COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the Communication 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  SWD(2020) 540 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the Communication 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 {COM(2020) 710 final}  
 
 
1.  Introduction 

Between  June  and  September  2020,  the  Commission  carried  out  a  fact-finding  (mapping) 
exercise,  aiming  to  take  stock  of  the  level  of  digitalisation  of  the  justice  sector  in  the 
European  Union.  The  scope  of  the  mapping  exercise  extended  to  both  the  state  of  play  of 
digitalisation of Member States’ justice systems, as well as the level of digitalisation of EU 
cross-border access to justice and judicial cooperation.  

The findings of this exercise are presented in the present document, which serves to provide 
evidence-based background to the Commission Communication on Digitalisation of justice in 
the  European  Union1.  Furthermore,  Annex  1  herein  contains  a  synopsis  of  the  public 
feedback received on the Roadmap to this initiative which took place in the period 30 July – 
24 September 20202. 

2.  Methodology 

In  view  of  mapping  the  digital  solutions  and  the  availability  of  digital  options  for  judicial 
procedures in place in the Member States, a number of already existing reports, surveys and 
other  material  were  reviewed.  The  following  sources  were  identified  as  containing  relevant 
factual information for the purpose of this analysis: 

  EU Justice Scoreboard 20203; 
  Survey of the Council’s Secretariat-General on the use of IT tools by the courts in the 

Member States (2020); 

Information available on the European e-Justice Portal (as of 2020)6; 

  Study on the use of innovative technology in the justice field (DG JUST, 2020)4; 
  Digital Criminal Justice Study (DG JUST, 2020)5; 
 
  Thematic report of the Council of Europe’s European Commission for the efficiency 
of justice (CEPEJ): Use of information technology in European courts (2016)7 and 
other information gathered by CEPEJ (2018); 

  European judicial systems - CEPEJ Evaluation Report - Evaluation cycle 20208; 
  European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) Case Management System (CMS) 

Business and Technical specifications study (DG JUST, 2018). 

A  broad  array  of  stakeholders  were  further  consulted  in  the  period July-September  2020  to 
obtain  more  quantitative  data  to  complement  the  mainly  qualitative  data  from  the  above-
mentioned sources: 

1 COM(2020) 710 
2 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12547-Digitalisation-of-justice-in-the-
European-Union- 
3 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/justice_scoreboard_2020_en.pdf 
4 https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/585101 
5 https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/118529 
6 https://e-justice.europa.eu/home.do 
7 https://rm.coe.int/european-judicial-systems-efficiency-and-quality-of-justice-cepej-stud/1680786b57 
8 https://rm.coe.int/evaluation-report-part-1-english/16809fc058  

1 

 
 
 
                                                           
  Data presented in Figures 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 44 was 
collected  by  the  Commission  in  cooperation  with  the  group  of  contact  persons  for 
national  justice  systems,  involved  in  the  preparation  of  the  EU  Justice  Scoreboard9. 
These  data  have  not  yet  been  validated  by  the  respondents.  Figures  presenting  the 
validated data will be published in the 2021 edition of the EU Justice Scoreboard.  
  A questionnaire on cross-border cooperation in civil and commercial matters was sent 
to  the  contact  points  of  the  European  Judicial  Network  in  civil  and  commercial 
matters; 

  A  questionnaire  on  the  implementation  of  the  Public  Documents  Regulation10  was 
also  transmitted  to  the  contact  points  of  the  European  Judicial  Network  in  civil  and 
commercial matters; 

  A  separate  questionnaire  was  sent  to  the  Permanent  Representations  of  the  Member 

States to the EU on cross-border cooperation in criminal matters; 

  The  major  European  organisations  of  legal  practitioners  facilitated  running  the 

questionnaire with their national constituencies: 

o 
o 
o 

the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE), 
the Council of the Notariats of the European Union (CNUE), 
the European Bailiffs’ Foundation (EUBF). 

Important Methodological Notes 

Member  States  are  listed  in  protocol  order,  and  the  country  abbreviations  are  indicated  in 
accordance with the Interinstitutional Style Guide11. 

Similarly to the approach taken for the EU Justice Scoreboard, the replies of respondents are 
assigned  a  numerical  value,  allowing  for  a  comparative  visual  representation.  The 
methodology used to assign values to the different variables for each answer somewhat varies 
between sections, and is elaborated alongside the included hereunder figures. 

The percentage of Member States is not necessarily calculated against the 27 Member States 
of the European Union, but is based on the number of the countries which provided a reply.  
Percentages  included  in  the  text  below  have  been  rounded,  which  might  lead  to  total 
percentages slightly under or above 100% in certain cases. 

The Member States who did not reply to a particular questionnaire or question(s) at the time 
of  production  of  this  document12  are  indicated  in  the  figures,  but  are  not  included  in  the 
calculated percentages. 

9 To help prepare the EU Justice Scoreboard and to promote the exchange of best practices on the effectiveness 
of justice systems, the Commission asked all Member States to designate two contact persons, one from the 
judiciary and one from the Ministries of Justice. This informal group meets regularly. 
10 Regulation (EU) 2016/1191 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 on promoting the 
free movement of citizens by simplifying the requirements for presenting certain public documents in the 
European Union and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012. 
11 http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-370100.htm 
12 Indicated with “No Data” in the figures. 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
3.  State of play - Part I - Digitalisation of Member States’ justice systems (domestic 

procedures) 

3.1 Resilience of justice systems 

  Possibility for judicial authorities to telework and fully carry out their duties 

remotely 

Member States were invited to respond to several questions on the possibility of judges, court 
staff and prosecution services to telework and carry out their normal job functions remotely. 

Figure 1: Possibility to work securely remotely (telework) for courts and prosecution services 13 

Column 1. Courts                 Column 2. Prosecution services 

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Judges/prosecutors are able to fulfil their duties and work securely remotely

Staff are able to fulfil their duties and work securely remotely

Use of distance communication technology, in particular videoconferencing equipment, including
commercial software products

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 1 = if a variable is valid in all courts or 
prosecution services, respectively, 0.5 if it is valid in some courts/prosecution services and 0 = if the possibility does not 
exist at all.   

With  regard  to  national  courts,  15  Member  States  (56%)  indicated  that  both  judges  and 
court staff members are able to fulfil their duties and work securely remotely. This possibility 
exists to a lesser extent in seven Member States (33%). In one Member State (4%), all judges, 
and to a lesser extent staff members, are able to telework, while in another one (4%) all court 
staff and to a lesser extent judges can do so. In one Member State only judges can telework 
and  in  another  only  some  judges  can  telework.  In  only  one  Member  State  (4%),  neither 
judges nor court staff members are able to fulfil their duties and work securely remotely 

In  20  Member  States  (74%),  all  courts  are  equipped  with  distance  communication 
technology,  in  particular  videoconferencing  equipment.  In  six  Member  States  (22%),  some 
courts  are  equipped  with  distance  communication  technology.  In  only  one  Member  State 
(4%) no court is equipped with videoconferencing equipment. 

13 Source: Questionnaire sent to the group of “Contact persons for national justice systems”. 

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
With regard to prosecution services, 10 Member States (37%) indicated that all prosecutors 
and staff members are able to fulfil their duties and work securely remotely. In four Member 
States (15%) all prosecutors and to a lesser extend staff members are able to telework. Some 
prosecutors and their staff can do so in six Member States (22%). In one Member State (4%) 
the  possibility  exists  only  for  some  prosecutors,  but  not  for  staff  members.  In  six  Member 
States (22%), no prosecutors and staff members are able to fulfil their work duties remotely.  

In  14  Member  States  (52%),  all  prosecution  services  are  equipped  with  distance 
communication  technologies,  in  particular  videoconferencing  equipment.  In  eight  Member 
States  (30%),  some  prosecution  services  are  equipped  with  distance  communication 
technology.  In  five  Member  States  (18%),  prosecution  services  are  not  equipped  with 
videoconferencing equipment. 

  Possibility for legal practitioners to telework and fully carry out their duties 

remotely 

The  Council  of  Bars  and  Law  Societies  of  Europe  (CCBE)  contributed  to  the 
Commission’s  stocktaking  exercise  on  the  digitalisation  of  justice  by  distributing  a 
questionnaire  amongst  its  members.  A  total  of  16  Member  State  bars  and  law  societies 
responded to the questionnaire. The questionnaire examined to what extent lawyers are able 
to work remotely. 

Figure 2: Possibility for lawyers to work remotely (telework)14 

N 
O 

R 
E 
P 
L 
Y 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

R 
E 
P 
L 
Y 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Possibility to telework and carry out functions normally

Possibility to provide a client with a legally binding document via electronic channels

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = Unable to work remotely, 1 = Limited 
in working remotely, 2 = Able to partially work remotely, 3 = Able to fully work remotely. 0 = Not possible to electronically 
provide  a  client  with  a  legally  binding  document,  1  =  Possible  in  some  cases,  2  =  Possible  in  the  majority  of  cases,  3  = 
Possible in all/the vast majority of cases.  

15  responses15  were  received  with  regards  to  the  possibility  for  lawyers  to  telework.  One 
Member State indicated that they cannot give an explicit reply due to the complexity of the 
situation at national level. Lawyers in eight Member States (53%) are fully able to exercise 

14 Source: Questionnaire sent to the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE). 
15 The Czech Republic responded with a narrative answers. In consideration of the need to ensure the validity of 
the presented data, narrative answers were not calculated in values and are therefore not included in the 
respective figure 

4 

 
 
 
                                                           
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
all regular job activities when teleworking. Lawyers in seven Member States (47%) are able 
to work remotely only to a certain degree. 

15 responses16 were received to the question on the possibility for a lawyer to provide a client 
with  a  legally  binding  document  via  electronic  channels.  The  possibility  exists  in  nine 
Member States (60%) in all cases In three Member States (20%) the possibility exists in the 
majority of cases. In one Member State (7%), lawyers are only able to electronically provide 
clients  with  documents  in  specific  cases,  whilst  in  two  Member  States  (13%)  no  such 
possibility currently exists.  

⁂  

The Council of the Notariats of the European Union (CNUE), representing the civil law 
notaries of Europe, contributed to the Commission's stocktaking exercise on the digitalisation 
of justice by distributing a questionnaire amongst its members. Further to this consultation, a 
total of 18 responses were received. 

Figure 3: Possibility for notaries to work remotely (telework) 17 

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Possibility to provide a client with a legally binding document via electronic channels

Possibility to telework and carry out functions normally

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = Unable to work remotely, 1 = Limited 
in working remotely, 2 = Able to partially work remotely, 3 = Able to fully work remotely. 0 = Not possible to electronically 
provide a client with a legally binding document, 1 = Possible in some cases, 2 = Possible in the majority of cases, 3 = 
Possible in all/the vast majority of cases.  

Out of the 18 Member States which provided responses to these questions, notaries in three 
Member States (17%) are able to fully exercise all normal job activities when teleworking. In 

16 Austria responded with a narrative answers. In consideration of the need to ensure the validity of the 
presented data, narrative answers were not calculated in values and are therefore not included in the respective 
figure 
17  Source:  Questionnaire  sent  to 
the  Council  of  the  Notariats  of  the  European  Union  (CNUE).  
The “civil law notary” legal profession does not exist in all legal systems. Member States where it does not exist 
are marked as “Not Applicable”. 

5 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
nine Member States (50%), respondents indicated that they are able to only partially do so. In 
four Member States (22%), notaries are currently limited in teleworking and in two Member 
States (11%) they are unable to exercise their professional functions remotely.  

With  regard  to  having  the  possibility  to  electronically  provide  clients  with  legally  binding 
documents, the notaries in seven Member States (39%) are able to do so in all situations and 
in  three  Member  States  (17%)  in  the  majority  of  situations.  In  two  Member  States  (11%), 
notaries are able to provide citizens with documents via electronic channels only in specific 
situations, while in six Member States (33%) they are currently not able to do so at all.  

⁂  

The  European  Bailiff's  Foundation  (EUBF)  contributed  to  the  Commission's  stocktaking 
exercise on the digitalisation of justice by providing a reply on behalf of their members. The 
organisation  indicated  that  bailiffs  can  partially  exercise  their  normal  job  activities  when 
working  remotely,  and  that  they  can  provide  a  client  with  a  legally  binding  document  via 
secure electronic channels in the vast majority of situations18. 

  Use  of  distance  communication  technologies  (videoconferencing)  by  judicial 

authorities 

Member  States  were  invited  to  respond  to  several  questions  on  the  possibilities  to  use 
distance communication technologies (in particular videoconferencing) in the context of civil 
and  commercial,  administrative  and  criminal  cases.  The  questions  were  tailored  to  the 
particularities of the respective field of justice. 

In  the  context  of  civil  and  commercial  law  cases,  respondents  were  asked  to  provide 
information  on  the  existing  opportunities  for  hearing  the  parties  to  a  proceeding,  witnesses 
and  experts  using  distance  communication  technologies.  The  possible  involvement  of  an 
interpreter in that context was also explored. 

18 Source: Questionnaire sent to the European Bailiff's Foundation (EUBF). 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 4: Use of distance communication technologies (videoconferencing) in civil and commercial cases 19 

10

8

6

4

2

0

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Possibility of hearing the parties using distance communication technology (audio/video technology)

Possibility of hearing witnesses using distance communication technology

Possibility of hearing experts using distance communication technology

Possibility of the involvement of an interpreter  using distance communication technology

Possibility to conduct the oral part of the procedure entirely via distance communication
technology, in particular videoconferencing

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 2 = if a variable is valid for all cases, 1 = if 
it is valid in some cases and 0 = if the possibility does not exist at all. 

Out of the 26 Member States which provided responses to these questions, the use of distance 
communication technologies (videoconferencing) for hearings in civil and commercial cases 
is possible for all explored aspects in 10 Member States (38%). Partial possibilities for use of 
these technologies in hearings is evident in 15 Member States (58%). In one Member State 
(4%) remote hearings are not possible in any of the explored scenarios. 

