COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal matters, and amending certain acts in the field of judicial cooperation and Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on amending Council Directive 2003/8/EC, Council Framework Decisions 2002/465/JHA, 2002/584/JHA, 2003/577/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA, 2008/947/JHA, 2009/829/JHA and 2009/948/JHA, and Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, as regards digitalisation of judicial cooperation
Date: 2021-12-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: access to the courts, cross-border cooperation, decentralised cooperation, digitisation, exchange of information, information system, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, telecommunications

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 1.12.2021  SWD(2021) 392 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal matters, and amending certain acts in the field of judicial cooperation and   Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on amending Council Directive 2003/8/EC,  Council Framework Decisions 2002/465/JHA, 2002/584/JHA, 2003/577/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA, 2008/947/JHA, 2009/829/JHA and 2009/948/JHA, and Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, as regards digitalisation of judicial cooperation {COM(2021) 759 final} - {SEC(2021) 580 final} - {SWD(2021) 393 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ................................................. 5 

PROBLEM DEFINITION ....................................................................................................... 8 

2.1.  What is the problem? .................................................................................................... 8 
Inefficient cross-border judicial cooperation ................................................................. 11 
2.1.1. 

2.1.2. 

Barriers to access to justice in cross-border cases ......................................................... 13 

2.2.  What are the problem drivers? .................................................................................... 15 
Different level of digitalisation and voluntary use of existing digital channels ........... 15 
2.2.1. 

2.2.2. 
documents ........................................................................................................................................... 16 

Recognition of electronic signatures/seals and legal validity/acceptance of electronic 

2.2.3. 

Language barriers ............................................................................................................ 17 

2.2.4. 

Non-resilience of judicial systems to force majeure circumstances .............................. 17 

2.3.  How will the problem evolve? .................................................................................... 18 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? ........................................................................................... 19 

3.1.  Legal basis .................................................................................................................. 19 
3.2.  Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action .......................................................................... 20 
3.3.  Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action ..................................................................... 20 

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ................................................................. 21 

4.1.  General objectives ...................................................................................................... 21 
4.2.  Specific objectives ...................................................................................................... 21 

5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? ....................................................... 23 

5.1.  What is the baseline from which options will be assessed? ........................................ 23 
5.2.  Description of policy options ...................................................................................... 24 
5.3.  Options discarded at an early stage ............................................................................. 29 

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ............................................. 29 

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? .............................................................................. 39 

8. 

PREFERRED OPTION ......................................................................................................... 43 

9.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .................... 44 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................. 47 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ........................................................................ 51 

2.1. SUMMARY OF THE FEEDBACK ON THE ROADMAP ................................................... 51 

2.2. PUBLIC CONSULTATION RESULTS ................................................................................. 58 

RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ......................................................................... 60 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? ............................................................................ 72 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ....................................................................................... 75 

ANNEX  5:  COVID19  IMPACT  ON  CIVIL  PROCEEDINGS  –  NATIONAL 

MEASURES .......................................................................................................................... 81 

ANNEX 6: STATISTICAL DATA ON THE USE OF THE E-JUSTICE PORTAL .................. 118 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX7: 

COST  MODEL 
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS .............................................................................................. 119 

ESTIMATING 

STANDARD 

THE 

FOR 

ANNEX 8: WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS AND THEIR CAUSES? ....................................... 155 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

TFEU 

JHA 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

Justice and home affairs 

JHA agencies and EU bodies  Eurojust, Europol, Frontex, European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and 

European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)1 

e-CODEX 

e-Justice Communication via Online Data Exchange (communication system 
for the secure exchange of information developed for the judicial area) 

eEDES 

e-Evidence Digital Exchange System 

e-Justice portal 

The  main tool  that has been developed to improve  access  to information in 
the area of justice 

EJN-civil 

European judicial network in civil and commercial matters 

EJN-criminal 

European judicial network in criminal matters 

eu-LISA 

e-IDAS 

EAW 

EIO 

EPO  

CEHJ 

ICT system 

IT 

IMI system 

iSupport 

SMEs 

RSB 

European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT 
Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice 

Electronic Identification Authentication and trust Services 

European arrest warrant 

European investigation order 

European payment order 

European Chamber of Judicial Officers/Bailiffs  

Information  communications  technology  system  –  a  set-up  consisting  of 
hardware, software, data and the people who use them. It commonly includes 
communications technology, such as the internet. 

Information technology 

Internal Market Information system 

IT system for the cross-border recovery of maintenance obligations under the 
EU  2009  Maintenance  Regulation  and  the  2007  Hague  Child  Support 
Convention, which makes use of e-CODEX for communication 

Small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  –  businesses  whose  staff  numbers  fall 
below certain limits 

Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

Reference implementation 
software 

An user interface software developed for the purposes of distributed systems 
to be used by each Member State as an alternative to the national back-end 

1 As per the Cross-Border Digital Criminal Justice Study 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
SMEs 

Transaction 

system 

Small and medium-sized enterprises or small and medium-sized businesses 
- businesses whose personnel numbers fall below certain limits 

“Transaction” for the purposes of this document refer to the instance where a 
package of documents is sent cross-border with acknowledgement of receipt 
from a individual, legal entity, legal practitioner or court/competent authority 
in one MS to a court/competent authority in another MS. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

Today’s constantly expanding and evolving digital environment influences not only our 
daily lives and social contacts, but also the functioning of state institutions, including the 
judiciary.  The  ubiquitous  process  of  digital  transformation  has  tremendous  potential  to 
facilitate  and  accelerate  judicial  proceedings,  including  judicial  cooperation  across 
borders. 

The aim of digitalisation in this area is to improve access to justice, cooperation between 
judicial  authorities  in  cross-border  cases,  and  the  efficiency  and  resilience  of  justice 
systems.  In order to  further  e-Justice  at  EU  level,  the Council  of the EU  has adopted a 
series of strategies and action plans in the past few decades, most recently the e-Justice 
strategy for 2019-20232 and the associated action plan for 2019-20233. 

The  digitalisation  of  justice  is  part  of  the  work  to  create  “A  Europe  fit  for  the  digital 
age”,  as  set  out  in  the  “Political  Guidelines  for  the  next  European  Commission  2019-
2024”4. The Commission’s guidelines acknowledge the central role that it, and the public 
sector in  general, can play in stimulating the digital transformation process.  e-Justice is 
also  seen  as  central  to  post-COVID  recovery5  in  improving  access  to  justice  and  thus 
enhancing the business environment. More recently, the digitalisation of justice systems 
was deemed a key reform area in the context of the Recovery and Resilience Facility6. 

The Commission  developed its vision  of  the EU’s digital  transformation by 2030 in  its 
communication  “2030  Digital  Compass:  the  European  way  for  the  Digital  Decade”7 
(9 March 2021).  The  Communication  points  out  that  digital  transformation  enables 
modern,  efficient  justice  systems,  the  protection  of  consumer  rights  and  more  effective 
public action, partly through better law enforcement and investigation capacities (which 
must  be  equipped  as  well  as  possible  to  deal  with  increasingly  sophisticated  digital 
crimes).  

The  2020  Strategic  Foresight  report8  recognises  the  crucial  importance  of  the  digital 
transformation  of  public  administrations  and  justice  systems  throughout  the  EU.  The 
transition  should  work  for  everyone,  putting  people  first  and  opening  up  new 
opportunities  for  all  types  of  stakeholder.  It  should  therefore  address  a  broad  range  of 
issues.  

2   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52019XG0313(01) 
3   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52019XG0313%2802%29 
4   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en_0.pdf 
5   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, 
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions,  Europe’s moment: 
repair and prepare for the next generation (COM(2020) 456, 27 May 2020). 

6   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?toc=OJ:L:2021:057:TOC&uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2021.057.01.0017.01.ENG 

7   https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/europes-digital-decade-

digital-targets-2030_en 

8   https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/new-push-european-democracy/strategic-

foresight/2020-strategic-foresight-report_en 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
In its July 2020 Security Union Strategy, the Commission committed to specific actions 
to  enable  law  enforcement  and  justice  practitioners  to  adapt  better  to  new  technology, 
thanks in particular to new tools, skills and investigative techniques. 

At  the  beginning  of  June  2021,  the  Commission  adopted  a  proposal  for  amending  the 
e-IDAS  Regulation9  to  establish  a  framework  for  a  European  digital  identity10.  The 
proposal addresses the increased private and public sector demand for electronic identity 
solutions  that  rely  on specific  attributes  and  ensure a high level  of trust across the  EU. 
The  envisaged  digital  identity  wallet  storing  attributes  and  credentials  will  allow 
individuals and legal entities to access public services. 

The European Council11 and the European Parliament12 both recognised the pivotal role 
of  digitalisation  in  helping  to  relaunch  and  modernise  the  EU  economy  following  the 
COVID-19 crisis. 

On 9 June 2020, the Council adopted conclusions on “Shaping Europe’s digital future”13, 
which recognise that ‘the digitalisation of the justice systems of the Member States has 
the potential to facilitate and improve access to justice throughout the EU’. The Council 
calls  on  the  Commission  ‘to  facilitate  the  digital  cross-border  exchanges  between  the 
Member  States  both  in  criminal  and  civil  matters  and  to  ensure  the  sustainability  and 
ongoing  development  of  the  technical  solutions  which  have  been  developed  for 
cross-border exchanges’. 

