthen the mandate of Europol, which will be presented in December 2020. 

The Council Decision on the exchange of information and cooperation concerning terrorist 
offences77  and  Eurojust’s  counter-terrorism  register  need  improvement.  The  Council 
Decision is one of the few instruments requiring Member States to share information on their 
counter-terrorism  cases  with  Europol  and  Eurojust,  and  as  such  is  a  cornerstone  of  those 
agencies’  work  in  helping  Member  States  to  combat  terrorism.  In  order  to  maximise  the 
benefits, all actors need to agree on what information is to be provided and at what stage of 
the  procedure.  At  the  same  time,  data  protection  and  data  security  must  be  ensured  in  line 
with  the  Law  Enforcement  Directive78,  and  Eurojust’s  counter-terrorism  register  must  be 
securely  integrated  within  its  legal  and  technical  framework.  To  this  end,  the  Commission 

74   Following discussions on the concept of ‘digital criminal justice’ at the JHA Council in December 2018, the 
Commission  started  work  on  a  study,  in  close  cooperation  with  Eurojust.  Its  subsequent  report 
(14 September 2020)  presents  a  comprehensive  set  of  challenges  particularly  affecting  criminal  justice 
systems. In line with the conclusions, the Commission proposes the concrete actions outlined below. 

75   COM/2018/434 final. 
76   A  ‘hit/no-hit’ is a  minimal-data approach that divulges  limited knowledge and personal  data. It allows the 
requesting party to verify whether pertinent information about a natural person, other entity or a case exists 
in a counterpart’s IT system(s), without the need for the latter to disclose details beyond a ‘yes, data match 
exists’ or ‘no, there is no match in our records’ reply. 

77   Council  Decision  2005/671/JHA  of  20  September  2005  on  the  exchange  of  information  and  cooperation 

concerning terrorist offences (OJ L 253, 29.9.2005, p. 22). 

78   Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection 
of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of 
the  prevention,  investigation,  detection  or  prosecution  of  criminal  offences  or  the  execution  of  criminal 
penalties,  and  on 
repealing  Council  Framework 
Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89).  

free  movement  of 

such  data,  and 

the 

17 

 
 
                                                           
will present a legislative proposal on exchanges on digital cross-border terrorism cases, and 
identify possible further improvements to Eurojust’s data-processing framework. 

Forming  a  joint  investigation  team  (JIT)  has  been  widely  recognised  as  one  of  the  most 
efficient  steps in  carrying out  a cross-border investigation. JITs bring together investigators 
and prosecutors from  the Member States and non-EU countries, where necessary supported 
by  Europol  and  Eurojust.  Their  efficiency  could  be  further  enhanced  by  a  specific  IT 
environment  specifically  tailored  to  their  needs.  This  would  make  cooperation  easier  and 
quicker, allowing JITs to be set  up and work more effectively,  e.g. through communication 
and  document/evidence  storage  and  exchange  tools.  The  Commission  intends  to  present  a 
legislative proposal for a Regulation on a JIT collaboration platform. 

Cross-border digital exchanges should also be adapted to ensure the exchange of large files.  

Judicial  practitioners  should  be  able  to  identify  and  link  cases.  Both  law  enforcement  and 
judicial  authorities  need  to  be  able  to  find  out  whether  a  given  individual  is  already  being 
investigated or prosecuted in another Member State. As for the exchange of large files (see 
above), centralised and decentralised options for dealing with this issue have been suggested 
by the cross-border digital criminal justice study, building on partial solutions that are already 
available. Any action in this respect must be conducted in full compliance with the applicable 
rules on the protection of personal data. 

of 

provision 

Proposed action 
Creation  of  a  new  case  management  system  for 
Eurojust under the ‘digital Europe’ programme  
Creation  of  a  technical  taskforce  bringing  together 
the  Commission  and  JHA  actors  to  support  the 
implementation  of  ‘hit/no-hit’  mechanisms  between 
relevant agencies  
‘hit/no-hit’ 
Inclusion 
interconnection  between  the  EPPO  and  Europol  in 
Europol’s legal framework (to be confirmed) 
Legislative  proposal  on  exchanges  on  digital 
cross-border  terrorism  cases  (see  Commission  work 
programme for 2021) 
Legislative  proposal  for  a  Regulation  on  a  JIT 
collaboration  platform 
(see  Commission  work 
programme for 2021) 
Blueprint on sharing large files and creating a cross-
border judicial case-checking mechanism 

on 

a 

By whom?  
Commission/ 
Eurojust 
Commission, 
Eurojust, Europol, 
EPPO, OLAF 

By when? 
Q1 2021 
onwards 
Q1 2021 

Commission 

Q4 2020 

Commission 

Q4 2021 

Commission 

Q4 2021 

Commission 

2021 

3.7.   My e-Justice space  

In a number of Member States, individuals already have electronic access to various services 
offered  by  the  judiciary  and  public  administrations,  e.g. provision  of  certified  copies  (of  a 
clean criminal record check for use when applying for a job, statement of marital status, birth 
certificate or a will). 