In the context of administrative law cases, respondents were asked to provide information 
on  the  existing  opportunities  for  hearing  the  parties  to  a  proceeding,  witnesses  and  experts 
using  distance  communication  technologies.  The  possible  involvement  of  an  interpreter  in 
that context was also explored. 

19 Source: Questionnaire sent to the group of “Contact persons for national justice systems”. 

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Figure 5: Use of distance communication technologies (videoconferencing) in administrative cases20 

10

8

6

4

2

0

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Possibility of hearing the parties using distance communication technology (audio/video technology)

Possibility of hearing witnesses using distance communication technology

Possibility of hearing experts using distance communication technology

Possibility of the involvement of an interpreter  using distance communication technology

Possibility to conduct the oral part of the procedure entirely via distance communication technology,
in particular videoconferencing

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 2 = if a variable is valid for all cases, 1 if it 
is valid in some cases and 0 = if the possibility does not exist at all. 

Out of the 26 Member States which provided responses to these questions, the use of distance 
communication  technologies  (videoconferencing)  for  hearings  in  administrative  cases  is 
possible  for  all  explored  aspects  in  12  Member  States  (46%).  Partial  possibility  for  use  of 
these technologies in hearings is evident in nine Member States (35%). In five Member States 
(19%) remote hearings are not possible in any of the explored scenarios. 

With  regard  to  criminal  cases,  the  questions  concerned  the  opportunities  for  hearing 
defendants,  victims,  witnesses  and  experts  via  distance  communication  technologies.  The 
possible involvement of an interpreter in that context was also explored. 

20 Source: Questionnaire sent to the group of “Contact persons for national justice systems”. 

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Figure 6: Use of distance communication technologies (videoconferencing) in criminal cases21 

10

8

6

4

2

0

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Possibility of hearing the defendants using distance communication technology

Possibility of hearing the victims using distance communication technology

Possibility of hearing witnesses using distance communication technology

Possibility of hearing experts using distance communication technology

Possibility of the involvement of an interpreter using distance communication technology

Possibility to conduct the oral part of the procedure entirely via distance communication technology,
in particular videoconferencing

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: For the indicators “Possibility of hearing 
the  defendants  using  distance  communication  technology”  and  “Possibility  of  hearing  the  victims  using  distance 
communication technology”, 1 = if the possibility exists for all cases, 0,5 = if it exists for some cases and 0 = if it does  not 
apply to any cases. For the remaining indicators, 2 = if the possibility exists for all cases, 1 = if it exists for some cases and 0 
= if it does not apply to any cases. 

Out of the 26 Member States which provided responses to these questions, the use of distance 
communication  technologies  (videoconferencing)  for  hearings  in  criminal  cases  is  possible 
for  all  explored  aspects  in  11  Member  States  (42%).  Partial  possibility  for  use  of  these 
technologies in hearings is evident in 14 Member States (54%).  In one Member State (4%) 
remote hearings are not possible in any of the explored scenarios. 

  Use of distance communication technologies (videoconferencing) by legal 

practitioners 

The national bar associations and law societies, the chambers of civil law notaries, as well as 
the  associations  of  bailiffs/judicial  officers  were  invited  to  provide  information  on  their 
ability to utilise distance communication technologies, in particular videoconferencing, where 
legally admissible. 

21 Source: Questionnaire sent to the group of “Contact persons for national justice systems”. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Figure 7: Possibility for lawyers to use distance communication technology equipment where legally admissible 22 

3,5

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Possibility to use distance communication technology equipment where legally admissible

The  following  values  have  been  assigned  to  the  answers  illustrated  by  the  graph:  0  =  Not  possible  to  use  distance 
communication technology equipment to carry out your functions, 1 = Possible in some cases, 2 = Possible in the majority of 
cases, 3 = Possible in all/the vast majority of cases. 

Out  of  the  16  Member  States  which  provided  responses  to  this  question,  lawyers  in  five 
Member States (31%) are able to use videoconferencing facilities to carry out functions in all 
aspects  of 
to  use 
two  Member  States  (13%), 
videoconferencing in most aspects of their work, and in nine Member States (56%) lawyers 
are limited in this regard.  

lawyers  are  able 

their  work.  In 

⁂  

22 Source: Questionnaire sent to the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE).  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Figure 8: Possibility for notaries to use distance communication technology equipment where legally admissible 23 

3,5

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Possibility to use distance communication technology equipment where legally admissible

The  following  values  have  been  assigned  to  the  answers  illustrated  by  the  graph:  0  =  Not  possible  to  use  distance 
communication technology equipment to carry out your functions, 1 = Possible in some cases, 2 = Possible in the majority of 
cases, 3 = Possible in all/the vast majority of cases. 

Out of the 18 Member States which provided responses to this question, the notariats in four 
Member States  (22%) indicated that their members are able to  use distance communication 
technology equipment in all aspects of their work, and in four Member States (22%) in most 
aspects.  Notaries  in  four  Member  States  (22%)  are  able  to  use  distant  communication 
technology  in  a  limited  way.  The  notaries  in  six  Member  States  (34%)  are  not  able  to  use 
videoconferencing equipment for carrying out their functions at all. 

Bailiffs/judicial officers can use distance communication technology equipment in all 
aspects of their work24. 

⁂  

3.2 Online access to justice and (own) electronic file (e-file) 

  Digital access to proceedings 

Member  States  were  invited  to  provide  information  on  digital  access  to  court  proceedings. 
The  possibilities  of  digital  access  to  proceedings  were  analysed  for  civil  and  commercial, 
administrative and criminal cases. 

23 Source: Questionnaire sent to the Council of the Notariats of the European Union (CNUE).  
The “civil law notary” legal profession does not exist in all legal systems. Member States where it does not exist 
are marked as “Not Applicable”. 
24 Source: Questionnaire sent to the European Bailiff's Foundation (EUBF). 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
Figure 9: Digital access to court proceedings in civil and commercial, and administrative cases 25 

Column 1. Civil and commercial cases                 Column 2. Administrative cases 

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Availability of electronic acknowledgment of receipt proving submission of documents with the court

Possibility to file an application for legal aid online

Possibility to initiate proceedings / file a claim online

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 1 = if a variable is valid in all cases, 0.5 = if 
it is valid in some cases and 0 = if the possibility does not exist at all.   

In the domain of civil and commercial cases, 17 Member States (63%) provide electronic 
acknowledgment of receipt proving the submission of documents with courts in all situations. 
The  possibility  exists  in  some  situations  in  eight  Member  States  (30%).  In  two  Member 
States (7%) electronic acknowledgment of receipt of documents is not possible. 

In 10 Member States (37%) it is possible to file an application for legal aid online for all civil 
and  commercial  cases.  The  possibility  exists  for  some  situations  in  five  Member  States 
(19%). In 12 Member States (44%) it is not possible to file an online application for legal aid. 

In 15 Member States (56%) it is possible to initiate proceedings and file claims online for all 
civil and commercial cases. In nine Member States (33%) the possibility is limited to some 
situations.  In  three  Member  States  (11%)  it  is  not  possible  to  initiate  proceedings  and  file 
claims online. 

In  the  context  of  administrative  law,  20  Member  States  (74%)  provide  electronic 
acknowledgment of receipt proving the submission of documents with courts in all situations. 
The  possibility  partially  exists  in  four  Member  States  (15%)  and  in  three  Member  States 
(11%) electronic acknowledgment of receipt is not available. 

In  14  Member  States  (52%)  it  is  possible  to  file  an  application  for  legal  aid  online  in  all 
situations.  The  possibility  exists  partially  in  two  Member  States  (7%)  and  in  11  Member 
States (41%) it is not possible to apply online for legal aid in administrative cases. 

25 Source: Questionnaire sent to the group of “Contact persons for national justice systems”. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
In 18 Member States (67%) it is possible to initiate proceedings and file claims online in all 
administrative  law  cases.  In  four  Member  States  (15%)  the  possibility  exists  only  in  some 
situations.  In  five  Member  States  (19%)  it  is  not  possible  to  initiate  proceedings  and  file 
claims online at all. 

Figure 10: Digital access to court proceedings in criminal cases 26 

4

3

2

1

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI

SK FI

SE

Possibility for the victims to make written statements online (incl. initial applications)

Possibility for the defendants to make written statements online, including legal-aid application

 Possibility of secure distance communication between defendants and defence lawyers
guaranteeing confidentiality during remote hearings
Availability of ICT facilities allowing defendants in detention to prepare for hearings

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 1 = if a variable is valid in all cases, 0.5 = if 
it is valid in some cases and 0 = if the possibility does not exist at all.   

With  regard  to  criminal  cases,  six  Member  States  (22%)  indicated  that  both  victims  and 
defendants  are  able  to  make  written  statements  online  in  all  scenarios.  This  possibility 
partially  exists  in  two  Member  States  (7%),  and  similarly  two  Member  States  (7%)  allow 
defendants to make written statements online, however, do not provide victims with the same 
possibility.  Two  Member  States  (7%)  allow  victims  to  make  written  statements  in  some 
situations, but not defendants.  In the majority (15) of Member States (56%) citizens cannot 
make written statements online, neither as victims nor as defendants. 

In  seven  Member  States  (26%),  secure  distance  communication  between  defendants  and 
defence  lawyers  guaranteeing  confidentially  during  remote  hearings  is  possible.  In  six 
Member  States  (22%)  this  possibility  partially  exists,  and  in  14  Member  States  (52%) 
confidential distance communication between defendants and defence lawyers is not possible. 

In six Member States (22%) ICT27 facilities allowing defendants in detention to prepare for 
hearings  are  available  in  all  situations.  ICT  facilities  are  partially  available  in  six  Member 
States (22%).  In the majority (15) of Member States (56%) no  ICT facilities for the use of 
defendants in detention are presently available. 

26 Source: Questionnaire sent to the group of “Contact persons for national justice systems”.  
27 Information and Communication Technology. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  Digital access at the disposal of and to legal practitioners 

The  EU  national  bar  associations,  law  societies,  civil  law  notariats  and  associations  of 
bailiffs/judicial  officers  were  invited  to  provide  information  on  digital  access,  particularly 
regarding the initiation of proceedings and filing of applications. 

Figure 11: Possibility for a lawyer to initiate legal or other proceedings or file an application via a digital channel and/or 
ensure follow-up communication 28 

3,5

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Possibility to initiate legal or other proceedings or file an application and/or ensure follow-up
communication

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = Not possible to initiate proceedings or 
file an application via a secure electronic channel and/or ensure follow-up communication, 1 = Possible in some cases, 2 = 
Possible in the majority of cases, 3 = Possible in all/the vast majority of cases. 

Out of the 16 Member  States which provided responses to  this question, the  lawyers in  10 
Member States (63%) are able to electronically initiate proceedings or file an application and 
ensure  follow-up  communication  for  all  types  of  court  proceedings,  and  in  three  Member 
States  (19%)  in  most  court  proceedings.  In  three  other  Member  States  (19%)  lawyers  can 
initiate  legal  or  other  official  proceedings  using  the  electronic  channel,  however  limited  to 
specific scenarios. 

⁂  

28 Source: Questionnaire sent to the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE). 

14 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 12: Possibility for a citizen or business to initiate legal or other proceedings via a digital channel with a notary 
and/or ensure follow-up communication29 

3,5

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Possibility for a citizen or business to initiate legal or other official proceedings with a notary and/or ensure
follow-up communication

The  following  values have  been  assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = Not possible to initiate proceedings 
with  a  notary  via  a  secure  electronic  channel  and/or  ensure  follow-up  communication,  1  =  Possible  in  some  cases,  2  = 
Possible in the majority of cases, 3 = Possible in all/the vast majority of cases. 

Out  of  the  18  Member  States  which  provided  responses  to  this  question,  the  civil  law 
notaries of six Member States (33%) allow citizens and businesses to initiate legal or other 
official proceedings via secure electronic channels and to ensure follow-up communication. 
In three Member States (17%), notaries can initiate such electronic procedures in the majority 
of scenarios. Notaries in four Member States (22%) are limited to providing this possibility to 
citizens and businesses in only certain cases. Currently, citizens and businesses are unable to 
initiate legal or other official proceedings with a notary via a secure electronic channel in five 
Member States (28%).  

⁂  

Citizens and businesses are able to communicate with  bailiffs/judicial officers via a secure 
electronic channel and/or to ensure follow-up communication30. 

  Possibility for citizens and businesses to access an electronic file of their ongoing 

and closed cases 

Member  States  were  invited  to  provide  responses  to  questions  examining  citizens'  and 
businesses' ability to access electronic files of their ongoing and closed cases. The responses 
provided  information  in  the  fields  of  civil  and  commercial,  administrative,  and  criminal 
cases. 

29 Source: Questionnaire sent to the Council of the Notariats of the European Union (CNUE). 
30 Source: Questionnaire sent to the European Bailiff's Foundation (EUBF). 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Figure 13: Existence of an electronic file (e-file) in civil/commercial and administrative cases (at first instance courts)31 

Column 1. In civil and commercial cases 

Column 2.  In administrative cases  

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Possibility for clients to access the electronic file of their ongoing cases

Possibility for clients to access the electronic file of their closed cases

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 1 = if a variable is valid in all cases, 0.5 = if 
it is valid in some cases and 0 = if the possibility does not exist at all.    

In the context of civil and commercial cases, the possibility for a client to access his or her 
electronic file of an ongoing or closed case currently exists in 8 Member States (30%) in all 
scenarios. In 11 Member States (41%), clients are able to access their electronic case files in 
some  situations.  Two  Member  States  (7%)  allow  this  only  for  some  ongoing  cases,  and 
clients in six Member States (22%) are not able to access their electronic files at all.  

Regarding  administrative  cases,  nine  Member  States  (33%)  provide  electronic  access  to 
files  to  clients  in  all  scenarios.  In  eight  Member  States  (30%),  clients  are  able  to  access 
electronic files in some situations. Clients in two Member States (7%) have the possibility to 
partially access only their ongoing cases, whereas eight Member States (30%) do  not allow 
citizens any electronic access to their files. 