The October 2020 Council conclusions on “Access to justice – seizing the opportunities 
of  digitalisation”14  call  on  the  Commission  to  take  concrete  action  to  digitalise  justice, 
including by: 

 

 

examining the potential for modernising the core provisions of instruments in civil 
and commercial matters in line with the ‘digital by default’ principle; and  

considering  to  which  judicial  cooperation  instruments  in  criminal  matters  the 
e-Evidence Digital Exchange System (eEDES) might be extended.  

The  December  2020  Council  conclusions  on  the  European  arrest  warrant  (EAW) 
underline that digitalisation should play a central role in the operation of the EAW15. 

9   Regulation  (EU)  No  910/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  July  2014  on 
electronic  identification  and  trust  services  for  electronic  transactions  in  the  internal  market  and 
repealing Directive 1999/93/EC (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 73). 

10   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/NLEN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0281 
11   A  roadmap  for  recovery  –  towards  a  more  resilient,  sustainable  and  fair  Europe,  endorsed  on 

23 April 2020. 

12   Resolution  of  17  April  2020  on  EU  coordinated  action  to  combat  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  its 

consequences. 

13   https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8711-2020-INIT/en/pdf 
14   OJ C 342I, 14.10.2020, p. 1. 
15   https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13214-2020-INIT/en/pdf  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
In  November  2020,  the  Parliament  and  the  Council  adopted  recasts  of  the  Service  of 
Documents  Regulation16  and  the  Taking  of  Evidence  Regulation17.  These  require 
Member  States’  competent  authorities  to  communicate  with  each  other  by  electronic 
means (e.g. to exchange standardised forms, documents, etc.).  

The  work  on  the  two  Regulations  was  closely  linked  with  the  Commission’s  overall 
priority  of  digitalisation  and  e-Justice  and  the  parallel  work  in  the  field  of  criminal 
justice18.  Following  the  Commission’s  proposals  in  201819,  the  co-legislators  are 
negotiating a legislative framework on cross-border access to e-evidence. In this context, 
the  Commission’s  proposals  already  highlight  the  importance  of  electronic  platforms, 
e.g. for the submission of requests, the authentication of orders and responses by service 
providers20. The legislative framework established by the e-evidence proposal in criminal 
matters will rely on adigital channel for communication similar to the one considered in 
this initiative, for obtaining evidence from internet service providers. 

In  December  2020,  the  Commission  adopted  a  Communication  on  the  digitalisation  of 
justice  in  the  EU,21  proposing  a  toolbox  approach,  i.e. a  set  of  measures  promoting 
digitalisation  both  for  cross-border  exchanges  and  at  national  level.  It  addressed  the 
modernisation  of  the  legislative  framework  for  EU  cross-border  procedures  in  civil, 
commercial  and  criminal  law,  in  line  with  the  ”digital  by  default”  principle,  while 
ensuring all necessary safeguards e.g. to avoid social exclusion. The Commission will be 
proposing legislation on digitalising cross-border judicial cooperation procedures in civil, 
commercial  and  criminal  matters,  as  announced  in  its  2021  work  programme22  (see 
”digital  judicial  cooperation”  package).  This  is  the  flagship  initiative  of  the  “digital 
judicial cooperation package”. The package includes a proposal  for  amendments of the 
European Judicial Counter Terrorism Register and a proposal for the establishment of an 
IT  platform  to  support  the  Joint  Investigations  Teams.  All  three  initiatives  aim  at 
digitalising processes by employing different tools designed to serve the purposes of the 
respective procedures covered by them. 

The  e-CODEX  system  is  a  suite  of  software  components  for  EU  judicial  cooperation, 
developed  by  a  consortium  of  Member  States  and  co-financed  by  the  Commission.  It 
supports secure communication in civil and criminal proceedings by enabling the secure 
cross-border  exchange  of  electronic  messages  and  documents.  Together  with  the 
December  2020  Communication  (see  above),  the  Commission  adopted  a  legislative 

16   Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on 
the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters 
(service of documents) (recast). 

17   Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25  November 2020 on 
cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial 
matters (taking of evidence) (recast). 

18   Digital criminal justice (Criminal Justice study). 
19   COM(2018) 225 and 226 final. 
20   See also SWD(2018) 118 final. 
21   EUR-Lex - 52020DC0710 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 
22   https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2021-commission-work-programme-key-documents_en 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  a 
computerised  system  for  communication  in  cross-border  civil  and  criminal  proceedings 
(e-CODEX system). It establishes a legal basis for the e-CODEX system and guarantees 
its sustainability and future management by entrusting it to the European Union Agency 
for  the  Operational  Management  of  Large-Scale  IT  Systems  in  the  Area  of  Freedom, 
Security and Justice (eu-LISA)23. The e-CODEX system would thus be the most suitable 
tool  for  the  digitalisation  of  cross-border  judicial  cooperation  procedures.  The  Council 
has reached agreement on a general approach on the Commission’s proposal24. 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1.  What is the problem? 

This initiative aims to tackle two main problems:  

 
 

inefficient cross-border judicial cooperation; and  
 barriers to access to justice in cross-border cases. 

There  is  a  comprehensive  set  of  EU-level  instruments  designed  to  enhance  judicial 
cooperation  and  access  to  justice  in  cross-border  civil,  commercial  and  criminal  cases. 
Many  of  these  provide  a  legal  basis  for  communication  between  authorities,  including 
Justice  and  Home  Affairs  agencies  and  EU  bodies,  and  between  authorities  and 
individuals or legal entities. However, most of them do not provide for engaging in such 
communication through digital means. Even where they do, as is the case with the Small 
claims  regulation  or  European  order  for  payment  regulation,  which  foresees  the 
possibility  for  communication  via  e-mail  or  other  electronic  means,  the  use  of  such 
means depends on the law of the Member States involved in the case. In addition, other 
gaps exist, such as the lack of secure and reliable digital communication channels or the 
non-recognition of electronic documents, signatures and seals. e-CODEX, for example, is 
a  system  for  secure  communication  in  cross-border  judicial  cooperation  procedures. 
However,  the  proposal  for  a  Regulation  governing  e-CODEX  only  aims  to  establish  a 
legal basis for e-CODEX and to regulate its governance and maintenance.  It would not 
prescribe  practical  cases  of  application,  which  is  to  be  achieved  through  this  initiative. 
All  this  deprives  judicial  cooperation  and  access  to  justice  of  the  use  of  the  most 
efficient, secure and reliable channels available. 

These  problems  directly  impact  the  national  authorities’  ability  to  process  cases 
(including the cross-border ones). National  courts received (as per the 2021 EU Justice 
Scoreboard)  an  average  of  2.3  new  cases  per  100  citizens  in  2019,  when  the  average 
duration of civil and commercial cases was around 247 days in the first instance25. The 
latter  figure  does  not  reflect  the  fact  that  cases  took  on  average  twice  as  long  in  some 

23   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020PC0712 
24   https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9005-2021-INIT/en/pdf 
25   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/eu_justice_scoreboard_quantitative_factsheet_2021.pdf  

(Figure 4 is relevant to civil and commercial cases). 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
countries26  and  that  final  resolution  often  involves  a  long  appeal  process  before  the 
higher courts, which in  some cases  can  take more than 7  years27. A Council of Europe 
study28  has  concluded  that  the  length  of  court  proceedings  in  both  civil  and  criminal 
cases  (which  affects  the  basic  right  to  a  fair  trial)  still  constitutes  a  major  concern 
Europe-wide. Considering the volume of cases and the need to resolve them expediently, 
their 
digital 
communication  between  each  other  and  with  individuals/legal  entities,  are  key  for  a 
well-functioning justice sector. 

judicial  authorities  more  efficient, 

that  make 

including 

tools 

in 

However, at national level, the infrastructure for digital communication does not always 
allow the use of modern communication technologies. The 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard29 
shows gaps in the provision of adequate infrastructure and equipment supporting secure 
electronic  communication  –  12  Member  States  do  not  have  adequate  infrastructure  for 
electronic  communication  between  courts  and  19  Member  States  do  not  have  such 
infrastructure for communication between prosecution offices. These gaps also affect the 
availability of digital infrastructure for use in  cross-border cases  as well as other issues 
specific to matters involving more than one Member State, such as the interoperability of 
communication  systems,  availability 
to  foreign  nationals,  and  rules  governing 
identification and the legal validity of electronic documents and evidence.  

These  in  turn  create  problems  such  as  procedural  delays,  limited  access  to  courts  and 
communication  channels  that  are  less  effective,  resilient  and  efficient  than  is 
technologically  possible  (involving  extra  costs,  e.g. for  sending  registered  letters, 
scanning documents and printing). Germany and Austria conducted a pilot project on the 
use  of  digital  communication  technologies  for  the  European  payment  order30,  which 
showed  that  the  use  of  such  technologies  generally  brought  cost  savings.  It  costs  EUR 
0.07  to  send  an  electronic  message,  while  postage  for  a  registered  letter  is  EUR 3-5, 
without  counting  the  extra  time  and  costs  for  printing,  scanning  and  archiving  paper 
documents.  

Another consequence of the lack of secure digital communication channels is the use of 
unsecure  channels,  such  as  e-mail.  The 
the 
Commission’s  proposal  for  e-CODEX31  identifies  potential  shortcomings  of  using 
unsecure  channels  (e.g. as  regards  long-term  sustainability,  data  integrity  and  possible 
data leaks) and software that does not meet the requirements of EU judiciaries.  

impact  assessment  accompanying 

26   Ibid (Figure 7).) 
27   https://www.oecd.org/economy/growth/judicial-performance.htm 
28   https://rm.coe.int/1680747c36 
29   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/eu_justice_scoreboard_2021.pdf 
30   See Annex 9. 
31   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/law/cross-border_cases/documents/e-codex-impact-

assessment_en.pdf (p. 22).) 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
With regards to the security of the communication, the public consultation indicated data 
protection concerns as the second most important disadvantage of digitalisation of cross-
border  judicial  cooperation  with  50%  of  respondents  considering  it  as  a  disadvantage 
(after cybersecurity with 63%)32. As a result of faster processing, the amount of personal 
data processed within a given timeframe (e.g. every year) may also increase.  