18 

 
 
 
Such  services  save  time,  can  be  accessed  from  anywhere79  and  are  available  even  in 
challenging  situations,  such  as  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  However,  individuals  and 
businesses are often not fully aware of their existence. Furthermore, despite the obligations of 
public  sector  bodies  to  make  their  websites  and  content  accessible  for  persons  with 
disabilities, the reality is that many of them still face barriers to their use. The Commission 
therefore considers that a “My e-Justice space” should be established as an entry point with 
links  to  available  national  services.  This  space  should  be  part  of  the  e-Justice  portal  and 
managed in close cooperation with all Member States. The tool would apply only to judicial 
documents that a person, or their legal representative, is allowed to consult and/or obtain. It 
should not provide access to all judicial documents concerning a person, in particular those in 
criminal  proceedings  where  a  balance  must  be  struck  between  the  confidentiality  of 
investigation,  the  suspect/defendant’s  right  to  information  and  the  victim’s  right  to 
information and protection, and where there are specific provisions under EU law80. 

As a first step, a comprehensive collection of links could be posted on the e-Justice portal to 
facilitate  access  to  available  national  electronic  services  provided  by  the  judiciary  and  the 
relevant public administrations. Consideration could then be given to coupling the tool more 
closely  with  national  systems,  so  that  individuals  and  businesses  can  make  requests  and 
receive  documents  directly  from  the  e-Justice  portal.  This  would  ensure  a  uniform  user 
experience  in  all  EU  official  languages,  whereas  national  systems  are  often  limited  to  the 
national language(s). The aim would not be to replace existing or future national systems. 

“My e-Justice space” should also facilitate access to justice in EU cross-border procedures, in 
particular  with  regard  to  European  small  claims81  and  European  payment  orders82.  In  that 
context,  it  would  provide  individuals,  businesses  and  their  legal  representatives  with  a 
EU-level  access  point  from  which  they  could  file  claims  electronically  and  communicate 
seamlessly with the national competent authorities. This could help address practical barriers 
to the user-friendliness and speed of application of the relevant instruments; currently, claims 
are usually sent by post, which carries risk and inherent delays. 

Proposed action 
Create on the e-Justice portal a collection of links 
to  national  electronic  services  provided  by  the 
judiciary and public administrations  
Provide  an  EU-level  access  point 
to  allow 
individuals  and  businesses  to  file  European  small 
claims  and  payment  orders,  and  communicate 
electronically  with 
competent  national 
the 
authorities  

By whom? 
Commission/ 
Member States 

Commission/ 
Member States 

By when? 
2023 

2024 

79   Subject to an appropriate level of security, e.g. the use electronic identification and authorisation. 
80   Directive  2012/13/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  May  2012  on  the  right  to 
information  in  criminal  proceedings  (OJ  L  142,  1.6.2020,  p.  1);  Directive  2012/29/EU  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and 
protection  of  victims  of  crime,  and  replacing  Council  Framework  Decision  2001/220/JHA  (OJ L 315, 
14.11.2012, p. 57). 

81   Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a 

European Small Claims Procedure (OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 1). 

82   Regulation  (EC)  No  1896/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  December  2006 

creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ L 399, 30.12.2006, p. 1). 

19 

 
 
 
                                                           
3.8.   Cooperation, coordination and monitoring tools   

The  state  of  digitalisation  of  justice  systems  is  already  regularly  reflected  under  various 
monitoring frameworks, such as the EU Justice Scoreboard, the Rule of Law Report and the 
European Semester. Since a number of IT tools will be further developed, it will be important 
to  ensure  also  coherence  among  the  various  instruments,  and  to  promote  close  cooperation 
with  EU  Member  States  and  EU  JHA  agencies,  and  further  coordination  among  Member 
States. The Commission will therefore continue to monitor developments on digitalisation of 
justice  systems  and  further  the  cooperation  through  new  initiatives  and  ensure  regular 
stocktaking.  

EU justice scoreboard 

The  EU  justice  scoreboard  already  provides  comparative  data  on  various  aspects  of  the 
digitalisation of national justice systems, such as the availability and use of ICT. As of 2021, 
the  Commission  aims  to  include  further  data  on  digitalisation  in  the  Member  States.  This 
should allow for more in-depth monitoring of progress areas and challenges. 

Information sharing on national digitalisation initiatives 

The Commission will make proposals to Member States on setting up a dedicated section in 
the e-Justice portal on national initiatives on the digitalisation of justice. This will provide a 
comprehensive overview of projects, thus incentivising convergence. 

 Digital Justice Ministerial Forum and regular stocktaking  

The digital transition is ongoing and involves working with partners at both national and EU 
level.  A  coordinated  approach  to  support  for  digitalisation  and  continued  work  with  all 
partners are key and a strong political impetus is needed. 

In 2021 to maintain the momentum, the Commission will organise an online Digital Justice 
Ministerial Forum, with high-level participation by the EU institutions and key stakeholders. 
In  the  longer  term,  it  will  consider  further  forms  of  cooperation  and  coordination  on  the 
digitalisation of justice, as solutions need to work in practice for all concerned. National and 
EU issues requiring coordination include ongoing developments, planned activities, national 
and EU-level funding opportunities, and foresight on future technologies. Regular exchanges 
will foster understanding  and the sharing of best  practices,  and make it possible to  monitor 
actions taken, including those proposed in this Communication. 