31 Source: Questionnaire sent to the group of “Contact persons for national justice systems”.  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 14: Existence of an electronic file (e-file) in criminal cases (at first instance) 32 

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Possibility for the defendants to access the electronic file of their ongoing cases

Possibility for the victims to access the electronic file of their ongoing cases

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 1 = if a variable is valid in all cases, 0,5 = if 
it is valid in some cases and 0 = if the possibility does not exist at all.    

In the context of criminal cases, two Member States (7%) provide victims and defendants 
with  the  possibility  to  access  the  electronic  files  of  their  ongoing  and  closed  cases.  In  six 
Member States (22%), victims and defendants are able to access their electronic files in some 
situations.  In  two  Member  States  (7%)  the  possibility  exists  only  for  defendants.  However, 
neither  victims  nor  defendants  have  the  possibility  to  electronically  access  their  files  in  17 
Member States (63%). 

  Possibility for citizens to receive certificates, affidavits, criminal record extracts 

digitally in the context of the Public Documents Regulation 

Regulation (EU) 2016/119133 on Public Documents promotes the free movement of citizens 
by simplifying the process of presenting public documents within the European Union. The 
Regulation came into force in 2019. The European Commission distributed a questionnaire in 
order  to  gather  information  on  the  practical  implementation  of  the  Regulation  in  Member 
States.  The  25  responses  received  were  provided  by  the  respective  competent  authorities  - 
Ministries of Justice, Ministries of Interior and federal institutes.  

32 Source: Questionnaire sent to the group of “Contact persons for national justice systems”.  
33 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32016R1191 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 15: IT capacity of Member States34 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

IT capacity to receive electronically public documents, issued and signed electronically in another
Member State

IT capacity to receive electronically multilingual standard forms, issued and signed electronically
in another Member State

The issuance of multilingual standard forms is integrated in the national IT system(s)

The  following  values  have  been  assigned  to  the  answers  illustrated  by  the  graph:  0  =  No  IT  capacity  to  receive  public 
documents,  issued  and  signed  electronically  in  another  Member  States,  1  =  IT  capacity  exists  in  some  cases,  2  =  Yes,  IT 
capacity  exists.  0  =  No  IT  capacity  to  receive  multilingual  standard  forms,  issued  and  signed  electronically  in  another 
Member States, 1 = Yes, IT capacity exists. 0 = The issuance of multilingual standard forms is not integrated in national IT 
system(s), 1 = Yes, it is integrated. 

Out of the 25 Member States which provided responses to these questions, six Member States 
(24%)  have  integrated  the  issuance  of  multilingual  standard  forms  into  their  national  IT 
systems.  In 19 Member  States (76%) the issuance of multilingual  standard forms  is  not  yet 
integrated into their national IT system(s). 

Nine Member States (36%) have the  IT capacity to receive public documents electronically 
issued  and  signed  in  another  Member  State.  In  four  Member  States  (16%)  the  possibility 
exists  in  some  cases.  12  Member  States  (48%)  are  currently  not  able  to  receive  public 
documents electronically issued and signed in another Member State.  

22  responses  were  received  to  the  question  on  the  IT  capacity  to  electronically  receive 
multilingual standard forms, issued and signed in another Member State. 10 Member States 
(45%)  indicated  that  they  were  able  to  electronically  receive  such  forms.  In  12  Member 
States (54%) the possibility does not exist.  

34 Source: Questionnaire on the implementation of the Public Documents Regulation. 

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
  
  
2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

Figure 16: Legal coverage in Member States35 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Existance of legal coverage to receive electronically public documents issued and signed
electronically in another Member State

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = No legal coverage to receive public 
documents issued and signed electronically in another Member States, 1 = Yes, legal coverage exists in some cases, 2 = Yes, 
full legal coverage. 

Out of the 25 Member States which provided responses to this question, 11 Member States 
(44%) have in place the necessary legal provisions to receive all public documents issued and 
signed  electronically  in  another  Member  State.  In  two  Member  States  (8%)  legal  coverage 
extends  to  receiving  only  certain  public  documents  signed  electronically.  In  12  Member 
States (48%) the legal  provisions do not  currently  allow receiving public documents issued 
and signed electronically in another Member State. 

Figure 17: Admissibility of electronic signatures/seals in the context of the Public Documents Regulation36 

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 

O 

R 

E 

P 

L 

Y 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Electronic signatures/seals not regulated by the eIDAS Regulation

eIDAS advanced electronic signatures/seals

eIDAS qualified electronic signatures/seals

The  following  values  have  been  assigned  to  the  answers  illustrated  by  the  graph:  1  =  Electronic  signatures/seals  not 
the  eIDAS  Regulation/  eIDAS  advanced  electronic  signatures/seals/  eIDAS  qualified  electronic 
regulated  by 

35 Source: Questionnaire on the implementation of the Public Documents Regulation. 
36 Source: Questionnaire on the implementation of the Public Documents Regulation.  
France  did  not  provide  any  information  on  the  admissibility  of  electronic  signatures/seals,  which  is  indicated 
with ‘no reply’ in the graph.  

19 

 
 
                                                           
  
  
  
  
  
signatures/seals, 0 = No legal coverage to recognise and admit public documents signed electronically and issued by another 
Member State. 

Out  of  a  total  of  25  Member  States,  13  Member  States  indicated  to  have  legal  coverage  to 
recognise and admit  public documents signed  electronically and issued by  another Member 
State.  These  13  Member  States  were  asked  about  the  electronic  signatures  required  in  the 
context  of  the  Public  Documents  Regulation.  One  Member  State  (8%)  did  not  provide  any 
information  on  the  admissibility  of  electronic  signatures/seals.  Eight  Member  States  (62%) 
indicated that they require the use of eIDAS37 qualified electronic signatures. In two Member 
States  (15%),  both  eIDAS  qualified,  as  well  as  advanced  electronic  signatures  are  legally 
admissible38. One Member State (8%) indicated that they require the use of eIDAS advanced 
electronic  signatures,  and  in  one  Member  State  (8%)  electronic  signatures  not  regulated  by 
the eIDAS Regulation are admissible. 

Figure 18: Possibility for citizens to request and obtain documents digitally39    

4,5

4

3,5

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Public documents

Multilingual standard forms

The  following  values  have  been  assigned  to  the  answers  illustrated  by  the  graph:  0  =  Citizens  are  unable  to  request  and 
obtain  public  documents/multilingual  standard  forms  digitally,  1  =  Yes,  possible  in  some  cases,  2  =  Yes,  possible  in  all 
cases. 

Out of the 18 Member States which provided responses to these questions, six Member States 
(24%)  provide  citizens  with  the  possibility  to  electronically  request  and  obtain  all  public 
documents  covered  by  Regulation  2016/1191  (e.g.  a  birth  certificate)  from  the  competent 
national  authorities.  11  Member  States  (44%)  limit  this  possibility  only  to  certain  public 
documents. Eight Member States (32%) do not provide the possibility to request and obtain 
public documents digitally at all. 

37 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/910/oj 
38 The respondents did not clearly distinguish in which particular case advanced signatures are deemed 
sufficient. 
39 Source: Questionnaire on the implementation of the Public Documents Regulation.  

20 

 
 
                                                           
  
  
Five Member States (20%) allow citizens to electronically request and obtain all multilingual 
standard  forms  from  the  competent  authorities  according  to  Regulation  2016/1191.  Two 
Member  States  (8%)  allow  this  with  regard  only  to  certain  multilingual  standard  forms.  18 
Member  States  (72%)  do  not  allow  any  multilingual  standard  forms  covered  by  the 
Regulation to be requested or obtained by citizens digitally.  

  Information on and possibility for electronic payments of court fees in civil and 

commercial, and administrative cases 

Member States were invited to provide information on the availability of online information 
on court fees, and whether it is possible to pay court fees online. These particular questions 
focus on civil and commercial, and administrative cases.  

Figure 19: Online information on and payment of court fees in civil/commercial, and administrative cases (at first 
instance courts)40 

Column 1. Civil and commercial cases       Column 2. Administrative cases  

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Availability of online information about the court fees

Possibility of online payment of court fees

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 1 = if a variable is valid in all cases, 0.5 if it 
is valid in some cases and 0 = if the possibility does not exist at all.   

In  the  context  of  civil  and  commercial  cases,  in  10  Member  States  (37%),  online 
information on court fees is available and court fees are payable online for all cases. In seven 
Member States (26%), the possibility to access information on court fees online and to pay 
them  online  exists  for  only  some  cases.  Seven  Member  States  (26%)  partially  provide  the 
general  public  with  the  possibility  to  access  information  about  court  fees  online,  however, 
online payment is not possible. One Member States (4%) allows online payment of court fees 
in all cases, but no online information on court fees is available. In two Member States (7%), 
neither information on court fees nor online payment of the former is provided. 

Regarding  administrative  cases,  information  on  court  fees  and  online  payment  are  fully 
provided in 12 Member States (44%). In five Member States (19%), both possibilities exist 
partially.  In  seven  Member  States  (26%),  information  on  court  fees  is  provided,  however, 

40 Source: Questionnaire sent to the group of “Contact persons for national justice systems”. 

21 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
online payment is not possible. Three Member States (11%) offer neither online information 
on court fees nor electronic payment of the former. 

⁂  

Similarly, bailiffs/judicial officers, notaries and lawyers were invited to provide information 
on the possibility of allowing a client to electronically pay due fees and taxes. 

Figure 20: Possibility for a client of a lawyer to pay electronically due fees and taxes (excluding via bank transfer) 41 

3,5

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Possibility for a client to pay electronically due fees and taxes (excluding via bank transfer)

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = Clients are unable to pay electronically 
due  fees  and  taxes,  1  =  The  possibility  exists  in  some  cases,  2  =  The  possibility  exists  in  the  majority  of  cases,  3  =  The 
possibility exists in all/the vast majority of cases. 

Out of the 16 Member States which provided responses to this question, clients of lawyers in 
six  Member  States  (44%)  can  pay  electronically  due  fees  in  all  situations,  and  in  three 
Member  States  (19%)  in  most  situations.  In  three  Member  States  (13%),  the  situations  in 
which  lawyers  can  allow  clients  to  pay  electronically  are  limited,  whilst  in  four  Member 
States (25%) this possibility currently does not exist.  

⁂  

41 Source: Questionnaire sent to the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE). 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Figure 21: Possibility for a client of a notary to pay electronically due fees and taxes (excluding via bank 
transfer)42 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

3,5

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Possibility for a client to pay electronically due fees and taxes (excluding via bank transfer)

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = Clients are unable to pay electronically 
due  fees  and  taxes,  1  =  The  possibility  exists  in  some  cases,  2  =  The  possibility  exists  in  the  majority  of  cases,  3  =  The 
possibility exists in all/the vast majority of cases. 

Out of the 18 Member States which provided replies to this question, clients of  notaries in 
seven Member States (39%) are able to pay due fees and taxes electronically in all scenarios, 
and  in  one  Member  State  (6%)  in  most  cases.  The  situations  in  which  clients  can  pay 
electronically  are  limited  in  four  Member  States  (22%).  Currently,  notaries  in  six  Member 
States (33%) do not provide clients with the possibility to pay fees online. 

⁂  

Clients of bailiffs/judicial officers are able to pay due fees and taxes electronically in the 
vast majority of situations43. 

  Electronic service of documents, court summons or court/enforcement decisions 

Member  States  were  invited  to  provide  information  on  the  possibility  to  serve  court 
documents  electronically  on  citizens  and  businesses.  The  questions  focused  on  civil  and 
commercial cases, as well as administrative cases.  

42 Source: Questionnaire sent to the Council of the Notariats of the European Union (CNUE). 
43 Source: Questionnaire sent to the European Bailiff's Foundation (EUBF). 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Figure 22: Service of documents via electronic means in civil and commercial, and administrative cases 44 

Column 1. Civil and commercial cases 

           Column 2. Administrative cases 

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Official court documents can be served electronically on citizens (when procedure is not initiated by the
citizen)

Official court documents can be served electronically on businesses (when procedure is not initiated by
the business)

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 1 = if a variable is valid in all cases, 0.5 = if 
it is valid in some cases and 0 = if the possibility does not exist at all.    

Official  court  documents  in  civil  and  commercial  cases  can  be  served  electronically  on 
citizens and businesses in all scenarios in 12 Member States (44%).  In nine Member States 
(33%),  the  possibility  exists  partially.  In  two  Member  States  (7%)  it  is  possible  to 
electronically  serve  court  documents  on  citizens,  however  not  on  businesses.  Official  court 
documents  can  be  served  electronically  on  neither  citizens,  nor  businesses  in  four  Member 
States (15%). 

Regarding administrative cases, 12 Member States (44%) allow official court documents to 
be  served  on  both  citizens,  as  well  as  businesses  in  all  scenarios.  In  eight  Member  States 
(30%),  the  possibility  exists  partially.  In  seven  Member  States  (26%),  official  court 
documents  can  be  served  electronically  neither  on  citizens  nor  businesses  in  administrative 
cases. 

3.3 Digital tools used by judicial authorities 

Member States were invited to respond to a variety of questions on the use of digital tools by 
national courts and prosecution services. 

44 Source: Questionnaire sent to the group of “Contact persons for national justice systems”.  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 23: Availability of electronic tools for courts and prosecution services45 

Column 1. Courts              Column 2. Prosecution services  

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Use of an electronic Case Management System (CMS)

Use of electronic means for case allocation guaranteeing automatic case distribution based on
objective criteria

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 1 = if a variable is valid in all courts or 
prosecution services, respectively, 0.5 = if it is valid in some and 0 = if it is not available at all.   

With regard to national courts, electronic Case Management Systems (CMS) are available 
for use by  all courts in  23 Member States (85%).  In three Member States (11%), CMS are 
available in some courts, and in one Member State (4%) courts do not use an electronic CMS. 