The  security  of  personal  data  processing  is  essential  to  protect  data  subjects.  The  e-
CODEX  system  was  designed  specifically  for  the  justice  area,  and  uses  encryption  to 
ensure security. Using e-CODEX for cross-border exchanges would increase security and 
thereby  mitigate  the  risk  of  security  breaches.  e-CODEX  is  therefore  clearly  an 
improvement compared to present exchanges using paper or unsecure e-mails. 

 In  addition,  the  digitalisation  of  existing  data  exchanges  will  not  introduce  any  new 
personal data categories compared to what is already exchanged today through traditional 
means,  nor  will  it  affect  the  existing  data  processing  arrangements.  The  increased 
personal data processing would be solely the result of increased efficiency/effectiveness 
and  simplification,  rather  than  of  the  digitalisation  itself.  Moreover,  compared  to  the 
paper  channel  the  use  of  digital  tools  would  provide  better  traceability  and  audit 
capabilities  and  the  possibility  for  automatic  enforcement  of  personal  data  retention 
policies – the timely removal of personal data, which no longer needs to be stored.  

The  above  problems,  along  with  their  causes  and  consequences,  are  summed  up  in  the 
problem tree (Figure 1), which shows the issues faced in cross-border cases by competent 
authorities,  individuals  and  legal  entities  communicating  with  competent  authorities  in 
another Member State. 

32 Annex 3 of the final report prepared by VVA. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 1:  

Problem tree 

2.1.1.  Inefficient cross-border judicial cooperation 

Efficient  cross-border  judicial  cooperation  involves  secure,  reliable  and  time-efficient 
communication  between  courts  and  competent  authorities,  to  reduce  administrative 
burden  and  increase  resilience  to  force  majeure  circumstances.  This  is  also  central  for 
individuals and legal entities, as the conduct of judicial proceedings in a reasonable time 
is  a  crucial  aspect  of  the  right  to  a  fair  trial,  as  enshrined  in  Article 47(2)  of  the  EU 
Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights.  It  is  equally  important  for  the  effective  and  speedy 
prosecution  of  crimes.  In  addition,  lengthy  proceedings  are  problematic,  because  they 
trigger  higher  costs  for  defendants  (lawyers’  fees,  etc.)  and  longer  detention  times  for 
individuals who have been arrested or are to be surrendered.   

Data exchanges in cross-border cases – mainly those between competent authorities and 
with JHA agencies and EU bodies, but also procedures directly involving individuals and 
legal  entities  –  are  overwhelmingly  paper-based  and  no  IT  system  fully  supports  the 
communication process.  

Among  other  disadvantages,  the  physical  transmission  of  paper  is  inherently  slow  and 
relatively  inefficient  and  unreliable.  The  average  time  declared  by  operators  (postal 
services, carriers etc.) for posting a first-class letter in the EU-27 is 2 days (48 hours) and 
there are examples that this time may be much longer – between 3 to 15 days depending 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
on  the  destination33.  It  also  often  involves  the  sender  making  hard  copies  of  digitally 
native  documents,  which  are  subsequently  digitised  by  the  recipient.  This  generates 
significant  additional  work  and  sacrifices  many  of  the  advantages  of  digitally  native 
documents, such as searchability, resolution (in the case of pictures), etc. Moreover, due 
to the advance of digitalisation in all areas of life (including archiving) and the external 
costs  of  printing  (in  an  economy  that  must  become  more  sustainable),  the  limited 
availability of printing services34 may soon pose a practical threat to the traditional means 
of  communicating  with  the  judiciary.  Paper-based  transmission  channels  are  also 
particularly vulnerable to crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, during which Member 
States’ lockdown measures have impeded access to courts and communication between 
competent authorities. 

By way of example, at present the procedure for obtaining  an EPO includes the 
following  steps:  The  applicant  accesses  the  e-Justice  portal35  to  retrieve  the 
standardised request form for issuing of an EPO and information regarding the 
competent  court  in  the  receiving  Member  State;  The  form  is  then  filled  in  and, 
while  online,  automatically  translated  into  the  language  accepted  by  the 
receiving Member State; The applicant prints the form, puts it in an envelope and 
goes to a post office (or a post box) to send it; On receipt of the request, the staff 
of the competent court in the receiving Member State have to register it manually 
(or,  if  there  is  an  electronic  case  management  system,  scan  it  and  enter  the 
relevant data), create a case file and assign it to a judge; The assisting judicial 
clerk  brings  the  case  physically  to  the  judge  (or,  if  there  is  an  electronic  case 
management system, the judge receives it as an electronic file);The judge delivers 
a  decision  (using  a  standardised  form),  which  is  then  printed,  registered 
(manually  or  electronically)  and  sent  to  the  applicant  in  the  same  way  as  the 
initial request was sent; The case is manually archived by the court staff.  

Currently,  it  is  generally  not  possible  to  automate  this  process.  However,  this  could  be 
achieved  by  incorporating  multilingual  standard  forms  in  the  IT  system,  which  would 
allow  their  automated  generation,  extraction  of  data  from  the  database  and  automatic 
translation  of  the  standardised  content  into  all  EU  languages.  It  would  also  improve 
searchability, by making it easier to store data and retrieve it from the existing database. 
Automating 
the 
administrative burden of processing them, making cross-border proceedings much more 
efficient. 

the  processing  of  EPO  requests  would  significantly  alleviate 

Ultimately,  the  current  delays  mostly  affect  parties  to  the  proceedings  (individuals  and 
legal entities) and their ability to protect and assert their rights effectively. Furthermore, 

33  
Table 16 of the final report of the Study prepared by Valdani Vicari & Associati (VVA) 
34  
Printing industry | Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (europa.eu). 
35  
Conceived as an electronic ‘one-stop shop’ in the area of justice, the portal contains information 
on Member States’ justice systems, their national laws and EU judicial cooperation instruments, but also 
standardised forms used in the context of EU instruments in civil, commercial and criminal matters, in all 
EU languages. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
the 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard states that reducing the length of court proceedings by 
just 1% (measured in disposition time) could boost firms’ growth. Even such a minimal 
improvement  is  associated  with  higher  trade  turnover  and  productivity  growth.  In 
criminal  law,  access  to  justice  across  borders  is  particularly  problematic  for  victims  of 
crime  and  defendants.  Lengthy  periods  spent  by  foreign  suspects  in  pre-trial  detention 
may  be  partly  a  result  of  the  time  it  takes  competent  authorities  to  exchange  European 
investigation orders (EIOs)36 through traditional paper-based channels. Excessively long 
proceedings and high legal costs deter or even prevent victims from asserting their rights 
by taking cases to court37. 

During  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  courts  have  been  unable  to  maintain  normal 
operations.  The  European  judicial  network  in  civil  matters  (EJN-civil),  as  the 
main  EU  body  mandated  with  facilitating  cross-border  cooperation  in  civil  and 
commercial  cases,  has  produced  a  comparative  table  on  the  pandemic’s  impact 
showing that Member States were forced to take a number of measures in relation 
to  judicial  authorities,  ranging  from  complete  shutdowns  to  treating  certain 
priority  cases  only38.  Meanwhile,  activities  that  could  be  conducted  digitally 
(e.g. by  e-mail,  videoconference,  etc.)  continued  uninterrupted.  However,  these 
solutions  often did not  satisfy  common security,  interoperability, data  protection 
and  fundamental  rights  standards,  nor  could  all  Member  States  guarantee  the 
procedural acceptance or effect of communications, due to the lack of harmonised 
EU-level rules. Judicial cooperation therefore needs to be made less dependent on 
external factors. 

2.1.2.  Barriers to access to justice in cross-border cases 

As a basic principle of the rule of law, ‘access to justice’ involves individuals and legal 
entities  being  able  to  rely  on  effective  procedures  and  accessible  remedies  for  the 
protection  of  their  rights.  However,  mere  access  to  judicial  authorities  does  not 
automatically constitute effective access to justice. What needs to be safeguarded is the 
effectiveness  of  the  procedures  and  the  elimination  of  practical  difficulties.  Individuals 
and  legal  entities  should  be  able  to  protect  their  rights  and  have  their  obligations 
determined in a swift, cost-effective and transparent way. Otherwise, bottlenecks such as 
prolonged  procedures,  geographical  distance  and  red  tape  (excessive  bureaucracy  and 
adherence to statutory rules and formalities) impair access to justice and the right to an 
effective  judicial  remedy.  In  addition,  the  pandemic  has  shown  that  force  majeure 
circumstances  can  severely  inhibit  the  normal  functioning  of  judicial  systems.  These 
general  problems  constitute  barriers  to  access  to  justice,  which  could  be  mitigated  by 
increased digitalisation of judicial procedures. 