Proposed actions 
Enhance 
the  monitoring  of  progress  on 
digitalisation  at  national  level  through  the  EU 
justice scoreboard 
Collect  information  on  the  e-Justice  portal  on 
national initiatives on the digitalisation of justice 
Organise a Digital Justice Ministerial Forum 

stocktaking 
Regular 
digitalisation of justice 

of 

progress 

on 

the 

By whom?  
Commission 

Commission/ 
Member States  
Commission, 
Member 
stakeholders 
Commission, 
Member 
stakeholders 

States, 

States, 

By when? 
2021 
onwards 

Q1 2021 
onwards 
2021 

and 

and 

2021 onwards 

20 

 
 
3.9.   The digitalisation of justice — ready for the future 

Digital  technology  is  constantly  evolving.  New  approaches  and  solutions  for  managing, 
securing and exchanging information appear all the time. These developments also affect the 
digitalisation of justice. Without a clear and up-to-date view of the direction in which they are 
moving,  investments  in  digital  justice  systems  run  the  risk  of  being  ineffective  and  not 
bringing best value for money. In addition, the emergence of new technology brings with it 
the need for ongoing assessment of its impact, in particular as regards fundamental rights and 
data protection, as demonstrated by developments in artificial intelligence. 

Everyone working on the digitalisation of justice needs to stay abreast of developments. All 
actors should have access to regularly updated information in order to be able to assess them 
from a legal, technical and budgetary angle before making any decisions on investments and 
safeguards. In addition, the significant research capacity at both Member State and EU level 
can be used to  investigate aspects  of technology that are important for society  at  large, but 
being of lower commercial interest, remain underdeveloped. 

Ongoing  research  and  foresight  activities  carried  out  by  various  entities,  for  example  the 
Commission’s  Joint  Research  Centre,  could  be  better  focused,  and  activities  better 
coordinated, to ensure that all aspects of the digitalisation of justice receive the attention they 
deserve.  Synergies should be sought with the work on innovation and foresight in the context 
of the EU innovation hub for internal security that is currently being set up. 

Furthermore, as with many other policies, cooperation is needed not only at European level, 
but  also  with  our  partners  internationally  in  order  to  make  the  best  use  of  digitalisation  for 
more secure and efficient justice. Criminals also exploit the advantages of digitalisation, be it 
by committing online crimes or using digital tools to carry out criminal activities. They have 
quickly seized new opportunities created by the COVID-19 crisis.  It is therefore paramount 
that  judicial  and  law  enforcement  authorities  at  European  level  and  in  the  framework  of 
international cooperation are equipped with the appropriate tools to access relevant electronic 
evidence  necessary  to  investigate  and  prosecute  such  crimes  effectively.  The  e-evidence 
package83  will  provide  national  law  enforcement  and  judicial  authorities  with  European 
Production Orders and European Preservation Orders to obtain digital evidence from service 
providers for criminal investigations, irrespective of the location of the establishment of the 
provider or the storage of the information. It is important that the co-legislators take forward 
the  Commission’s  proposals  speedily.  Furthermore,  ongoing  negotiations  with  our 
international partners – both with the US and within the framework of the negotiations on a 
Second Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Budapest Convention on Cybercrime – 
need to be concluded. 

Proposed action 
With 
the  Joint  Research  Centre,  develop  a 
monitoring, analysis and foresight   programme on 

By whom? 
Commission/ 
Member States 

By when? 
Q2 2021 

83  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  European  Production  and 
Preservation  Orders  for  electronic  evidence  in  criminal  matters  COM/2018/225  final  -  2018/0108  (COD); 
Proposal  for  a  directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  laying  down  harmonised  rules  on  the 
appointment  of  legal  representatives  for  the  purpose  of  gathering  evidence  in  criminal  proceedings 
COM/2018/226 final - 2018/0107 (COD) 

21 

 
 
 
                                                           
justice-relevant digital technology  
Create  a  mechanism  on  the  e-Justice  portal  for 
regular reporting, analysis, feedback and exchange 
of best practices on justice-relevant IT  

Commission/ 
Member States 

Q2 2021 

4.  CONCLUSIONS 

While  efforts  in  the  EU  have  already  brought  results,  the  data  show  the  need  for  a  step-
change to reap the full potential of modern digital tools, in full respect of fundamental rights.   

The COVID-19 crisis has exposed challenges and risks as regards the effective functioning of 
justice systems  in  exceptional  circumstances and  has highlighted the need to  strengthen the 
resilience  of  the  justice  system  across  the  EU.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  also  triggered  a 
significant shift towards the uptake of digital  technologies in our societies. Building on this 
shift, it is important to give a new impulse for the creation of an overarching approach on the 
digitalisation  of  justice  in  the  EU,  grasping  all  possible  opportunities  while  ensuring 
appropriate safeguards. 

22