In  12  Member  States  (44%),  all  courts  are  able  to  use  electronic  means  for  case  allocation 
guaranteeing automatic case distribution based on objective criteria. In eight Member States 
(30%),  some  courts  make  use  of  such  electronic  means.  Courts  in  seven  Member  States 
(26%) use no electronic case allocation for automatic case distribution. 

With regard to national prosecution services, in 20 Member States (74%), all prosecution 
services  have  at  their  disposal  an  electronic  Case  Management  System  (CMS).  In  one 
Member State (4%), a CMS is used by some prosecution services, and in six Member States 
(22%) prosecution services do not use an electronic CMS. 

In  seven  Member  States  (26%),  all  prosecution  services  use  electronic  means  for  case 
allocation  guaranteeing  automatic  case  distribution  based  on  objective  criteria,  and  in  two 
Member States (7%), some prosecution services use such means. Prosecution services in 18 
Member States (67%) do not use any means for electronic case distribution. 

3.4 Digital cooperation between national judicial authorities 

  Availability of secure electronic communication tools at the disposal of courts 

This  section  explores  the  availability  of  tools  at  the  disposal  of  national  courts  enabling 
secure electronic communication as alternative to paper or other channels.  In particular, the 
data  reflects  the  ability  of  national  courts  to  communicate  electronically  in  the  course  of 

45 Source: Questionnaire sent to the group of “Contact persons for national justice systems”. 

25 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
proceedings  with  detention  facilities  and  with  legal  professionals,  such  as  lawyers,  notaries 
and bailiffs/judicial officers. 

Figure 24: Availability of tools for secure electronic communication for courts 46 

5

4

3

2

1

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI

SK FI

SE

 Availability of secure electronic communication between courts for proceedings

Availability of secure electronic communication between courts and lawyers for proceedings

Availability of secure electronic communication between courts and notaries

Availability of secure electronic communication between courts and bailiffs/judicial officers

Availability of secure electronic communication between courts and detention facilities

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 1 = if a variable is valid in all courts, 0.5 = 
if it is valid in some courts and 0 = if it is not available at all.   

Tools  for  the  secure  electronic  communication,  fully  supporting  all  explored  aspects  of  the 
issue, already exist in 15 Member States (56%). In 11 Member States (41%) such tools cover 
the  explored  scenarios  to  a  various  extent,  and  in  one  Member  State  (4%)  no  electronic 
communication tools addressing the explored scenarios presently exist. 

  Availability of secure electronic communication tools at the disposal of 

prosecution services 

Similarly,  Member  States  were  asked  to  provide  information  on  the  availability  of  secure 
electronic communication tools at the disposal of prosecution services. Several aspects were 
explored, namely  with  regard to  the availability  of such means for communication between 
the  prosecution  services,  as  well  as  with  national  courts,  detention  facilities,  investigating 
authorities and defence lawyers. 

46 Source: Questionnaire sent to the group of “Contact persons for national justice systems”.  

26 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 Figure 25: Availability of tools for secure electronic communication for prosecution services 47 

5

4

3

2

1

0

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Availability of secure electronic communication within the prosecution service (including with lawyers
employed by the prosecution service)
Availability of secure electronic communication between the prosecution service and courts

Availability of secure electronic communication between the prosecution service and investigating
authorities
Availability of secure electronic communication between the prosecution service and defence lawyer

Availability of secure electronic communication between the prosecution service and detention
facilities

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 1 = if a variable is valid in all prosecution 
services, 0.5 = if it is valid in some prosecution services and 0 = if it is not available at all.   

26  Member  States  provided  information  on  this  particular  subject.  With  regard  to  the 
availability  of  tools  for  secure  electronic  communication,  such  exist,  covering  all  explored 
aspects of the issue, in seven Member States (27%), and electronic communication is possible 
to various extent in 17 Member States (65%). No secure electronic communication tools for 
use  by  prosecution  services  in  any  of  the  explored  scenarios  are  available  in  two  Member 
States (8%). 

  Admissibility of digital evidence 

Member States were invited to provide information on whether digital evidence (without the 
need  for  parallel  submission  in  alternative  formats)  is  admissible  in  civil  and  commercial, 
administrative and criminal cases. 

47 Source: Questionnaire sent to the group of “Contact persons for national justice systems”. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Figure 26: Admissibility of evidence filed in digital format 48 

3

2

1

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Admissibility of evidence filed in a digital format only (regardless of whether the procedure was 
initiated online) – in civil and commercial cases 
Admissibility of evidence filed in a digital format only (regardless of whether the procedure was 
initiated online) – in administrative cases 
Admissibility of evidence filed in a digital format only – in criminal cases 

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 1 = if a variable is valid in all cases, 0.5 = if 
it is valid in some cases and 0 = if it is not available at all.   

In  the  context  of  civil  and  commercial  cases,  in  11  Member  States  (41%)  judicial 
authorities  fully  admit  evidence  submitted  only  in  digital  format.  In  seven  Member  States 
(26%)  evidence  submitted  only  in  digital  format  is  admissible  in  some  situations.  In  nine 
Member States (33%) evidence submitted in digital format is not deemed admissible.  

In administrative cases, 11 Member States (41%) allow the submission of evidence only in 
digital format. This is possible in certain cases in four Member States (15%). In 12 Member 
States (44%) the submission of evidence only in digital format is not possible. 

With  regard  to  criminal  cases,  in  13  Member  States  (48%),  the  submission  of  evidence 
filed only in digital format is admissible in all cases. In four Member States (15%) evidence 
can be filed only in digital format in certain situations. 10 Member States (37%) do not allow 
for the submission of evidence only in digital format. 

3.5 Digital cooperation between judicial authorities and legal practitioners 

The national bailiffs/judicial officers, notary and lawyer organisations were invited to provide 
information on questions related to digital cooperation amongst themselves and with regard 
to communication with judicial authorities. 

48 Source: Questionnaire sent to the group of “Contact persons for national justice systems”. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  Existence of strong electronic authentication for legal practitioners 

Figure 27: Possibility for strong electronic identification and authentication, allowing lawyers to establish their identity and 
receive appropriate access rights to the IT systems of their own organisation or those operated by judicial authorities49 

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

The possibility does not exist.

The possibility exists for accessing electronic services operated by national judicial authorities and the
professional organisation the practitioner is a member of.
The possibility exists for accessing electronic services operated by the national judicial authorities.

The possibility exists for accessing restricted systems of the professional organisation the practitioner
belongs to.

The  following  values  have  been  assigned  to  the  answers  illustrated  by  the  graph:  0  =  The  possibility  does  not  exist,  1  = 
Possible to access restricted systems of the professional organisation the practitioner belongs to or those operated by national 
judicial authorities, 2 = Possible to access electronic services operated by national judicial authorities and the professional 
organisation the practitioner is a member of. 

Out  of  the  16  Member  States  which  provided  responses  to  this  question,  lawyers  in  12 
Member  States  (75%)  can  identify  themselves  electronically,  in  order  to  access  both  IT 
services  operated  by  the  national  judicial  authorities,  as  well  as  those  provided  by  their 
professional organisation. In two Member States (13%) the possibility exists for accessing the 
IT system(s) of the professional organisation, which the lawyer belongs to.  In two Member 
State  (13%)  lawyers  are  not  able  to  identify  themselves  electronically  for  accessing  IT 
systems. 

⁂  

49 Source: Questionnaire sent to the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE). 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 28: Possibility for strong electronic identification and authentication, allowing notaries to establish their identity and 
receive appropriate access rights to the IT systems of their own organisation or those operated by judicial authorities 50 

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

The possibility does not exist.

The possibility exists for accessing electronic services operated by national judicial authorities or the
professional organisation the practitioner is a member of.
The possibility exists for accessing electronic services operated by the national judicial authorities

The possibility exists for accessing restricted systems of the professional organisation the practitioner
belongs to.

The  following  values  have  been  assigned  to  the  answers  illustrated  by  the  graph:  0  =  The  possibility  does  not  exist,  1  = 
Possible to access restricted systems operated by the professional organisation the practitioner belongs to or those of national 
judicial authorities, 2 = Possible to access electronic services operated by national judicial authorities and the professional 
organisation the practitioner is a member of. 

Out  of  the  18  Member  States  which  provided  responses  to  this  question,  notaries  in  10 
Member States (56%) can identify electronically in order to access both services operated by 
national  judicial  authorities  and  those  provided  by  their  respective  chamber.  In  seven 
Member States (39%) the possibility exists only for accessing IT systems of the professional 
organisation  to  which  the  practitioner  belongs.  In  one  Member  State  (6%)  notaries  are 
currently not able to electronically identify in order to access either professional or systems 
provided by judicial authorities. 

⁂  

Strong  electronic  identification  and  authentication  exists  for  bailiffs/judicial  officers  when 
accessing  the  IT  systems  of  their  own  organisations  or  those  operated  by  judicial 
authorities51. 

50 Source: Questionnaire sent to the Council of the Notariats of the European Union (CNUE). 
51 Source: Questionnaire sent to the European Bailiff's Foundation (EUBF). 

30 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Possibility for legal practitioners to communicate via a secure electronic channel 

Figure 29: Possibility for lawyers to communicate securely via electronic channels with judicial authorities, relevant public 
authorities and/or other legal practitioner organisations and to send legally valid documents electronically (except by plain 
e-mail) 52  

4,5

4

3,5

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

With judicial authorities
With other relevant legal professional organisations
The possibility does not exist

With peers
With other relevant public bodies or authorities

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = Not possible to communicate securely 
via  electronic  channels,  1  =  Possible  with  judicial  authorities/peers/other  relevant  legal  professional  organisations/other 
relevant public bodies or authorities. 

Out  of  the  16  Member  States  which  provided  replies  to  this  question,  lawyers  in  eight 
Member States (50%)are able to communicate securely with judicial authorities, peers, other 
legal  professional  organisations  and  relevant  public  bodies  or  authorities.  Lawyers  in  two 
Member States (13%) are able to securely communicate with judicial authorities, other legal 
professional organisations and public bodies and authorities, in one Member State (6%) with 
peers  but  not  with  other  relevant  legal  organisations.  In  two  Member  States  (13%)  the 
possibility exists for secure electronic communication with judicial authorities and peers, for 
one  Member  State  (6%)  when  communicating  with  judicial  authorities  and  other  public 
bodies  and  authorities.  In  two  Member  States  (13%)  the  possibility  only  exists  for 
communicating with other public bodies and authorities. 

⁂  

52 Source: Questionnaire sent to the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE).  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 30: Possibility for notaries to communicate securely via electronic channels with judicial authorities, relevant public 
authorities and/or other legal practitioner organisations and to send legally valid documents electronically53 

4,5

4

3,5

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 
T 
A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

With judicial authorities

With peers

With other relevant legal professional organisations With other relevant public bodies or authorities

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = Not possible to communicate securely 
via  electronic  channels,  1  =  Possible  with  judicial  authorities/peers/other  relevant  legal  professional  organisations/other 
relevant public bodies or authorities. 

Out  of  the  18  Member  States  which  provided  replies  to  this  question,  notaries  in  eight 
Member  States  (44%)  are  able  to  communicate  securely  with  all  relevant  actors,  namely 
judicial authorities, peers, other relevant legal professional organisations and relevant public 
bodies or authorities. In nine Member States (50%), notaries can communicate electronically 
with  one  or  more  of  the  designated  actors,  and  in  one  Member  State  (6%)  none  of  the 
mentioned possibilities for electronic communication currently exists for notaries.  

⁂  

Judicial  officers/bailiffs  can  communicate  securely  with  judicial  authorities,  peers,  other 
relevant legal professional organisations and relevant public bodies or authorities54. 

53 Source: Questionnaire sent to the Council of the Notariats of the European Union (CNUE). 
54 Source: Questionnaire sent to the European Bailiff's Foundation (EUBF). 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  Possibility for legal practitioners to send and receive documents to/from courts 

via a secure channel (incl. evidence) 

Figure 31: Possibility for lawyers to submit admissible evidence in digital format to courts or other judicial authorities via 
secure electronic channels55 

3,5

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Possibility to submit admissible evidence in digital format to courts or other judicial authorities

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = Not possible to submit admissible 
evidence in digital format to courts/other judicial authorities, 1 = Possible in some cases, 2 = Possible in the majority of 
cases, 3 = Possible in all/the vast majority of cases. 

Out  of  the  16  Member  States  which  provided  responses  to  this  question,  lawyers  in  10 
Member  States  (63%)are  able  to  securely  submit  admissible  evidence  in  digital  format  to 
courts or other judicial authorities without limitations. The possibility exists in three Member 
States (19%) in the majority of scenarios. Lawyers in two Member States (13%) can submit 
evidence electronically limited to some cases, whilst in one Member State (6%) currently no 
such possibility exists. 

⁂  

55 Source: Questionnaire sent to the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE). 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 32: Possibility for notaries to receive documents and admissible evidence in digital format via secure electronic 
channels 56 

3,5

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Possibility to receive documents and evidence via secure electronic channels

 The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = Not possible to receive documents and 
evidence via secure electronic channels, 1 = Possible in some cases, 2 = Possible in the majority of cases, 3 = Possible in 
all/the vast majority of cases. 

Out  of  the  18  Member  States  which  provided  responses  to  this  question,  notaries  in  nine 
Member  States  (50%)  are  able  to  receive  documents  and  admissible  evidence  in  digital 
format  via  secure  electronic  channels  in  all  situations.  In  four  Member  States  (22%)  this  is 
possible in most scenarios. In four Member States (22%) the scenarios in which notaries can 
receive  documents  and  admissible  evidence  electronically  are  limited.  The  possibility 
currently does not exist in one Member State (6%). 

⁂  

Judicial  officers/bailiffs  are  able  to  receive  and  send  documents,  including  evidence,  in 
digital format via secure electronic channels in all situations57. 

56 Source: Questionnaire sent to the Council of the Notariats of the European Union (CNUE). 
57 Source: Questionnaire sent to the European Bailiff's Foundation (EUBF). 