EIO is a judicial decision issued in or validated by the judicial authority in one EU country to 

36  
have investigative measures to gather or use evidence in criminal matters carried out in another EU 
country. 
37  
external contractor Valdani Vicari & Associati (VVA) for the purposes of the study. 
35  

A conclusion of the EU-level focus group meeting on 4 May 2021Focus Group conducted by the 

EJN comparative table (Annex 5), Table 4 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The  use  of  paper  files  and  traditional  transmission  channels  continues  to  dominate 
national  and  cross-border  judicial  proceedings39.  According  to  the  findings  of  the 
national  legal  mapping  conducted  for  the  supporting  study,  in  most  Member  States  
paper-based communications constitute the majority of all cross-border communications 
between  courts/competent  authorities  of  the  Member  States  and  between  the  latter  and 
parties  to  proceedings40.  Stakeholders  point  to  the  challenges  created  by  the  current 
paper-based  exchange  of  documents  and  deem  it  important  to  be  able  easily  to  submit 
documents  digitally  and  receive  information  from  relevant  authorities  in  a  digital 
format41.  

However,  there  are  no  harmonised  arrangements  at  EU  level  whereby  individuals  and 
legal  entities  can  make  and  accept  electronic  submissions  in  cross-border  cases.  This 
state  of  affairs  is  in  stark  contrast  to  the  increased  use  of  digital  tools  in  our  everyday 
lives. It is particularly striking in a Europe of open borders, where individuals and legal 
entities can find themselves involved in litigation before the court of another EU country.  

The  lack  of  digital  tools  can  curtail  access  to  justice  in  many  other  ways,  especially  in 
cross-border  cases,  where  geographical  distance,  language  differences  and  a  lack  of 
experience of a foreign legal system can make it very cumbersome and expensive. This is 
particularly  true  for  people  in  remote  or  rural  areas,  or  those  affected  by  disability  or 
vulnerability.  Attending  oral  hearings  in  person  is  often  considered  stressful  and 
time-consuming.  In  criminal  cases,  remote  video  hearings  may  avert  the  need  for 
surrender  under  an  EAW  and  thus  for  long  periods  of  pre-trial  detention  in  a  foreign 
country.  Consumers  and  small  (or  even  medium-sized)  businesses  may  face 
disproportionate  extra  obstacles  in  pursuing  low-value  claims  in  civil  cases  that  deter 
them  from  initiating  a  cross-border  procedure.  Delays  caused  by  the  lack  of  effective 
digital communication also impair effective access to justice.  

For  instance,  the  evidence  gathered  in  the  study  supporting  the  Impact  Assessment42 
indicated that victims and defendants risk being deterred or unable to enforce their rights 
by taking cases to court in cross-border cases. The results of the public consultation also 
indicate that there are barriers to access to justice which could be reduced by better use of 
digital tools. More than 80% of the respondents to the public consultation agree that the 
use of digital tools would lead to better accessibility of information and easier access to 
judicial procedures (≈86%). Additionally, respondents agree that it would result in  time 
savings  for  both  administrations  and  citizens/businesses  (≈87%),  and  in  lower  costs  of 
handling cases both for administrations and citizens/businesses (≈81%). 

VVA EU-level focus group meeting (4 May 2021). 

39  
40 Section 2.2.2 of the final report of the study prepared by the external contractor Valdani Vicari & 
Associati (VVA). 
41   Ibid. 
42 Section 2.1, page 19 of the final report of the study prepared by the external contractor Valdani Vicari & 
Associati (VVA). 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.2.  What are the problem drivers? 

The problems described above are the result of factors explored in this section. A detailed 
description of the problem drivers may be found in Annex 8. 

2.2.1.  Different level of digitalisation and voluntary use of existing digital channels 

Degrees  of  digitalisation  vary  across  the  Member  States43,  although  all  EU  countries 
improved  their  digital  performance  in  202044,  with  Finland,  Sweden,  Denmark  and  the 
Netherlands scoring highest, followed by Malta, Ireland and Estonia. However, a higher 
ranking  on  digital  performance  does  not  always  mean  that  a  Member  State’s  digital 
services will be available in cross-border cases.  

The 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard45 highlighted the different degrees to which judiciaries 
in the EU use the digital channel. The relevance of this issue was confirmed by the study 
carried  out  to  support  this  impact  assessment46,  with  49%  of  national  stakeholders 
responding  to  a  questionnaire  seeing  it  as  a  barrier  to  digital  communication.  An 
additional 37.3% considered it a ‘somewhat relevant’ obstacle. 

The  e-CODEX  system  developed  by  the  Member  States  is  a  good  tool  for  the 
digitalisation  of  cross-border  judicial  procedures.  However,  although  its  geographical 
coverage  is  expanding  and  the  number  of  users  increasing47,  actual  uptake  by  Member 
States remains low. This has led to fragmentation and continued inefficiencies, including 
the  use  of  the  paper  channel,  with  its  attendant  costs  and  environmental  impact48.  The 
fragmentation also affects individuals’ and legal entities’ access to justice. Moreover, the 
fact  that  digitalisation  is  voluntary  means  that  there  is  no  guarantee  that  all  Member 
States will be interconnected in the future. 

One  of  the  main  reasons  for  the  fragmented  use  of  digital  tools  for  cross-border 
communication  is  the  voluntary  participation  in  cooperation  initiatives.  Even  where 
digital communication is foreseen in EU legislation, there is  currently no uniform legal 
and technical framework for employing it nor for the acceptance of such communication. 
Efforts  to  establish  voluntary  digital  communication  channels  have  been  ongoing  since 
2009 with limited success. This is evidenced by the fact that, to date, cross-border digital 
exchanges  are  based  on  bilateral  implementation  of  the  e-CODEX  system  with  little 
uptake from the Member States. As of February 2020 only 6 Member States participate 

43   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/swd_digitalisation_en.pdf 
44   https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/digital-economy-and-society-index-desi 
45   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/eu_justice_scoreboard_2021.pdf  
46 Study by external contractor contractor – Study on the digitalisation of cross-border judicial cooperation in the EU 
prepared by Valdani Vicari & Associati (VVA) 
47   Additional instruments for which the use of e-CODEX is envisaged are the Service of Documents and 
Taking  of  Evidence  Regulations  (evidence  recasts):  FD909  –  Mutual  Recognition  of  Sentences  in 
Criminal Law. 

48   Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  Digitalisation  of  justice  in  the 
European Union: a toolbox of opportunities (SWD(2020) 540 final). 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
in  the e-CODEX European order for payment pilot  and 5 Member States participate in 
the Small claims pilot. The low voluntary participation is not limited to e-CODEX – for 
instance  the  voluntary  implementation  of  the  insolvency  registers  interconnection  was 
joined  by  only  9  Member  States.  At  the  same  time  a  similar  initiative,  the  Business 
Registers Interconnection (BRIS) for which the connection is mandatory, is joined by 26 
Member  States.  Indeed,  to  our  knowledge  all  successful  EU-wide  large-scale  cross-
border IT systems have been established on the basis of mandatory participation49 

2.2.2.  Recognition  of  electronic  signatures/seals  and  legal  validity/acceptance  of 

electronic documents 

At  present,  there  are  no  harmonised  arrangements  for  the  recognition  of  electronic 
signatures and seals in the area of cross-border judicial cooperation.   

The  e-IDAS  Regulation  defines  electronic  trust  services  and  sets  up  a  common  EU 
regulatory  framework  for  these  (electronic  signatures,  electronic  seals,  time  stamps, 
electronic delivery services and website authentication). Thus they are recognised across 
borders as having the same legal status as paper-based ones. The Regulation forms part 
of  a  predictable  legal  framework  within  which  individuals,  legal  entities  and  public 
administrations  can  safely  access  services  and  carry  out  transactions  online  and  across 
borders.  e-IDAS  solutions  have  reduced  red  tape  for  individuals  and  generated  savings 
for businesses.  

However,  unless  explicitly  referred  to,  the  Regulation  does  not  cover  the  provision  of 
services  used  exclusively  within  closed  systems  between  a  defined  set  of  participants 
with  no  effect  on  third  parties.  Currently,  there  is  no  such  reference  in  any  of  the 
applicable  civil,  commercial  and  criminal  law  instruments  providing  for  judicial 
cooperation or access to justice  and included in the intended coverage of this initiative. 
Therefore,  and  in  the  absence  of  legislation  Member  State  participating  in  e-CODEX 
pilots  carried  out  to  date  were  compelled  to  conclude  ad  hoc  so-called  “circle-of-trust” 
agreements, to ensure that electronic documents and signature/seals would be recognised 
in the pilot procedures. The legal validity of such agreements in the respective national 
systems is however doubtful. 

Even the seamless recognition of electronic signatures and seals across borders would not 
automatically  result  in  the  recognition  of  electronic  documents.  The  legal  validity  and 
admissibility of documents transmitted electronically during judicial proceedings may be 
called into question by receiving Member States if not recognised in their national law. 
The experience clearly show that developing digital solutions without providing a legal 
basis for their use does not serve as an incentive for the MS to use these solutions.   

The  issues  of  voluntary  participation,  non-recognition  of  electronic  documents, 
signatures  and  seals  and  the  lack  of  interoperability  standards  and  tools  were  also 

49 e.g. the Schengen Information System II (SIS II), Visa Information System (VIS), BRIS. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
recognised  as  key  barriers  by  the  consulted  stakeholders  for  the  purposes  of  the  study. 
Respondents  (≈82%)  noted  that  such  issues  hamper  the  use  of  digital  solutions  in  the 
communication  between  the  competent  authorities  of  the  Member  States  and  between 
those  authorities  and  parties  to  the  proceedings  in  civil  and  commercial  cross-border 
proceedings  (the  conclusions  are  similar  for  the  criminal  cases).  The  legal  validity  and 
admissibility  of  documents  transmitted  electronically  to  another  Member  State  is  a 
relevant  barrier  for  ≈74%.  The  fact  that  electronic  signatures/seals  used  by  the  issuing 
Member State may not be recognised by the receiving Member State is considered as a 
relevant barrier to digitalisation by ≈71% of the stakeholders. The lack of interoperability 
at international level (e.g. with the IT systems of the courts of other Member States) is 
also  a relevant  barrier to the digitalisation for ≈79% of the consulted stakeholders. The 
public consultation demonstrated a similar result. 

2.2.3.  Language barriers 

Stakeholders  point  to  language  barriers  as  a  problem  in  cross-border  judicial 
cooperation50,  e.g. the  issuing  authority  might  need  to  translate  documents  into  a 
language accepted by the receiving authority. Also, language issues mean that individuals 
are often not at ease when involved in judicial proceedings in another Member State.  

In cross-border litigation, serious problems can arise when one or more of the parties is 
unfamiliar  with  the  official  language  of  the  court.  As  a  consequence,  interpreters  must 
often be used during trials  and hearings, and  the  law has  to  determine whether a  given 
document has to be translated.  

For  example,  in  low-value  cases  (e.g. involving  a  traffic  fine  to  be  paid  by  a  foreign 
tourist), language could constitute a barrier to access to justice. A person receiving legal 
documents in a foreign language might consider it cheaper to pay the fine than to contest 
it and incur disproportionate translation costs.  

2.2.4.  Non-resilience of judicial systems to force majeure circumstances  

The  COVID-19  crisis  has  considerably  impacted  the  functioning  of  Member  States’ 
justice  systems  and  EU  cross-border  judicial  cooperation.  Many  cross-border  and 
national procedures have had to be suspended, de facto depriving many individuals and 
legal  entities  of  effective  access  to  justice.  The  pandemic  has  emphasised  the  need  for 
further efforts towards the digitalisation of justice, including closer cooperation between 
Member States and with international partners, and the need to promote best practices in 
this area.  

50   VVA EU-level focus group meeting (4 May 2021). 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.3.  How will the problem evolve? 

Data  on  the  frequency  and  trends  in  regards  to  cross-border  exchanges  in  civil  and 
criminal  matters  has  been  collected  in  the  context  of  the  supporting  study51.  However, 
due to the lack of a harmonised statistical framework, the gaps in the data do not allow 
for conclusions about trends in cross-border cooperation to be made. 

This being said, it should be pointed out that the problem drivers above are linked to the 
increased  EU  mobility,  primarily  in  the  context  of  tourism,  e-commerce,  study  abroad 
etc.  There  is  a  significant  number  of  people  who  cross  borders  for  the  purposes  of 
tourism – 64.7% of EU citizens aged 15 or more did so in 2019 and there is an upward 
trend in the number of nights that tourists spend in a country other than their own (from 
100 in 2005 to 157.8 in 201952). Furthermore, by relying on the internet (which knows no 
borders), including for their work, individuals are increasingly exposed to situations that 
can  lead  to  cross-border  disputes.  The  number  of  people  living  in  a  foreign  country  is 
also trending upwards – Eurostat has found that, in 2019, 3.3% of EU citizens of working 
age (20 to 64) lived in another Member State, as compared to 2.4% in 200953. There is no 
hard evidence that the number of people living or working in a Member State other than 
their own increases the number of cross-border disputes. However, there is likelihood of 
correlation between the number of people travelling between their place of residence and 
their  country  of  origin  and  the  number  of  the  cross-border  cases.  With  more  and  more 
people finding themselves in a cross-border situation, it is to be expected that the number 
of  cross-border  litigations  will  increase,  placing  an  even  greater  burden  on  judicial 
systems.  

This  trend  is  indirectly  evidenced  in  the  constant  growth  in  the  number  of  users  of  the 
e-Justice portal, from 12 934 in January 2019 to 40 555 in June 2021 in the criminal law 
area  and  from  44 632  in  February  2019  to  97 971  in  June  2021  in  the  civil  law  area54. 
There is no complete data on the number of cross-border cases as such statistics is often 
not prepared by the Member States. However, the size of the problem could be visualised 
by the number of cross-border cases, presented in more detail in Annex 7. For example, 
the  number  of  exchanges  of  e-CODEX  messages  between  Austria  and  Germany  in  the 
first quarter of 2021 on the European order for payment amounts to 574 messages sent 
from Germany to Austria and 863 messages sent from Austria to Germany. On an annual 
basis, Sweden, receives between 200 and 300 requests for issuing an European order for 
payment and 300 European arrest warrants. 

51 Section 4 of the Study, tables 2, 3 and 4 
52   https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php?title=Tourism_statistics#Nights_spent_abroad_by_EU_residents:_Luxembourg_le
ads_in_nights_per_inhabitant 

53   https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php?title=EU_citizens_living_in_another_Member_State_-_statistical_overview 

54   Annex 6 – Extract ‘Statistics for the use of e-Justice portal’ 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
This tendency is likely to result in an increased workload for courts and a greater weight 
of  expectation  on  them  to  deliver  justice,  provide  individuals/legal  entities  with 
information, accept submissions and communicate with other authorities. A similar trend 
can  be  expected  for  other  competent  authorities  dealing  with  cross-border  judicial 
cooperation, such as central authorities, notaries and bailiffs.  

New  technologies  have  the  potential  to  make  judicial  systems  more  efficient  in  this 
regard,  by  easing  the  administrative  burden,  shortening  case-processing  times,  making 
communication  more  secure  and  reliable,  and  partially  automating  case  handling. 
However, the development of national IT solutions independently by the Member States, 
leads  to  a  fragmented  approach  with  a  lack  of  interoperability.  Even  where  common 
digital  solutions  are  developed  at  EU  level,  their  uptake  in  cross-border  judicial 
cooperation  procedures  can  be  expected  to  advance  slowly  and  in  an  uncoordinated 
manner while participation remains voluntary. This contrasts with rapid digitalisation in 
the private and commercial sector, which has been further accelerated by the COVID-19 
pandemic.  Individuals  and  legal  entities  (in  particular,  businesses)  would  benefit  from 
having their rights protected and their obligations enforced by the kind of digital means 
that they are used to in their everyday private or commercial activity. A continued lack of 
uniform  digital  tools  to  fully  support  cross-border  judicial  cooperation  will  probably 
reinforce or maintain the tendency to rely on paper-based communication, which results 
in  financial  costs  and  negative  environmental  impacts  –  currently  the  average  cost  per 
transaction is EUR 10.5555 and estimations on an yearly basis show that 181 448 100 A4 
standard 80g printing paper pages (out of which 31 833 000 for the individuals and legal 
entities)  are  used  for  communication  purposes  under  the  respective  Union  instruments 
with the overall average cost of EUR 2 216 160 (EUR 388 800 for individuals and legal 
entities)56.  A  continued  lack  of  a  coherent  digital  approach  across  Member  States  will 
also affect individuals’ and legal entities’ ability to use the most efficient tools to access 
justice.  

The  ongoing  e-CODEX  pilot  projects57  demonstrate  benefits  for  courts,  competent 
authorities,  individuals  and  legal  entities.  However,  they  do  not  involve  all  Member 
States, have not resulted in a sufficient increase in the use of digital tools for cross-border 
cooperation and cross-border access to justice, and are insufficient in themselves to bring 
about a common EU-level approach. 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

3.1.  Legal basis 

The  use  of  digital  channels  for  communication  in  cross  border  judicial  proceedings 
would  facilitate  judicial  cooperation  in  civil,  commercial  and  criminal  matters.  Hence, 

55   See Annex 9, Table 15. 
56 See Annex 9 for detailed explanations and calculation. 
57   https://www.e-codex.eu/projects 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
the legal bases for this initiative are Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union (TFEU) .  

More specifically, the use of digital channels for communication would facilitate judicial 
cooperation and the effective access to justice in civil matters in line with Article 81(2) of 
the TFEU. Article 82(1) of the TFEU is the legal basis for the Union to act in the field of 
judicial  cooperation  to  facilitate  the  cooperation  between  Member  States’  judicial  or 
other  competent  authorities  in  relation  to  criminal  proceedings  and  the  enforcement  of 
decisions.  While  Article  82(2)  of  the  TFEU  cannot  constitute  a  legal  basis  for  the 
adoption  of  regulations,  it  is  a  valid  legal  basis  for  the  proposed  Regulation,  since  the 
Regulation  will  amend  existing  directives  based  on  Article  82(2),  both  through  its 
horizontal digitalisation provisions and through certain alignment amendments. 

3.2.  Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action 

The  above  problems  and  their  causes  could  have  negative  repercussions  in  terms  of 
delays,  security  concerns  and  the  reliability  of  communication  in  the  processing  of 
cross-border  cases.  These  could  be  mitigated  by  the  use  of  modern  technologies  in  the 
context of judicial case handling, be it in the area of civil, commercial or criminal law. 

Under  Article 4(1)(j) TFEU,  the  competence  to  adopt  measures  in  the  area  of  freedom, 
security  and  justice  is  shared  between  the  Union  and  the  Member  States.  Therefore, 
Member  States  may  act  alone  to  regulate  the  use  of  digital  communication  channels  in 
the context of judicial cooperation and access to justice. However, experience shows that, 
without  EU  action,  progress  can  be  expected  to  be  very  slow  and  that,  even  where 
Member  States  take  action,  it  is  very  difficult  to  ensure  interoperability  without  EU 
intervention.  In  addition,  cross-border  matters  are  beyond  the  reach  of  individual 
Member States, as national legal action cannot be expected to reach past national borders. 
Therefore, the objective of this initiative cannot be achieved in a sufficiently harmonised 
manner by the Member States acting on their own, but only at EU level. 