34 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  Possibility for legal practitioners to receive the court’s ruling or decision via an 

electronic channel and to take subsequent actions (i.e. appeal) 

Figure 33: Possibility for lawyers to receive electronically the decision or the ruling of the court, as well as to take 
subsequent actions electronically (i.e. appealing) 58 

3,5

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Possibility to receive electronically the decision or the ruling of the court, as well as to take
subsequent actions

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = Not possible to receive electronically 
the  decision or  the  ruling  of  the  court, 1  = Possible  in  some  cases,  2  = Possible  in  the  majority  of  cases,  3  =  Possible  in 
all/the vast majority of cases. 

Out  of  the  16  Member  States  which  provided  responses  to  this  question,  lawyers  in  10 
Member States (63%) are able to electronically receive decisions or rulings, as well as to take 
subsequent actions in all scenarios. In three Member States (19%) this possibility exists in the 
majority of situations, and is limited in one Member State (6%). In two Member States (13%) 
lawyers are not able to electronically receive court decisions at all.  

⁂  

Judicial  officers/bailiffs  are  able  in  some  situations  to  electronically  receive  decisions  or 
rulings of a court and to take subsequent actions59. 

3.6 Online access to information and case law 

  Online information about judicial systems (incl. for impaired groups), needed 

documents, costs of proceedings, etc.  

In the context of the EU Justice Scoreboard 2020, Member States were invited to respond to 
several thematic questions, exploring the availability of online information sources and tools 
to the benefit of the general public. 

58 Source: Questionnaire sent to the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE). 
59 Source: Questionnaire sent to the European Bailiff's Foundation (EUBF). 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 34: Availability of online information about the judicial system for the general public60 

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Education on legal rights to the general public through interactive learning tools

Computer terminals in courts with internet connection available to the public

Interactive online simulation to assess eligibility for legal aid

Website with online forms for the public and companies

Online information for visually or hearing impaired

Targetted information for non-native speakers

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 1 = if a variable is valid 0 = if a variable is 
not valid in the particular case. 

A  total  of  23  Member  States  provided  information  on  several  aspects  of  the  availability  of 
online information about the judicial system for the general public. 22 Member States (96%) 
indicated  that  websites  containing  online  forms  are  provided  to  the  general  public  and 
companies.  Further,  20  Member  States  (87%)  responded  that  websites  with  targeted 
information for non-native speakers are in place. Online information for visually or hearing 
impaired audiences is provided in 17 Member States (74%). 13 Member States (57%) provide 
internet-equipped computer terminals in courts to the public. 10 Member States (43%) offer 
education on legal rights  through interactive learning tools,  and nine Member States  (39%) 
provide interactive online simulation to assess eligibility for legal aid.  

The 2020 Justice Scoreboard concludes:  'Almost  all Member  States provide access  to  some 
online information about their judicial system, including a centralised web portal with online 
forms  and  interactive  education  on  legal  rights.  Differences  appear  on  the  content  of  the 
information and how adequate it is to respond to people’s needs. For example, only a limited 
number of Member States (9) enable people to find out whether they are eligible for legal aid 
through  an  interactive  online  simulation.  However,  information  for  non-native  speakers  as 
well  as  targeted  information  for  visually  or  hearing  impaired  people  is  available  in  the 
majority of Member States.'61 

60 Source: EU Justice Scoreboard 2020.  
61 Source: EU Justice Scoreboard 2020. Chapter 3.2.5.: Summary on the quality of justice systems, p. 37. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
  Availability of official internet sites/portals for free of charge access to legal texts 

The Council of Europe European Commission for the efficiency of justice (CEPEJ) provided 
to the European Commission data from 2018, which explores the availability of official free 
of charge internet sites or portals allowing the general public access to legal texts. 

Figure 35: Availability of official internet sites/portals for free of charge access to legal texts 62 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Availability of official internet sites/portals (e.g. Ministry ofJustice, etc.) where the general public
may have free of charge access to legal texs

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = Official internet sites/portals for the 
general public are not available, 1 = Official internet sites/portals are available. 

The data demonstrates that in all Member States (100%) Internet sites or portals are in place, 
which offer to the general public access to legal texts free of charge.  

  Online access to published judicial decisions by the general public 

As part of the 2020 edition of the Justice Scoreboard, Member States were invited to provide 
information on the online accessibility to published judgments. The questions encompass the 
accessibility  of  published  judgments  of  civil  and  commercial,  administrative  as  well  as 
criminal cases at all court instances. 

62 Source: CEPEJ data (2018). 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 36: Online access to published judgments by the general public civil/commercial, administrative and criminal cases, 
all instances)63 

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK SE FI

Highest instance criminal courts

Highest instance courts

2nd instance criminal courts

2nd instance (civil, commercial and admin)

1st instance criminal courts

1st instance courts (civil, commercial and admin)

The  following  values  have  been  assigned  to  the  answers  illustrated  by  the  graph:  Maximum  possible:  9  points.  For  each 
court instance, one point was given if all judgments are available for civil/commercial and administrative and criminal cases 
respectively,  and  0.5  points  when  only  some  judgments  are  available.  For  Member  States  with  only  two  court  instances, 
points  have  been  given  for  three  court  instances  by  mirroring  the  respective  higher  instance  court  of  the  non-existing 
instance.  For  those  Member  States  that  do  not  distinguish  between  the  two  areas  of  law  (civil/commercial  and 
administrative), the same number of points has been given for both areas. 

In  the  context  of  civil  and  commercial,  and  administrative  cases,  judgments  of  first, 
second and highest instance courts are fully accessible online by the general public in seven 
Member  States  (26%).  In  the  other  20  Member  States  (74%),  judgments  are  also  made 
publicly available, but to a highly varying degree.  

With  regard  to  the  publication  of  judgments  of  highest  instance  courts,  19  Member  States 
(70%)  fully  publish  these  court  decisions,  7  Member  States  (26%)  partially  do  so,  and  one 
Member State (4%) does not publish any jurisprudence from its highest instance courts at all. 

Similarly, in the context of criminal cases, judgments published by first, second and highest 
instance  criminal  courts  are  made  fully  available  to  the  general  public  in  seven  Member 
States (26%). While in all Member States at least some part of the criminal case law is made 
accessible  online,  in  the  majority  of  20  Member  States  (74%)  the  situation  is  highly 
divergent.  

Court decisions of Member States’ highest instance criminal courts are fully published in 19 
Member States (70%), partially in 6 Member States (22%) and two Member States (7%) do 
not publish any decisions of their highest instance criminal courts online. 

63 Source: EU Justice Scoreboard 2020.  

38 

 
 
                                                           
The 2020 Justice Scoreboard concludes: 'Compared to previous years, online access to court 
judgments  has  remained stable, particularly for the publication of  judgments  at  the highest 
instance:  19  Member  States  publish  all  civil/commercial  and  administrative  judgments  and 
the same number of Member States also publish criminal judgments at the highest instance. 
These positive numbers encourage all Member States to further improve as decisions at the 
highest instance play an important role for the consistency of case law. At lower instances, 
the  number  of  Member  States  publishing  all  judgments  is  still  significantly  lower,  both  for 
criminal  and  civil/commercial  and  administrative  judgments,  a  figure  that  has  remained 
stable since 2017.'64 

  Arrangements for producing machine-readable judicial decisions 

Seamless  access  to  judicial  decisions  is  a  prerequisite  for  improved  access  to  justice,  the 
uniform application of national and EU law, reinforcing mutual trust and building algorithm-
friendly  IT  solutions.  Inter  alia,  the  EU  Justice  Scoreboard  already  collects  detailed 
information  on  specific  national  arrangements  with  regard  to  the  publication  of  judicial 
decisions.  The  collected  data  focuses  on  civil  and  commercial,  administrative  and  criminal 
case law, published at all instances. 

64 Source: EU Justice Scoreboard 2020. Chapter 3.2.5.: Summary on the quality of justice systems, p. 37. 

39 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 37: Arrangements for increased accessibility to judicial decisions (civil and commercial cases)65 

25

20

15

10

5

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI

SE

Rules are in place to determine whether or not personal data are revealed in online published judgments

Website is accessible to the general public free of charge

Judgments and  their associated metadata are downloadable free of charge in the form of a database or
by other automated means
Anonymisation/pseudonymisation is assisted by an algorithm

Judgments have associated information (“metadata”) on  citations and references to national and/or EU 
law or case law 
Judgments have associated information (“metadata”) on keywords, date of the decision, etc. 

Judgments are assigned a European Case Law Identifier (ECLI)

Judgments are modelled according to a standard  which would enable their machine readability

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: Maximum possible: 24 points per type of 
cases. For each of the three instances (first, second, final) one point is given if all judicial decisions are covered. If only some 
judicial  decisions  are  covered  at  a  given  instance,  only  half  a  point  is  awarded.  Where  a  Member  State  has  only  two 
instances, points have been given for three instances by mirroring the respective higher instance as the non-existing instance. 
For those Member States that do not distinguish between administrative and civil/commercial cases, the same points have 
been allocated for both areas of law. 

With regard to civil and commercial cases, in four Member States (15%) judgments issued 
at  all  instances  are  assigned  a  European  Case  Law  Identifier  (ECLI)66.  14  Member  States 
(52%)  have  also  adopted  ECLI,  but  only  at  certain  instances  and/or  for  a  subset  of  their 
judicial decisions. Nine Member States (33%) do not  yet assign ECLI to their  judgments at 
all. 

In two Member States (7%), judgments at all instances are modelled according to a standard, 
which enables their machine readability, whilst in nine Member States (33%) this is the case 
for only some of the judgments and/or instances. In 16 Member States (59%) judgments are 
not modelled for the purposes of machine readability. 

In  five  Member  States  (19%),  all  judgments  at  all  instances  have  associated  information 
(“metadata”) on keywords, dates of the decision, etc., whilst in 18 Member States (67%) such 

65 Source: EU Justice Scoreboard 2020.  
66 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52019XG1024(01) 

40 

 
 
 
                                                           
metadata exists only at certain instances and/or for some judgments. In four Member States 
(15%) this metadata is not available. 

In  four  Member  States  (15%),  all  judgments  at  all  instances  have  associated  information 
(“metadata”)  on  citations  and  references  to  national  and/or  EU  law  or  case  law.  In  eight 
Member  States  (30%),  judgments  have  metadata  on  citations  and  references  for  some 
judgments and/or at certain instances. 15 Member States (56%) do not provide metadata on 
citations and references to law or case law at all. 

In  three  Member  States  (11%),  an  algorithm  assists  with  the  anonymisation  and 
pseudonymisation  of  all  judgments  at  all  instances,  whilst  in  five  Member  State  (19%)  the 
process  is  partly  assisted  by  an  algorithm  at  first,  second  and/or  highest  instance  in  some 
situations. 19 Member States (70%) do not use an algorithm assisting in  the anonymisation 
and pseudonymisation of judgments. 

In two Member States (7%),  all  judgments  and their associated metadata are downloadable 
free  of  charge  in  the  form  of  a  database  or  are  accessible  by  other  automated  means  at  all 
instances. In five Member States (19%) this possibility exists for some judgments and/or at 
some  instances.  20  Member  States  (74%)  do  not  allow  at  all  automated  and  free  of  charge 
access to judgments and their associated metadata. 

In  general,  websites  on  case  law  are  accessible  by  the  general  public  free  of  charge  in  all 
Member  States.  In  seven  Member  States  (26%)  they  provide  full  free  access  to  all 
jurisprudence, while in 20 Member States (74%) access is limited to specific instances and/or 
case law collections. 

In six Member States (22%), rules are in place to determine whether or not personal data are 
revealed in all online published judgments at all instances. In 14 Member States (52%), this 
arrangement is in place for certain judgments at all instances. Six Member States (22%) have 
set rules to establish whether personal data are revealed in some published documents and/or 
by  certain  instances.  Only  one  Member  States  (4%)  has  no  established  rules  governing  the 
management of personal data in published judgments available online. 

41 

 
 
 
 
Figure 38: Arrangements for increased accessibility to judicial decisions (administrative cases)67 

25

20

15

10

5

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Rules are in place to determine whether or not personal data are revealed in online published
judgments
Website is accessible to the general public free of charge

Judgments and  their associated metadata are downloadable free of charge in the form of a database or
by other automated means
Anonymisation/pseudonymisation is assisted by an algorithm

Judgments have associated information (“metadata”) on  citations and references to national and/or EU 
law or case law 
Judgments have associated information (“metadata”) on keywords, date of the decision, etc. 

Judgments are assigned a European Case Law Identifier (ECLI)

Judgments are modelled according to a standard  which would enable their machine readability

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: Maximum possible: 24 points per type of 
cases. For each of the three instances (first, second, final) one point is given if all judicial decisions are covered. If only some 
judicial  decisions  are  covered  at  a  given  instance,  only  half  a  point  is  awarded.  Where  a  Member  State  has  only  two 
instances, points have been given for three instances by mirroring the respective higher instance as the non-existing instance. 
For those Member States that do not distinguish between administrative and civil/commercial cases, the same points have 
been allocated for both areas of law. 

In the context of administrative cases, in six Member States (22%) judgments issued at all 
instances  are  assigned  an  ECLI.  Nine  Member  States  (33%)  have  also  adopted  ECLI,  but 
only  at  certain  instances  and/or  for  a  subset  of  their  judicial  decisions.  12  Member  States 
(44%) do not yet assign ECLI to their judgments. 

In  two  Member  States  (7%),  all  judgments  at  all  instances  are  modelled  according  to  a 
standard, which would enable their machine readability, whilst in eight Member States (30%) 
this  is  the  case  for  only  some  judgments  and/or  instances.  Judgments  in  17  Member  States 
(63%) are not modelled for the purposes of machine readability. 

In  seven  Member  States  (26%),  all  judgments  at  all  instances  have  associated  information 
(“metadata”)  on  keywords,  dates  of  the  decision,  etc.  In  16  Member  States  (59%)  such 
metadata exists only at certain instances and/or for some judgments. In four Member States 
(15%) this metadata is not available. 