There are already EU-level provisions on the conduct of communication, some of which 
even allow for the use of modern technology. However, none has ensured the creation of 
an  adequate  infrastructure  for  electronic  communication  from  individuals,  legal  entities 
or  competent  authorities  with  the  authorities  of  another  Member  State.  Moreover,  the 
provisions have not been adopted as a coherent whole on which judicial authorities can 
rely. 

EU action is necessary in order to harmonise the Member States’ efforts and establish a 
coherent framework for the existing EU rules. 

3.3.  Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 

The  added  value  of  EU  action  lies  in  improving  the  efficiency,  resilience,  security  and 
speed of cross-border judicial procedures, by providing an impetus for the simplification 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
and  acceleration  of  communication  between  Member  States’  authorities  and  with 
individuals  and  legal  entities.  Thus,  the  administration  of  justice-related  cases  with 
cross-border implications is expected to improve.  

Additional  added  value  arises  from  driving  forward  the  digitalisation  of  EU  judicial 
cooperation  for  all  Member  States,  as  compared  with  the  present  situation,  where  only 
certain groups of Member States have taken action, resulting in a limited and fragmented 
response  to  the  identified  problems.  Even  in  digitally  well-advanced  Member  States, 
existing tools are not always available for cross-border cases. The digitalisation measures 
are also linked to existing instruments in the area of cross-border legal cooperation and 
aimed at improving how they function.  

The establishment of an access point on the e-Justice portal would bring EU added value 
for individuals and legal entities who prefer to make submissions through a multilingual 
portal  (with  guidance  in  all  EU  languages)  rather  than  through  national  portals,  which 
will not necessarily have the same functionality. 

4. 

OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

4.1.  General objectives 

The general objective of the initiative is to improve access to justice and the efficiency of 
cross-border  judicial  cooperation  by  ensuring  the  establishment  and  seamless  use  of 
digital tools.  

The COVID-19 crisis has shown the need for a more holistic approach to help modernise 
the European area of justice, make it resilient to emerging challenges, strengthen trust in 
Member  States’  judicial  systems  and  safeguard  fundamental  rights  in  the  EU.  In 
particular, the objective is to improve the efficiency of cross-border judicial cooperation 
in  civil,  commercial  and  criminal  matters,  and  to  enhance  access  to  justice  for 
individuals, legal entities and legal practitioners, while fully respecting fundamental and 
procedural rights, in particular the right to a fair trial and the rights of defence.  

These  objectives  can  be  achieved  by  deploying  digital  technologies  to  improve  the 
context within which the communication takes place. 

4.2.  Specific objectives 

The  following  specific  objectives  are  proposed  in  response  to  the  problems  identified 
above: 

i. 

ensure  the  availability  and  use  of  electronic  means  of  communication  in 
cross-border cases between Member States’ courts/competent authorities and 
relevant JHA agencies and EU bodies, where such communication is provided 
for in EU legal instruments on judicial cooperation; 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ii. 

iii. 

iv. 

v. 

enable  the  use  of  electronic  means  of  communication  in  cross-border  cases 
between  individuals  and  legal  entities,  on  the  one  hand,  and  courts  and 
competent  authorities,  on  the  other;  the  possibility  of  individuals  and  legal 
entities to communicate in paper will be maintained. 
facilitate  the  participation  of  parties  to  cross-border  civil  and  criminal 
proceedings  in  oral  hearings  through  videoconference  or  other  remote 
communication  technology,  for  purposes  other  than  taking  evidence  in  civil 
cases58; 
ensure  that  documents  are  not  refused  or  denied  legal  effect  solely  on  the 
grounds of their electronic form  (without interfering with the courts’ powers 
to  decide  on  their  validity,  admissibility  and  probative  value  as  evidence 
under national law); and 
ensure  the  validity  and  acceptance  of  electronic  signatures  and  seals  for 
electronic cross-border judicial cooperation and access to justice.  

in  cross-border 

The objectives of the proposed specific actions (operational objectives) are to ensure 
that  the  most  rapid,  secure  and  cost-effective  technological  solutions  are  used  for 
that 
communication 
exchanges  of  documents  and  data  between  courts/competent  authorities  of  Member 
States  and  between  the  latter  and  parties  to  proceedings  are  executed  expeditiously 
and efficiently; guarantee the legal validity of documents and commonly agreed types 
of electronic signatures/seals. 

judicial  cooperation  procedures;  ensure 

The intervention logic of the initiative, linking the policy options with the objectives and 
the problems that have been identified, is presented in Figure 2. 

Figure 2: 

Intervention logic 

58   The use of videoconferencing or other remote communication technology is already provided for in the 
recently adopted recast of the Taking of Evidence Regulation (Article 20), which. is not intended to be 
covered by this new proposal.  

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 

The  policy  options  that  have  been  identified  include  a  non-legislative  recommendation 
and legislative action providing for optional or mandatory use of digital communication 
means  (although  individuals  and  legal  entities  would  still  have  the  choice  of  using 
traditional means). The options are described in detail below. 

5.1.  What is the baseline from which options will be assessed? 

Option 0 (baseline scenario)  

No action is taken to drive forward the digitalisation of cross-border judicial cooperation 
and the use of digital tools to improve access to justice. 

Member  States’  provision  of  a  digital  channel  for  cross-border  judicial  procedures 
remains voluntary and no further action is taken at EU level.  Individuals’ and legal 
entities’ ability to file and follow up claims electronically or through videoconferencing 
tools,  and  judicial  and  other  competent  authorities’  ability  to  exchange  judicial 
documents  electronically  depend  on  the  Member  States  involved,  and  the  existence  of 
bilateral  agreements  among  them,  and  thus  remains  uncertain.  Member  States  can 
continue  to  regulate  the  use  of  electronic  signatures/seals  and  data  protection 
responsibilities in diverging ways.  

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The likely consequences for the cross-border proceedings would be that interoperability 
and  the  lack  of  legal  basis  for  digital  services  will  remain  an  issue,  which  will  prevent 
improving  the  efficiency  of  cross-border  judicial  cooperation.  The  uptake  of  digital 
communication  technology  would  remain  as  demonstrated  for  the  past  use-cases. 
Existing barriers would remain, and access to justice, especially in case of force majeure 
circumstances would not be facilitated, which would lead to difficulties for the persons to 
ascertain their claims. 

5.2.  Description of policy options 

Option 1 (Non-legislative option) 

The Commission adopts a recommendation encouraging Member States to: 

 

 

 

 

enable and allow individuals and legal entities to make electronic submissions in 
cross-border  cases  through  national  IT  systems  and  accept  such  electronic 
submissions from other Member States; 

allow  parties  to  cross-border  cases  and  their  representatives  (at  their  request)  to 
participate in oral hearings by videoconference or other distance communication 
technology; 

incorporate standards on trust services in line with the e-IDAS Regulation; and 

allow for the electronic payment of court fees. 

At  the  same  time,  the  Commission  continues  to  build  and  expand  the  use  of  eEDES 
(and  the  decentralised  IT  system  for  the  recast  Service  of  Documents  and  Taking  of 
Evidence Regulations) for instruments in civil, commercial and criminal matters, without 
providing a legal basis for its use. The practice of allowing parties to attend hearings via 
videoconference  remains  regulated  only  at  national  level,  as  do  arrangements  for  the 
recognition of electronic documents and the use of electronic signatures and seals. With 
regards  to  the  language  barriers  identified  above,  the  current  arrangements  would 
continue,  meaning  that  where  the  applicable  EU  instruments  require  translation  or 
interpretation, the regime will remain the same.  

The  Commission  recommendation  might 
these  remain 
non-binding. Nevertheless, the recommendation would set certain standards to which the 
Member States may decide to adhere. That would be a step towards the establishment of 
compatible national IT systems. 

include  guidelines,  but 

Option 2 (Legislative option) 

A  legal  instrument  is  adopted  on  the  use  of  digital  tools  in  the  context  of  judicial 
cooperation  and  access  to  justice,  including  on  the  recognition  and  acceptance  of 
electronic signatures and seals in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal cases. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The instrument  includes  provisions  establishing a secure electronic  channel based on 
e-CODEX (identified as the most appropriate technical solution in the impact assessment 
on  the  Commission’s  proposal  for  a  Regulation  on  e-CODEX59).  This  channel  will  be 
used  for  communication  and  exchanging  information,  data  and  documents  between 
courts  and  competent  authorities,  with  and  between  central  authorities,  and  where 
relevant the JHA  agencies  and EU bodies. Provisions  are also  introduced in  support of 
communication between individuals and legal entities, on the one hand, and Member 
States’ courts and competent authorities, on the other. The responsibilities of different 
data  controllers  and  processors  are  formally  determined  by  clarifying  that  the 
competent  authorities  under  national  law  are  to  be  regarded  as  controllers  within  the 
meaning  of  Regulation  (EU)  2016/679  and  Directive  (EU)  2016/680  with  respect  to 
personal  data  processing.  A  reference  to  the  general  legal  framework  established  by 
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive (EU) 2016/680 is made. 

Additional issues are addressed through suboptions in three areas, as set out below. 

2.1  Removing  barriers  to  cross-border  judicial  cooperation  and  introducing  digital 
means supporting such cooperation (addressing specific objective i and iv). 

The  legislative  option  could  either  require  the  use  of  the  established  digital 
communication channel in cross-border judicial cooperation or leave it to the discretion 
of the Member States. 

Common provisions would ensure the acceptance and legal validity of digital documents 
and  evidence,  and  outline  the  data  protection  requirements  inherent  in  cross-border 
communication. 

Suboption 2.1.a  

Voluntary use of digital channel 

The legal instrument allows Member States’ authorities to use a common, decentralised 
IT system for the purposes of cross-border communication and exchange of information, 
data and documents with each other. 

Suboption 2.1.b  

Obligatory use of digital channel 

The  legal  instrument  requires  Member  States’  competent  authorities  (and  central 
authorities established under EU law) and, where relevant, JHA agencies and EU bodies 
to use a common, decentralised IT system in communication with other Member States’ 
authorities in the context of judicial cooperation under the relevant EU law. 

Such  an  obligation  could  be  subject  to  well-defined  and  justified  exceptions,  such  as 
force majeure, technical  unavailability and  the transportation of material  that cannot be 
transferred via digital means (e.g. blood samples). 

59   SWD(2020) 541 final  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
This option is based on the assumption that the IT systems for exchanges of EIOs and the 
service  of  documents/taking  of  evidence,  as  developed  by  the  Commission,  will  be 
extended to cross-border judicial communication. Member States will be able to connect 
their  national  IT  system  to  these  or  to  use  those  developed  by  the  Commission  free  of 
charge. 

2.2  Introducing  legal  and  technical  measures  supporting  access  to  justice  in 
cross-border cases (addressing specific objectives ii, iii and iv) 

As regards access to justice, the legislative proposal would introduce legal and technical 
measures governing digital communication between individuals and legal entities, on the 
one  hand,  and  Member  States’  competent  authorities,  on  the  other.  This  would  include 
videoconferencing in cases other than taking of evidence in civil cases (which is already 
regulated in the Taking of Evidence recast regulation), as a means of access to justice.  

In  the  context  of  criminal  proceedings,  adequate  safeguards  of  the  right  to  a  fair  trial 
must be ensured, such as: 

 

 

 

the  right  to  a  confidential  consultation  with  a  lawyer  (‘Access  to  a  Lawyer 
Directive’60)  –  the  confidential  interaction  between  lawyers  and  suspects  or 
persons accused during any questioning must be ensured. The lawyer must be in a 
position personally and effectively to participate in any questioning. Speaking to a 
lawyer by videoconference cannot replace in-person counselling;  

the right to be present (‘Presumption of Innocence’ Directive61) – remote hearings 
should not be imposed without the consent of the suspect or accused person62; and  

the  right  to  protection  (Victims’  Rights  Directive63)  –  in  order  to  avoid  further 
victimisation,  the  detailed  arrangements  for  hearings  by  videoconference,  the 
location where the victim is heard, the presence of adequate in-person support and 
other factors should all be taken into account. 

In  both  civil  and  criminal  cases,  the  parties’  participation  in  oral  hearings  via 
videoconferencing or other  distance communication technology would be subject  to 

60   Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right 
of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the 
right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons 
and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty (OJ L 294, 6.11.2013, p. 1). 

61   Directive  (EU)  2016/343  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  9  March  2016  on  the 
strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the  right  to be  present at the 
trial in criminal proceedings (OJ L 65, 11.3.2016, p. 1). 

62   The  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  has  laid  down  conditions  for  defendants’  participation  in  the 
proceedings  where  they  do  not  consent  to  a  hearing  via  videoconference;,  see  Marcello  Viola  v  Italy 
(Case No N45106/04, 5 October 2006). 

63   Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing 
minimum  standards  on  the  rights,  support  and  protection  of  victims  of  crime,  and  replacing  Council 
Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 57). 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
the same standards as in-person hearings as regards interpretation and the conduct of the 
proceedings in a language that the party understands64.  

Common  provisions  would  ensure  the  acceptance  and  legal  validity  of  electronic 
documents  and  evidence,  and  outline  specific  data  protection  requirements  for 
cross-border communication. 

To  facilitate  access  to  justice,  provisions  would  be  introduced  to  allow  for  the  online 
payment of court fees in EU cross-border cases. 

Suboption 2.2.a  

Voluntary acceptance of electronic communication 

The legal instrument does not oblige Member States to allow electronic communication 
between  individuals/legal  entities  and  competent  authorities.  National  law  determines 
whether parties can take procedural action through digital means. Member States are free 
to decide whether: 

 

 

 

to accept electronic communication from individuals/legal entities; 

to develop a national solution for such submissions; or 

to  use  an  EU-developed  solution  (e.g. ‘small  claims  submissions’  pilot  through 
the e-Justice portal). 

This option does not provide a legal basis for parties’ participation in oral hearings in 
cross-border cases by videoconference. The development and use of such tools remains 
at the discretion of the Member States involved. 

Suboption 2.2.b  

Obligatory acceptance of electronic communication 

The legal instrument obliges Member States to accept electronic communication between 
individuals/legal entities and competent authorities. Such communication takes place via 
an  access  point  to  be  established  on  the  e-Justice  portal65  or  through  portals  at 
Member-State  level.  This  allows  (but  does  not  oblige)  individuals/legal  entities  to  file 
claims and communicate with courts (or other competent authorities) electronically in the 
context  of  the  relevant  EU  law  procedures.  The  access  point  is  a  user-friendly  tool 
accessible  online  at  any  time,  in  all  Member  States  and  in  all  EU  languages,  and  is 
equipped with online guidance for filling in standardised forms and making submissions. 
for 
e.g. paper-based,  means  of 
Traditional, 
individuals/legal entities to use if they prefer. 

are  maintained 

communication 

64   For  criminal  proceedings,  see  Directive  2010/64/EU  on  the  right  to  interpretation  and  translation 

(OJ L 280, 26.10.2010, p. 1). 

65   The access point would be particularly useful for making submissions to courts or competent authorities 

in Member States that have not established national portals.  

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
This  suboption  also  provides  a  legal  basis  for  parties  to  cross-border  cases,  and  their 
representatives  on  request,  to  participate  in  oral  hearings  by  videoconference  or  other 
distance communication technology, subject to:  

 

 

 

the availability of such technology; 

the court’s discretion, depending on the circumstances of the case; and 

the parties’ consent.  

In  this  case,  the  conduct  of  the  oral  hearing  via  videoconference  or  other  distance 
communication  technology  is  governed  by  the  rules  and  procedures  applicable  to 
videoconferences for domestic cases. 

2.3  Recognition  and  acceptance  of  electronic  signatures  and  seals  (addressing  specific 
objective v) 

For the purpose of the legal instrument, the use of electronic signatures and seals needs to 
be considered. 

Suboption 2.3.a  

Non-regulation of trust services  

The legal instrument does not regulate the use of electronic trust services in the context 
of cross-border judicial cooperation and access to justice, allowing Member States to: 

  develop  their  own  methods  and  standards  with  regard  to  the  use  of  electronic 

signatures and seals; and 

 

accept  or  reject  communication  from  other  Member  States  through  the  secure 
decentralised IT system, depending on national law and bilateral/multilateral trust 
agreements. 

Suboption 2.3.b  

Regulation of trust services 

The legal instrument regulates the use of e-signatures and e-seals by explicitly referring 
to the e-IDAS Regulation66, which would be needed in order to ensure the application of 
e-IDAS for communication in cross-border judicial procedures. It also clarifies the type 
of electronic signature or seal to be used for cross-border judicial procedures, i.e. simple, 
advanced or qualified by relying on the trust framework established by e-IDAS. 

In  this  way,  harmonised  arrangements  are  set  out  for  ensuring  the  admissibility  and 
recognition of electronic  signatures and seals where digital technology is used in the 
context of judicial cooperation or access to justice. 

66 Similarly to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2020/1783– 
“The general legal framework for the use of qualified trust services set out in Regulation (EU) No 
910/2014 shall apply to the documents to be served, requests, confirmations, receipts, certificates and 
communications transmitted through the decentralised IT system.”; 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
5.3.  Options discarded at an early stage 

A non-regulatory option involving a promotion campaign on the use of digital tools and 
e-CODEX  for  the  purposes  of  communication  in  cross-border  judicial  procedures  has 
been discarded. Such a campaign was considered not to constitute a real alternative to 
regulation and could in any case be carried out as part of the baseline scenario. 

The  option  of  establishing  a  centralised  IT  system  for  the  electronic  exchange  of 
information and data was also discarded. While it may be technically feasible to leverage 
an existing centralised IT solution, such as the Internal Market Information (IMI) system, 
the  Commission  considers  that  it  is  not  appropriate.  On  the  other  hand,  e-CODEX, 
which  was  chosen  as  the  most  suitable  solution  for  cross-border  exchanges,  is 
decentralised by nature. In addition, the use of a centralised IT system would be difficult 
to  justify from  the  point of view of  proportionality and subsidiarity,  as all information, 
data and documents would be stored on Commission servers or the servers of the entity 
managing  the  system  (e.g. eu-LISA),  while  these  would  not  be  party  to  the  exchange. 
Moreover,  this  could  involve  a  single  point  of  failure  as  all  data  is  stored  in  one  place 
compared to a decentralised system where data is stored by each Member State. It would 
also  render  more  complex  the  integration  with  current  and  future  national  systems  and 
their  evolution  alongside  the  centralised  system.  The  development  of  such  a  system 
would require separate efforts or technical modifications (e.g. to the IMI system). 

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? 