67 Source: EU Justice Scoreboard 2020.  

42 

 
 
                                                           
In  four  Member  States  (15%),  all  judgments  at  all  instances  have  associated  information 
(“metadata”)  on  citations  and  references  to  national  and/or  EU  law  or  case  law.  In  seven 
Member  States  (26%),  judgments  have  metadata  on  citations  and  references  for  some 
judgments and/or at certain instances. 16 Member States (59%) do not provide metadata on 
citations and references to law or case law at all. 

In four Member States (15%), an algorithm assists with anonymisation and pseudonymisation 
of  all  judgments  at  all  instances,  whilst  in  five  Member  States  (19%)  the  process  is  partly 
assisted by an algorithm in some situations. 18 Member States (67%) do not use an algorithm 
assisting in the anonymisation and pseudonymisation of judgments.  

In two Member States (7%),  all  judgments  and their associated metadata are downloadable 
free of charge either in the form of a database or are accessible by other automated means at 
all instances. In five Member States (19%) this possibility exists for some judgments and/or 
at some instances. 20 Member States (74%) do not allow at all automated and free of charge 
access to judgments and their associated metadata. 

All Member States offer access to websites on administrative case law free of charge to the 
general public at either/and first, second and highest instance. In nine Member States (33%), 
administrative  jurisprudence  is  fully  accessible  by  the  general  public  free  of  charge.  In  the 
other  18  Member  States  (67%),  access  is  partially  possible  to  the  jurisprudence  of  specific 
instances and/or case law collections.  

In nine Member States (33%), rules are in place to determine whether or not personal data are 
revealed in all online published judgments at all instances. In 11 Member States (41%), this 
arrangement is in place for certain judgments at all instances. Six Member States (22%) have 
set rules to establish whether personal data are revealed in some published documents and/or 
by  certain  instances.  Only  one  Member  State  (4%)  has  no  established  rules  governing  the 
management of personal data in published judgments available online. 

43 

 
 
 
 
Figure 39: Arrangements for increased accessibility to judicial decisions (criminal cases)68 

25

20

15

10

5

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Rules are in place to determine whether or not personal data are revealed in online published
judgments
Website is accessible to the general public free of charge

Judgments and  their associated metadata are downloadable free of charge in the form of a database or
by other automated means
Anonymisation/pseudonymisation is assisted by an algorithm

Judgments have associated information (“metadata”) on  citations and references to national and/or EU 
law or case law 
Judgments have associated information (“metadata”) on keywords, date of the decision, etc. 

Judgments are assigned a European Case Law Identifier (ECLI)

Judgments are modelled according to a standard  which would enable their machine readability

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: Maximum possible: 24 points per type of 
cases. For each of the three instances (first, second, final) one point is given if all judicial decisions are covered. If only some 
judicial  decisions  are  covered  at  a  given  instance,  only  half  a  point  is  awarded.  Where  a  Member  State  has  only  two 
instances, points have been given for three instances by mirroring the respective higher instance as the non-existing instance. 

With  regard  to  criminal  cases,  in  four  Member  States  (15%)  judgments  issued  at  all 
instances are assigned an ECLI. 13 Member States (48%) have also adopted ECLI, but only 
at certain instances and/or for a subset of their judicial decisions. 10 Member States (37%) do 
not yet assign ECLI to their judgments at all. 

In  two  Member  States  (7%),  all  judgments  at  all  instances  are  modelled  according  to  a 
standard, which would enable their machine readability. In seven Member States (26%) this 
is the case for only some judgments and/or instances. Judgments in 18 Member States (67%) 
are not modelled for the purposes of machine readability. 

In  five  Member  States  (19%),  all  judgments  at  all  instances  have  associated  information 
(“metadata”)  on  keywords,  dates  of  the  decisions,  etc.  In  19  Member  States  (70%)  such 
metadata exists only at certain instances and/or for some judgments. In three Member States 
(11%) this metadata is not available. 

68 Source: EU Justice Scoreboard 2020.  

44 

 
 
 
                                                           
In  four  Member  States  (15%),  all  judgments  at  all  instances  have  associated  information 
(“metadata”)  on  citations  and  references  to  national  and/or  EU  law  and  case  law.  In  10 
Member  States  (37%),  judgments  have  metadata  on  citations  and  references  for  some 
judgments and/or at certain instances. 13 Member States (48%) do not provide metadata on 
citations and references to law or case law at all. 

In four Member States (15%), an algorithm assists anonymisation and pseudonymisation of 
all  judgments  at  all  instances,  whilst  in  five  Member  States  (19%)  the  process  is  partly 
assisted by an algorithm in some situations. 18 Member States (67%) do not use an algorithm 
assisting in the anonymisation and pseudonymisation of judgments. 

In two Member States (7%),  all  judgments  and their associated metadata are downloadable 
free  of  charge  in  the  form  of  a  database  or  are  accessible  by  other  automated  means  at  all 
instances.  In  six  Member  States  (22%)  this  possibility  exists  for  some  judgments  and/or  at 
some  instances.  19  Member  States  (70%)  do  not  allow  at  all  automated  and  free  of  charge 
access to judgments and their associated metadata. 

All Member States offer access to websites on criminal case law free of charge to the general 
public  at  either/and  first,  second  and  highest  instance.  In  seven  Member  States  (26%), 
websites for criminal case law are fully accessible by the general public free of charge. In 20 
Member States  (74%), access  is  partially possible to  the jurisprudence of specific instances 
and/or case law collections.  

In six Member States (22%), rules are in place to determine whether or not personal data are 
revealed in all online published judgments at all instances. In 11 Member States (41%), this 
arrangement  is  in  place  for  certain  judgments  at  all  instances.  Seven  Member  States  (26%) 
have set rules to establish whether personal data are revealed in some published documents 
and/or by certain instances. Three Member States (11%) have no established rules governing 
the management of personal data in published judgments available online. 

The 2020 Justice Scoreboard concludes: 'All Member States have at least some arrangements 
in  place  for  civil/commercial,  administrative  and  criminal  cases.  However  a  considerable 
variance  among  the  Member  States  can  be  observed.  It  appears  that  administrative  courts 
are relatively more advanced as regards creating the enabling factors for algorithm-friendly 
justice  system.  Justice  systems,  where  arrangements  for  modelling  judgments  according  to 
standards enabling their machine readability have been put in place, seem to have potential 
to achieve better results in the future.'69 

3.7 Use of innovative technologies  

  Commission study on the use of innovative technologies  

In 2020 the European Commission published a study on the use of innovative technologies in 
the justice field70. In the context of this study EU institutions, bodies and agencies, Member 

69 Source: EU Justice Scoreboard 2020. Chapter 3.2.5.: Summary on the quality of justice systems, p. 37. 
70 https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/585101 

45 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
States’  public  authorities  and  the  judiciary,  legal  professional  organisations  and  ICT 
companies  were  consulted.  As  a  result,  a  number  of  projects  making  use  of  Artificial 
Intelligence  (AI)  or  Distributed  Ledger  (blockchain)  technologies  were  identified.  These 
projects were further categorised into specific solution areas. The main findings of the study 
are illustrated in the graphs below. 

Figure 40: Type and number of projects using Artificial Intelligence technologies by Member State71 

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

N
O 

D
A 
T 
A 

N
O 

D
A
T
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI

SK FI

SE

Processing high volume data

Pseudonymisation and anonymisation

Automating document management

Process automation

Chatbot

Visual data processing

Machine translation

Transcription tool

Predictive justice

Data management/ Optimising search engines

The following  values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = No projects using AI, otherwise the 
value reflects the number of projects using AI per category. 

Out  of  the  25  Member  States  which  provided  information,  two  Member  States  (8%)  have 
eight or more projects in the justice field using72 AI technologies, while four Member States 
(16%)  have  five  or  more  projects.  One  Member  State  (4%)  has  four  projects  based  on  AI 
solutions,  and  13  Member  States  (52%)  have  one  or  two  projects.  Currently,  five  Member 
States (20%) do not have any projects exploring the use of AI in the justice field. 

71 Source: Study on the use of innovative technology in the justice field.  
72 The identified projects are in a various stage of development  – in some cases they concern concepts, while 
others are either in the piloting/development phase, or concern operational production systems. 

46 

 
 
                                                           
 
 
Figure 41: Type of projects using Artificial Intelligence technologies73

5% 

6% 

10% 

11% 

13% 

8% 

5% 

11% 

18% 

13% 

Processing high volume data

Pseudonymisation and anonymisation

Automating document management

Process automation

Chatbot

Visual data processing

Machine translation

Transcription tool

Predictive justice

Data management/ Optimising search engines

The distribution is calculated based on the total number of AI projects and occurrence per category. 

18% of all AI projects focus on using AI technologies for automatic data pseudonymisation 
and  anonymisation.  13%  of  projects  have  objectives  towards  automating  document 
management, and 13%  optimisation of search engines and data management. Other projects 
explore  the  use  of  AI  for  transcription  tools  (11%),  process  automation  (11%),  visual  data 
processing  (10%)  and  processing  of  high  volume  data  (8%),  chatbots  (5%),  automatic 
machine translation (5%) and predictive justice (6%). 

73 Source: Study on the use of innovative technology in the justice field. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 42: Type and number of projects using Distributed Ledger Technology (blockchain) by Member State74 

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

N
O 

D
A
T
A 

N
O 

D
A
T
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Registers on blockchain

Digital Signature

Process automation

Data availability, security and validity

The  following  values  have  been  assigned  to  the  answers  illustrated  by  the  graph:  0  =  No  projects  using  blockchain 
technology, otherwise the value reflects the number of projects using it per category. 

Out of the 25 Member States which provided information, one Member State (4%) has seven 
projects exploring the use of Distributed Ledger (blockchain) technologies in the justice field, 
and another one (4%) has three projects. Four Member States (16%) have one or two projects 
using Distributed Ledger (blockchain) technologies. Currently, 19 Member States (76%) have 
no projects based on Distributed Ledger (blockchain) technologies. 

Figure 43: Type of projects using Distributed Ledger Technology (blockchain)75 

31% 

13% 

37% 

19% 

Registers on blockchain

Digital Signature

Process automation

Data availability, security and validity

The distribution is calculated based on the total number of DLT (blockchain) projects and occurrence per category. 

74 Source: Study on the use of innovative technology in the justice field. 
75 Source: Study on the use of innovative technology in the justice field. 

48 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
Most projects explore the possibility to have registers based on blockchain technology (37%). 
A significant number of the projects are in the domain of ensuring data availability, security 
and validity (31%). Projects further look at using the blockchain for digital signatures (19%) 
and process automation (13%). 

  Use of innovative technologies by judicial authorities 

Figure 44: Use of innovative technologies in the justice field76 

Column 1. Courts              Column 2. Prosecution services 

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Use of distributed ledger technologies (blockchain)

Use of artificial intelligence applications in core judicial activities

The following  values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 1 = if a variable is valid in all courts or 
prosecution services, respectively, 0,5 = if it is valid in some cases and 0 = if it is not available at all.   

Out of the 26 Member States which provided responses to these questions, all courts in one 
Member State (4%) use artificial intelligence (AI) solutions, and some courts in two Member 
States  (8%).  The  courts  in  23  Member  States  (88%)  do  not  presently  use  any  AI-based 
applications. 

Similarly, in only two Member States (8%) some courts use Distributed Ledger (blockchain) 
technologies.  The  courts  of  24  Member  States  (92%)  do  not  currently  use  blockchain 
technology-based applications. 

All  prosecution  services  in  two  Member  States  (8%)  use  AI  applications,  and  some 
prosecution  services  in  two  Member  States  (8%).  The  prosecution  services  in  22  Member 
States (85%) do not presently use any AI-based applications. 

Distributed  Ledger  (blockchain)  technologies  are  used  by  all  prosecution  services  in  two 
Member States (8%), whilst in one Member State (4%) only some use them. The prosecution 
services of 23 Member States (88%) do not currently use blockchain technology. 

76 Source: Questionnaire sent to the group of “Contact persons for national justice systems”.  

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
  Use of innovative technologies by legal practitioners 

Figure 45: Use of innovative technologies (such as Artificial Intelligence or distributed ledger technologies (blockchain) by 
lawyers77  

1,2

1

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR HR IE

IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Used in a production setting

In the development stage

Explored in a pilot setting

No operational implementations or ongoing developments

No information available

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 1 = depending on the value of the answer(s) 
selected by the respondents. 

Out  of  the  16  Member  States  which  provided  responses  to  this  question,  lawyer 
organisations  in  two  Member  States  (13%)  indicated  their  awareness  of  innovative 
technologies  being  already  used  in  a  production  setting.  The  lawyer  organisation  in  one 
Member  State  (6%)  responded  that  use  of  innovative  technologies  is  in  the  development 
stage.  In  two  Member  States  (13%),  innovative  technologies  are  being  explored  in  pilot 
settings.  In  five  Member  States  (31%),  respondents  indicated  that  there  are  currently  no 
operational implementations or ongoing developments based on innovative technologies, and 
in  six  Member  States  (38%),  the  consulted  lawyer  organisations  indicated  that  they  were 
unaware of such projects. 

⁂  

77 Source: Questionnaire sent to the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE). 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 46: Use of innovative technologies such as Artificial Intelligence or distributed ledger technologies (blockchain) by 
notaries78 

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 
T 

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

No information available

No operational implementations or ongoing developments

Explored in a pilot setting

In the development stage

Used in a production setting

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 1 = depending on the value of the answer(s) 
selected by the respondents. 

Out of the 18 Member  States which provided  replies to  this question, notary chambers  of 
four  Member  States  (22%)  indicated  that  innovative  technologies  are  currently  used  in  a 
production  setting.  The  chamber  from  one  Member  State  (6%)  replied  that  innovative 
technologies-based projects exist at both the development stage and in a production setting. 
In  four  Member  States  (22%)  such  technologies  are  explored  in  pilot  setting.  Currently,  in 
five Member States (28%) there are no implementation or development activities, and in four 
Member  States  (22%)  the  consulted  notariats  were  unaware  of  innovative  technologies-
related projects and/or developments. 

⁂  

The  judicial  officers/bailiffs  indicated  that  innovative  technologies  solutions  are  currently 
explored in a pilot setting79. 

78 Source: Questionnaire sent to the Council of the Notariats of the European Union (CNUE). 
79 Source: Questionnaire sent to the European Bailiff's Foundation (EUBF). 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
4.  State of play - Part II – Digitalisation of EU cross-border cooperation 

4.1 Use of the digital channel for communication with regard to cross-border civil 

and commercial matters regulated by EU law 

The  members  of  the  European  Judicial  Network  in  civil  and  commercial  matters  (EJN) 
contributed  to  the  Commission’s  digitalisation  mapping  exercise  by  responding  to  a 
questionnaire on the use of digital communication tools in the context of civil justice cross-
border judicial cooperation. The national EJN contact points provided information on digital 
tools  used  for  cross-border  cooperation  by  national  authorities.  Representatives  from  20 
Member States80 responded to the questionnaire. 

Figure 47: Use of the digital channel for exchanges with regard to cross-border civil and commercial cases regulated by EU 
law81 

4,5

4

3,5

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

N
O 

D
A
T
A 

N
O 

D
A
T
A 

N
O 

D
A
T
A 

N
O 

D
A
T
A 

N
O 

D
A
T
A 

N
O 

D
A
T
A 

N
O 

D
A
T
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Use of digital channel for exchanges with competent authorities of other Member States

Use of digital channel for communication between national competent authorities

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = No digital channels are currently used 
for  communicating  with  national  authorities/authorities  of  other  Member  States,  1  =  Digital  channels  are  used  for  certain 
instruments, 2 = Digital channels are used for all instruments. 

Out of the 20 Member States which provided replies to these questions, seven Member States 
(35%)  use  digital  communication  tools  for  all  relevant  EU  legal  instruments  when 
communicating  with  other  competent  authorities.  Six  Member  States  (30%)  use  digital 
communication tools for certain instruments and seven Member States (35%) currently do not 
use digital tools when communicating with other national competent authorities.  

When  communicating  with  the  competent  authorities  of  another  Member  State,  one 
respondent  (5%) indicated that  a digital  channel is  used  for  exchanges on all relevant  legal 

80  Spain  and  Romania  responded  with  detailed  narrative  answers.  In  consideration  of  the  need  to  ensure  the 
validity of the presented data, narrative answers were not calculated in values and are therefore not included in 
the respective figures (47 and 48). 
81 Source: Questionnaire on cross-border cooperation in civil and commercial cases sent to the contact points of 
the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters.  

52 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
instruments.  Seven  Member  States  (35%)  use  a  digital  channel  for  exchanges  limited  to 
certain  instruments,  and  12 Member States  (60%) currently do not  use any digital  channels 
for communicating with foreign authorities.  

4.2 Possibility  for  citizens  and  businesses  (or  their  lawyers)  to  submit  requests 
electronically  or  to  communicate  with  national  or  the  competent  authorities  of 
other Member States in cross-border civil and commercial matters 

The  EJN  contact  points  were  invited  to  provide  information  on  whether  citizens  and 
businesses  are  able  to  electronically  submit  and  communicate  with  national  or  foreign 
competent authorities with regard to cross-border civil and commercial cases. 

Figure 48: Possibility for citizens and businesses (or their lawyers) to submit electronically requests or to communicate with 
national or foreign competent authorities in cross-border civil and commercial cases82 

4,5

4

3,5

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

N
O 

R 
E 
P 
L 
Y 

N
O 

D
A
T
A 

N
O 

D
A
T
A 

N
O 

D
A
T
A 

N
O 

D
A
T
A 

N
O 

D
A
T
A 

N
O 

D
A
T
A 

N
O 

D
A
T
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI
Possibility to submit requests or communicate with national or foreign authorities by plain e-mail

SK FI

SE

Possibility to submit requests or communicate with national or foreign authorities by electronically signed e-
mail

Availabilitiy of an online access point(s) for electronic submission and/or case follow-up, allowing
communication with national or foreign competent authorities

The  following  values  have  been  assigned  to  the  answers  illustrated  by  the  graph:  0  =  Communication  by  e-mail  is  not 
allowed at all, 1 = It is possible to communicate by plain or electronically signed e-mail for certain instruments, 2 = Possible 
to communicate by plain or electronically signed e-mail for all instruments.  
0  =  No  online  access  point(s)  available,  1  =  Online  access  point(s)  available  for  certain  instruments,  2  =  Online  access 
point(s) available for all instruments. 

19 Member States83 answered to this particular question. Six Member States (32%) provide 
online access points allowing electronic submission and/or case follow-up for all relevant 
EU  cross-border  legal  instruments  available  to  citizens  and  businesses  (or  their  appointed 
legal  representatives).  Nine  Member  States  (47%)  provide  such  access  points  limited  to 
certain instruments, whilst four Member States (21%) currently do not provide any electronic 
access points to citizens and businesses.  

82 Source: Questionnaire on cross-border cooperation in civil and commercial cases sent to the contact points of 
the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters.   
83 Germany responded with a narrative answer. In consideration of the need to ensure the validity of the 
presented data, narrative answers were not calculated in values and are therefore not included in the respective 
figure. 

53 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
With regard to the possibility to submit requests or otherwise communicate with national or 
foreign authorities by e-mail, two Member States (10%) allow the use of electronically signed 
e-mail  for  communication  and  electronic  submission  with  regard  to  all  relevant  legal 
instruments. One Member State (5%) allows both plain as well as electronically signed e-mail 
for certain instruments. In eight Member States (40%), the use of plain e-mail is allowed in 
this  context.  Four  Member  States  (20%)  allow  communication  by  plain  e-mail  limited  to 
specific instruments, and five Member States (25%) do not allow at all communication by e-
mail with citizens and businesses.  

4.3 Use of digital tools with regard to cross-border criminal matters regulated by EU 

law 

The  Commission  sent  a  questionnaire  on  the  digitalisation  in  cross-border  judicial 
cooperation in criminal matters to the Permanent Representations of the Member States to the 
EU.  A  total  of  14  Member  States  replied  to  the  questionnaire.  Part  of  the  questionnaire 
focused on digital tools at the disposal of Member States’ competent authorities. The survey 
collected data on the use of CMS, distance communication technologies and the identification 
of technical difficulties when, for instance, conducting hearings via videoconference.  

Figure 49: Use of digital tools with regard to cross-border criminal cases84 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N
O
T  

A 
P 
P 
L 
I 
C 
A 
B 
L 
E 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI

SE

Use of distance communication technologies (for videoconference)

Some of the competent and/or central authorities, but only some offices of these authorities use CMS

Some of the competent and/or central authorities, and all offices of these authorities use CMS

All of the competent and central authorities, but only some offices of these authorities use CMS

All of the competent and central authorities, and all offices of these authorities use CMS

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = No distant communication technologies 
used, 1 = Distance communication technologies are used for some of the EU legal instruments, 2 = Distance communication 
technologies are used for all EU legal instruments.  
0 = None of the competent or central authorities use a CMS, 1 = Certain offices of some of the competent and/or central 
authorities use a CMS, 2 = Some of the competent and/or central authorities, and all offices of those authorities use a CMS, 2 

84 Source: Questionnaire sent to the Permanent Representations of the Member States to the EU on cross-border 
cooperation in criminal law matters.  

54 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
= All of the competent and central authorities, but only some of their offices use a CMS, 3 = All of the competent and central 
authorities, and all their offices, use a CMS. 

Out  of  the  14  Member  States  which  provided  responses  to  these  questions,  three  Member 
States (21%) indicated that, apart from  courts and prosecution services, all other competent 
and  central  authorities  and  their  offices  use  a  Case  Management  System  (CMS).  One 
Member  State  (7%)  responded  that  only  some  offices  of  their  competent  and  central 
authorities use a CMS. In three Member States (21%), a CMS is used by all offices of some 
of  the  competent  and  central  authorities,  whilst  five  Member  States  (36%)  indicated  that  a 
CMS  is  used  by  some  offices  of  some  of  the  competent  and  central  authorities.  In  one 
Member State (7%), authorities do not use a CMS. One Member State (7%) indicated that the 
question was not applicable to their particular situation85. 

Distance  communication  technologies,  such  as  videoconferencing,  are  used  for  cross-
border  criminal  cases  in  10  Member  States  (71%)  for  all  relevant  EU  legal  cooperation 
instruments allowed by national law. In four Member States (29%) distance communication 
technologies are used for some of the relevant EU legal instruments. 

Figure 50: Assessment of technical difficulties encountered in the use of distance communication technologies86 

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = No systematic technical difficulties are 
encountered, 1 = Reflects the number of the experienced technical difficulties. The total value for this variable is calculated 
cumulatively. 

Out of the 14 Member States which provided replies to this question, seven Member States 
(50%)  responded  that  their  competent  authorities  have  not  faced  systematic  technical 
difficulties in the use of distance communication technologies with regard to cooperation 
in  cross-border  criminal  matters.  On  the  other  hand,  two  Member  States  (14%)  indicated 
having  encountered one  type of problem  when using distance communication technologies, 
while  another  Member  State  (7%)  faces  problems,  which  are  solved  in  practice.  Four 
Member  States  (29%)  indicated  to  have  experienced  multiple  types  of  difficulties,  i.e. 
problems with interoperability, lack of good quality devices, users not being familiar with the 
use of different systems and other problems. 

85 Since, according to the reply from Luxembourg: “The prosecutor general of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg 
has always been designated as central authority for legal assistance in criminal matters”. 
86 Source: Questionnaire sent to the Permanent Representations of the Member States to the EU on cross-border 
cooperation in criminal law matters. 

55 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.4 Use of digital channels for communication with regard to cross-border criminal 

matters regulated by EU law 

The  questionnaire  on  digitalisation  in  cross-border  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters 
inter alia focused on digital channels used between the competent and central authorities of 
Member States with regard to procedures regulated by EU law. 

Figure 51: Use of digital channels for communication with regard to cross-border criminal matters regulated by EU law87 

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI

SK FI

SE

Use of a digital channel for exchanges with competent authorities of other Member States and the EU JHA
agencies/bodies

Use of a digital channel for communication between national competent authorities

The  following  values  have  been  assigned  to  the  answers  illustrated  by  the  graph:  0  =  No  use  of  digital  channels  for 
communicating with national authorities, 1 = Use of digital channels only by certain authorities, 2 = Use of digital channels 
only by certain authorities for all legal instruments, 3 = Use of digital channels for all legal instruments.  
0 = No use of digital channels for communicating with the competent and central authorities of another Member States and 
JHA  bodies,  1  =  Use  for  certain  EU  legal  instruments,  3  =  Use  for  all  relevant  EU  legal  instruments,  1  =  Use  for 
communication with the EU JHA agencies/bodies (Maximum possible score: 4 points). 

Out  of  the  14  Member  States  which  provided  responses  to  these  questions,  competent 
authorities of nine Member States (64%) use digital channels to communicate at national 
level  for  all  relevant  instruments  in  cross-border  criminal  matters.  In  two  Member  States 
(14%)  only  certain  authorities  use  digital  channels  to  communicate  for  all  relevant 
instruments. In one Member State (7%) digital channels are only used by certain authorities. 
Two Member States (14%) currently do not use any digital channels to this end. 

Eight  Member  States  (57%)  use  a  digital  channel  for  exchanges  with  the  competent 
authorities  of  other  Member  States  and  the  EU  Justice  and  Home  Affairs  (JHA) 
agencies/bodies for all relevant EU instruments. One Member State (7%) indicated that the 
use  of  digital  channels  for  all  or  certain  relevant  instruments  as  well  as  for  communication 
with JHA bodies differs due to national specificities88. One Member State (7%) uses a digital 
channel  for  exchanges  for  certain  EU  legal  instruments.  One  Member  State  (7%) 
communicates only  with  the EU JHA bodies/agencies via a digital channel.  Three Member 
States (21%) currently do not use any digital tools to this end. 

87 Source: Questionnaire sent to the Permanent Representations of the Member States to the EU on cross-border 
cooperation in criminal law matters.  
88 Germany replied that there are ‘variations between the "Länder" (states) in Germany due to the federal 
system’.  

56 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.5 Possibility for individuals to contact national or foreign authorities with regard 

to cross-border criminal matters regulated by EU law 

The distribution of the questionnaire on digitalisation in cross-border judicial cooperation in 
criminal matters further aimed at collecting data on the digital tools available to individuals 
for  contacting  national  authorities  or  those  of  other  EU  Member  States.  The  following 
question focuses on whether Internet-based IT portals for electronic submission are available 
for individuals. 

Figure 52: Possibility for individuals to contact national or foreign authorities with regard to cross-border criminal matters 
regulated by EU law89  

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Existence of dedicated or Internet-based IT portal(s) for submission and/or case follow-up for citizens

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = IT portal(s) for submission and/or case 
follow-up for citizens are not available, 1 = IT portal(s) are available but there are certain conditions or limitations, 2 = IT 
portal(s) are available for certain EU legal instruments, 3 = IT portal(s) are available for all relevant EU legal instruments.  

Out of the 14 Member States which provided responses to this question, two Member States 
(14%)  provide  Internet-based  IT  portals  for  all  relevant  EU  legal  instruments  available  to 
individuals.  Six  Member  States  (43%)  provide  such  IT  portals  under  certain  conditions  or 
limitations, whereas six Member States (43%) currently do not provide any such portals. 

4.6 Use of the digital channel for exchanges between national prosecution authorities 

and EU agencies 

In the context of the Digital Criminal Justice Study90 carried out by the Commission, national 
prosecutors were invited to provide information on the use of digital communication tools for 
sharing requests and evidence in the context of international judicial cooperation. A  total of 
171  stakeholders  from  the  justice  domain  (prosecutors,  investigative  judges,  judges  and 
national Members of Eurojust) from 22 Member States responded to the questionnaire. 

89 Source: Questionnaire sent to the Permanent Representations of the Member States to the EU on cross-border 
cooperation in criminal law matters. 
90 https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/118529 

57 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
It should be noted that the data presented below reflects the views of the varying number of 
respondents  per  Member  State  provided  for  the  purposes  of  the  study.  Therefore,  it  is  not 
necessarily representative of the situation in Member States. 

Figure 53: Use of digital channels for exchanges between national prosecution authorities and the EU JHA 

agencies/bodies91 

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

N 
O 

D 
A 
T 
A 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Police communication channels

Eurojust communication channels

Email

None

Other

Values  have  been  assigned  to  the  answers  illustrated  in  the  graph  based  on  the  number  of  respondents.  A  value  of  1  is 
assigned to each respondent who indicated to be using one of the identified communication channels (or ‘None’). 

Out  of  the  replies  received  by  22  Member  States,  respondents92  from  16  Member  States 
(73%)  indicated  to  be  using  police  communication  channels,  Eurojust  communication 
channels, as well as e-mail in the context of cross-border judicial cooperation involving the 
relevant  EU agencies/bodies93.  In six Member States  (27%) the respondents  indicated to be 
using Eurojust communication channels and e-mail. The respondents from 14 Member States 
(64%) indicated to be using “none” of the mentioned communication channels for exchanges 
with the EU JHA agencies/bodies.  

91 Source: Digital Criminal Justice Study. 
92 Prosecutors, investigative judges, judges and national Members of Eurojust, who were contacted and 
responded to the questionnaire issued in the context of the study. 
93 As part of the Digital Criminal Justice study, inter alia, the following EU JHA agencies and bodies provided 
input: Eurojust, Europol and the EPPO.  

58 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
Figure 54: Digital channels for exchanges between national prosecution authorities and EU agencies (percentage)94 

14% 

2% 

17% 

22% 

45% 

Police communication channels

Eurojust communication channels

Email

Other

None

 Percentages are calculated based on the total number of responses and per category. 

According  to  the  collected  data,  45%  of  all  respondents  use  e-mail,  22%  use  Eurojust 
communication  channels,  17%  use  police  communication  channels  and  2%  other  digital 
communication  channels  for  sharing  evidence  and  requests  for  international  judicial 
cooperation with the relevant EU agencies. 14% of all respondents indicated that they do not 
use any of the mentioned digital communication channels in this regard.  

4.7 Use of the digital tools for cross-border data exchanges between judicial and 

other competent authorities 

  Participation in the iSupport secure communication system for the cross-border 

recovery of maintenance obligations 

“iSupport, co-ordinated by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference, was born out of 
the  ambition  to  develop  an  electronic  case  management  and  secure  communication  system 
for  the  cross-border  recovery  of  maintenance  obligations  under  the  EU  2009  Maintenance 
Regulation and the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention. An initial project, supported by a 
significant European Union action grant, nine Hague Conference Member States and three 
organisations, resulted in the delivery of the iSupport software. Portugal has been using it in 
a pilot capacity since the autumn of 2016 and extension to other States is ongoing.”95 

94 Source: Digital Criminal Justice Study. 
95 https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/specialised-sections/child-support/isupport1 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 55: Participation in the iSupport secure communication system for the cross-border recovery of maintenance 
obligations96 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Operationally ready for digital exchanges in the context of iSupport

The  following  values  have  been  assigned  to  the  answers  illustrated  by  the  graph:  0  =  Not  participating  or  operationally 
ready, 1 = Participating and operationally ready. 

Two Member States (7%) are operationally ready for digital exchanges in the context of the 
iSupport  system.  Work  continues,  within  the  framework  of  the  “iSupport  PM”  project  co-
financed by the European Union, which should lead to the wider deployment and use of the 
iSupport system in other EU Member States, as well as in third countries. 

  Participation in the e-Evidence Digital Exchange System (e-EDES) 

The e-Evidence Digital Exchange System (e-EDES) is currently being established further to 
the 2016 Council Conclusions on improving criminal justice in cyberspace97. This initiative 
has the objective of establishing a digital platform for the exchanges between the competent 
national  authorities  under 
(Directive 
2014/41/EU)98 and mutual assistance agreements.  

Investigation  Order  Directive 

the  European 

Figure 56: Participation in the e-Evidence Digital Exchange System (e-EDES)99 

3,5

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Readiness in 2020

Readiness in 2021

To be decided / No data

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 1 = To be decided/no data, 2 = Readiness in 
2021, 3 = Readiness in 2020. 

96 Source: Commission data. 
97 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/24300/cyberspace-en.pdf 
98 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0041&from=EN 
99 Source: Commission data. 

60 

 
 
                                                           
Five  Member  States  (19%)  should  be  ready  to  go  live  by  the  end  of  2020  and  11  Member 
States (41%) are planning to complete their connection to e-EDES in the course of 2021. The 
remaining  11  Member  States  (41%)  have  not  yet  communicated  their  implementation 
timetables, or their planning is otherwise unknown. 

4.8 Participation in EU-level interconnections of registers and databases  

Since 2009, a number of initiatives have been already undertaken and completed towards an 
increased level of interconnection of national databases and registers at the level of the EU. 
These  projects  directly  support  citizens,  businesses  and  legal  practitioners  in  the  context  of 
improving access to justice and information flows in the European Single Market. 

4.8.1  Tools for easier access to legal professionals 

Access  to  justice  entails  practical  measures  facilitating  citizens  by  providing  them  with  the 
necessary  tools  for  locating  legal  professionals  throughout  the  EU.  Access  to  such 
information is especially relevant in the context of ensuring that citizens can easily exercise 
their rights and companies can seamlessly operate across borders.  

The Commission has collaborated with the CCBE, the CNUE, and their individual members, 
towards  the  establishment  of  two  such  European-level  tools.  ‘Find  a  lawyer’  and  ‘Find  a 
notary’ are decentralised search engines, which are a product of a voluntary cooperation. The 
tools are accessible through the European e-Justice Portal.  

  Find a lawyer tool (FAL) 

Available  on  the  e-Justice  Portal,  the  search  tool  ‘Find  a  lawyer’100  supports  citizens  in 
locating  lawyers  throughout  the  EU  when  confronted  with  legal  disputes  or  when  seeking 
legal  advice  or  remedy.  The  search  tool  works  through  a  real-time  interconnection  with 
registers and databases operated by the national bar associations and law societies. 

Figure 57: Participation in the FAL search engine on the e-Justice Portal101 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Participation in the 'Find a lawyer' search tool

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = Member State does not participate, 1 = 
Member State participates. 

100 https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_find_a_lawyer-334-en.do 
101 Source: Commission data. 

61 

 
 
 
                                                           
The  national  bar  associations  and  law  societies  from  21  Member  States  (78%)  have 
interconnected their registers with the “Find a lawyer” search engine.  

  Find a notary tool (FAN) 

The search tool “Find a notary”102 supports citizens in locating notaries throughout the EU. 
The search tool works through a real-time interconnection with the registers of the civil law 
notarial chambers, members of the CNUE. 

Figure 58: Participation in the FAN search engine on the e-Justice Portal103 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI

SK FI

SE

Participation in the 'Find a notary' search tool

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = Member State does not participate, 1 = 
Member State participates. 

The national chambers of notariats from 22 Member States (81%) have interconnected their 
registers with the “Find a notary” search engine. 

4.8.2  Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS) 

The Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS) was established in line with Directive 
2012/17/EU104  and  the  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2015/884105.  As 
companies  have  expanded  across  borders  thanks  to  the  EU  single  market,  the  BRIS  search 
engine allows citizens to look for and access company information from the national business 
registers  across  the  EU  utilising  a  uniform  search  interface  available  on  the  e-Justice 
Portal106. 

102 https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_find_a_notary-335-en.do 
103 Source: Commission data. 
104 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32012L0017 
105 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32015R0884 
106 https://beta.e-justice.europa.eu/489/EN/business_registers__search_for_a_company_in_the_eu 

62 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 59: Member States participating in the BRIS search engine107 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE

Participation in the 'Business Registers Interconnection System'

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = Member State does not participate, 1 = 
Member State participates. 

25  Member  States  (93%)  have  interconnected  their  business  and  company  registers  with 
BRIS and the European Access Point search engine available on the e-Justice Portal. 

4.8.3  Participation in the European Case Law Identifier (ECLI) Search Engine 

The  European  Case  Law  Identifier  (ECLI)  Search  Engine108  facilitates  the  findability  of 
judicial  decisions/judgments  from  national  and  European  courts  and  tribunals,  which  have 
adopted  the  ECLI  standard109.  The  ECLI  standard  allows  achieving  legal  and  technical 
semantic interoperability of case law decisions, by introducing a univocal identifier for case 
law, as well as a standardised set of mandatory and optional metadata. 

Figure 60: Participation in the ECLI search engine on the e-Justice Portal110 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI

SK FI

SE

Participation in the 'ECLI' search engine

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = Member State does not participate, 1 = 
Member State participates. 

National courts from 14 Member States (52%) have interconnected their case law databases 
and repositories with the ECLI search engine available on the e-Justice Portal111. 

107 Source: Commission data. 
108 https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_ecli_search_engine-430-en.do 
109 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52019XG1024(01)  
110 Source: Commission data. 

63 

 
 
                                                           
4.8.4 

Insolvency Registers Interconnection System (IRI) 

The  Insolvency  Registers  Interconnection  (IRI)  Search  Engine  facilitates  finding  insolvent 
natural and/or legal persons throughout the EU. The tool allows the general public to search 
across  the  national  registers  of  the  participating  Member  States  from  a  single  European 
access  point. The project  of the original  Insolvency Registers  Interconnection System (“IRI 
I”)  was  implemented  further  to  the  European  e-Justice  Action  Plan  (2009-2013)112  as  a 
voluntary initiative. 

Article 25 of Regulation 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings113 requires all Member States 
to  interconnect  their  national  insolvency  registers  via  the  European  e-Justice  Portal114.  This 
second  project  on  the  interconnection  of  national  insolvency  registers  is  currently  ongoing 
(the “IRI II” project). 

Figure 61: Participation in IRI I and IRI II search engines on the e-Justice Portal115 

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE
Member States participating in the 'IRI I' search engine

Member States participating in the 'IRI II' search engine

The following values have been assigned to the answers illustrated by the graph: 0 = Member State does not participate, 1 = 
Member State participates in the IRI I and/or the IRI II project. 

Nine Member States (33%) have interconnected their national registers on a voluntary basis, 
as part of the “IRI I” project. 

So far, seven Member States (26%) have successfully finalised integration with the new “IRI 
II” system, which is currently being developed. 

111 As of September 2020, the ECLI Search Engine provides access to the metadata and the full-texts of 11.8 
million judicial decisions. 
112 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52009XG0331(01)&from=EN 
113 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32015R0848 
114 By June 2021. 
115 Source: Commission data. 

64 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Annex 1 

Synopsis  of  the  public  feedback  received  on  the  Roadmap  on  the  “Digitalisation  of 
justice in the EU” Commission initiative 

In line with its Better Regulation guidelines, the Commission published a Roadmap outlining 
an initiative of the Commission for the “Digitalisation of justice in the EU” 116. The Roadmap 
described  the  initiative’s  main  elements.  Stakeholders  provided  their  feedback  between  30 
July 2020 and 24 September 2020. 

The Commission received 33 submissions:  

  8 submissions from NGOs.  
  8 submissions from stakeholders, who categorised themselves as ‘others’. 
  5 submissions from companies/business organisations. 
  5 submissions anonymously.  
  2 submissions from public authorities.  
  2 submissions from EU citizens. 
  2 submissions from business associations. 
  1 submission from an academic/research institution.  

The Commission assessed all submissions  against the ideas presented in  the Roadmap. The 
length  and  diversity  of  issues  tackled  in  the  submissions  varied  considerably.  Stakeholders 
focused on the following aspects of the Roadmap: 

 

In  general,  almost  all  stakeholders  welcomed  actions  to  support  digitalisation  of 
justice  systems  in  the  EU.  Digitalisation  was  considered  as  a  mean  to  increase 
efficiency  and  access  to  justice  systems,  as  the  length  and  complexity  of  current 
procedures create different challenges. At the same time, stakeholders considered that 
further  actions  on  the  digitalisation  of  justice  in  the  EU  could  be  conducted  only 
subject to certain important considerations, as further set out below.  

 

  Stakeholders considered  that the  current paper-based exchange of documents used 
by justice systems creates challenges. They considered that it both is important to be 
able  to  easily  submit  documents  digitally  and  also  to  receive  information  from 
relevant authorities in digital format.  
In principle, stakeholders were supportive to the increased use of videoconferencing. 
Stakeholders pointed to  considerable economic savings by  the use of such solutions 
for  hearings.  At  the  same  time,  stakeholders  considered  that  appropriate  safeguards 
are needed to protect fundamental rights. A party to the procedure or the judge should 
have  the  possibility  to  request  a  hearing  in  person.  Different  views  were  presented 
about  the  use  of  videoconferencing  in  criminal  justice,  either  supportive  or  very 
cautious (allowing the use of videoconferencing in very limited cases). 

  Stakeholders considered that different actions on the digitalisation of justice in the EU 
need to respect the principle of subsidiarity. Stakeholders considered it important that 
any  action  on  the  digitalisation  of  justice  in  the  EU  should  not  result  in  centralised 

116 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12547-Digitalisation-of-justice-in-
the-European-Union- 

65 

 
 
                                                           
solutions, leading to the creation of pan-European databases. Therefore, decentralised 
solutions  were  supported.  The  issue  of  interoperability,  as  well  as  recognition  of 
electronic signatures/stamps between national systems were also raised. 

  Stakeholders highlighted that any actions towards the digitalisation of justice should 
respect  protection  of  personal  data,  the  principle  of  confidentiality  in  relations 
between  a  lawyer  and  his  or  her  client,  and  also  ensure  a  high-level  of  security. 
Appropriate considerations on access to justice by vulnerable persons should also be 
seriously taken into account.  

  Certain stakeholders pointed to the need of ensuring the stability of the e-CODEX117 

system. 

117 e-Justice Communication via Online Data Exchange.  

66