The impacts of the policy options are discussed below.  

The detailed analysis is presented in Annexes 1, 4 and 9, which set out the data sources, 
methodology and standard cost model computation that have been used. 

Option 0 – Baseline scenario 

If no action is taken, the objectives outlined in Section 4.2 will not be achieved, as the 
use  of  the  digital  channel  of  communication  will  remain  voluntary  for  each 
Member  State  and  there  is  no  indication  that  the  current  limitations  could  be 
offset.  

Concerning  economic  impacts,  the  status  quo  will  be  maintained.  The  cost  of 
communication will remain at an average of EUR 10.5567 per transaction68. The average 
time for delivering a first-class letter in the EU is 2 days (48 hours)69 and this has been 
taken  as  an  average  for  the  time  it  takes  to  send  a  letter  from  one  Member  State  to 
another  Member  State.  However,  anecdotal  evidence70  suggests  that  it  actually  takes 

67   See Annex 9, Table 15. 
68   By ‘transaction’, we mean the sending of a package of documents cross-border with acknowledgement 

of receipt from an individual, legal practitioner or a court in another Member State. 

69   See Annex 9. 
70   See study supporting this impact assessment. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
much  longer  –  between  3  and  15  days  depending  on  the  destination.  We  have  used  an 
average of 5 days per transaction. The time taken to process paper forms (i.e. registration, 
archiving, making copies, scanning) was estimated at  1.5 hours per transaction (45 min 
for  sending  and  45 min  for  receiving)71.  Each  transaction  involves  an  average  of  19.65 
paper pages (the average length of the template forms for the cross-border instruments in 
question),  at  a  cost  of  EUR 0.2472.  We  have  assumed  that  at  least  three  copies  of  each 
document are required during proceedings under each of the instruments: one that is sent, 
one kept in the file and one exchanged with the competent authority of the other Member 
State.  

This  will  result  in  maintaining  the  status  quo  in  terms  of  annual  costs  and  transaction 
times in cross-border cooperation at EU level73, maintain the current economic impacts 
for individuals, legal entities, legal professionals and courts/authorities:  

  EUR  32 472 900  for  communication  using  physical  formats  (out  of  which  EUR 

5 697 000 for the individuals, legal entities);  

  15 390 000 days for communication by post or equivalent services (out of which 

2 700 000 days for the individuals and legal entities); 

  192 375  days  in  administrative  overheads  linked  to  paper  processing  which 

translates to 874 person-years in processing effort in courts;  and 

  181 448 100  standard  A4  80g  paper  pages  printed  (out  of  which  31 833 000  for 
the individuals and legal entities), at an overall average cost of EUR 2 216 160. 

As  regards  fundamental  rights,  the  barriers  to  access  to  justice  and  the  challenges  to 
cross-border  judicial  cooperation,  as  identified  in  Section  2,  will  remain.  This  refers  to 
the  inability  of  individuals  and  legal  entities  to  ascertain  their  rights,  specifically  their 
right  to  seize  authority  or  to  be  heard  in  person,  where  force  majeure  circumstances 
occur.  Additionally,  the  length  of  the  proceedings  will  remain  unchanged  and  thereby 
affect the right to an effective trial. 

The  social  impacts  of  the  use  of  communication  technology  can  be  significant.  The 
digital  communication  channel  may  improve  public  confidence  in  justice  systems  by 
speeding  up  access  to  justice  and  facilitating  efficient  functioning  of  the  competent 
authorities. In the baseline scenario, these impacts would depend on the rate of uptake of 
the technology. It was demonstrated in Section 2 that the rate of uptake is low without a 
harmonised  approach  being  implemented.  For  the  baseline  scenario  no  tangible  change 
on the impacts could be expected for individuals and legal entities.  

Under the baseline scenario paper based communication would continue, as would travel 
for  the  purposes  of  hearing.  The  above  mentioned  estimate  of  paper  use  per  procedure 
would be maintained, together with the traveling. In particular, the main environmental 
to  paper-based 
impacts  pertain 

the  use  of  non-renewable  resources,  due 

to 

71   See Annex  9, - Table 15 
72   See Annex 9. 
73   Ibid. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
communication and the transport of letters/parcels, on the one hand, and parties attending 
hearings in  person, on the other hand. The  environmental  impacts  of both  elements  are 
expected  to  increase  in  line  with  the  likely  rise  in  the  number  of  cross-border 
proceedings.   

It  could  be  clearly  concluded  from  the  consultation  activities  that  the  stakeholders  and 
Member States are overwhelmingly in favour of adopting a legislative act establishing a 
digital  communication  channel  to  be  used  on  a  mandatory  basis  by  the  courts  and 
competent  authorities.  Providing  individuals  and  legal  entities  with  the  possibility  to 
communicate with courts and competent authorities electronically, while maintaining the 
paper communication and the possibility for remote hearings also enjoy a broad support 
among  the  consulted  stakeholders.  Legitimate  concerns  in  terms  of  safeguarding 
fundamental  rights,  data  protection,  cybersecurity,  protection  of  vulnerable  groups,  are 
considered under the proposed policy options. 

Option 1 – Non-legislative option 

The  non-legislative  option  would  involve  action  to  persuade  Member  States  to  use 
e-CODEX  for  cross-border  judicial  cooperation  and  access  to  justice.  A  Commission 
recommendation could encourage them to follow a harmonised approach with regard to 
including  videoconferencing,  electronic 
the  use  of  electronic  communications, 
documents, electronic seals and signatures. Given the voluntary nature of this approach, 
Member States would be free to develop digital tools on their own. Such action could be 
technically  and  operationally  feasible,  and  cost-effectiveness  would  depend  on  the 
individual Member States’ approach to digitalisation and on their needs and resources. 

As regards the extent to which the option fulfils the objectives of the proposal, however, 
a recommendation  would  not guarantee any  actual  implementation of digital tools 
for  communication,  not  to  mention  the  interoperability  of  the  digital  channel,  the 
acceptance of electronic documents and common standards of trust services.  Therefore, 
any impacts of this option depend on the number of Member States which will follow the 
Commission  recommendation  and  will  adopt  implementing  measures  for  digital 
communication  between  the  competent  authorities  and  with  the  individuals  and  legal 
entities in the context of cross-border judicial procedures.  

The current arrangements have shown that the voluntary approach to the digitalisation of 
the  judiciary  is  not  sufficient  to  ensure  the  availability  of  digital  tools  in  all  Member 
States  so  as  to  make  them  interoperable  and  readily  available  to  all  actors.  Of  the 
respondents  to  the  questionnaire  for  national  stakeholders,  82%  saw  voluntary 
participation as a ”relevant” or ”highly relevant” hurdle to the use of digital solutions in 
judicial cooperation. The approach resulted in a fragmented map of justice related digital 
services in the EU and there is no guarantee that a recommendation would improve the 
situation.  The  study  supporting  this  impact  assessment  clearly  demonstrates  that 
differences  between  national  IT  solutions  represent  a  barrier  to  cross-border  judicial 
cooperation, which 57% of respondents considered as ”highly” problematic and another 
23% as problematic “to a limited extent”.  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Economic impacts: As regards the functioning of the internal market and the impact on 
businesses,  SMEs  included,  it  has  been  shown  (see  the  2021  EU  Justice  Scoreboard 
findings  in  Section  2.1.1)  that  company’s  growth  is  closely  linked  to  the  effective 
operation and the efficiency of the judiciary. Such benefits cannot be guaranteed with a 
non-legislative option.  

Transaction  costs  and  times  in  cross-border  judicial  cooperation,  as  presented  in  the 
baseline option, will start to decrease only when the first two Member States put in place 
interoperable  IT  systems  fully  supporting  communication  or  if  all  Member  States  are 
fully  digitising  one  procedure74.  The  voluntary  initiatives  of  the  past  decade  show  a 
coverage  of  at  most  1%  of  total  transactions  being  carried  out  by  digital  means75.  This 
has not been sufficient to produce any tangible cost savings, as most communication has 
been  by  traditional  means.  For  the  purpose  of  this  assessment  we  will  be  using  the 
calculation  of  the  yearly  benefits  of  digitising  the  European  Payment  Procedure  as 
presented in the Impact Assessment of e-Codex. This is consistent with the current level 
of participation76  in  the e-Codex pilots  which shows a maximum  number of 6 Member 
States participating in a certain procedure. Therefore, it is safe to assume that any further 
voluntary  cooperation  can  at  best  be  approximated  in  terms  of  benefits  with  one 
procedure like the European payment order being fully digitised. 

Based  on  tables  12  and  16  it  will  result  that  the  costs  for  Member  States  will  slightly 
decrease to: 

  EUR 32 174 616 for communication using physical formats;  

  15 387 525 days for communication by post or equivalent services; 

The e-Codex cost model do not offer us any indication of the savings in administrative 
costs  or  in  paper.  Impacts  on  fundamental  rights:  Digital  communication  cannot  be 
effective  and  efficient  in  “asymmetrical”  situations,  i.e. it  works  only  between  entities 
that both have interoperable digital resources. If only one interlocutor has the necessary 
resources,  communication  has  to  take  place  in  the  traditional  way.  A  particular  cross-
border  instrument  needs  to  be  supported  by  the  relevant  digital  tools  for  electronic 
communication to be possible. Otherwise, this would also jeopardise the effectiveness of 
voluntary cooperation.  

With regards to the social impacts, the status quo would be maintained in case Member 
States do not follow the Commission recommendation. On the contrary,  where Member 
States adopt digital technologies in line with the Commission recommendation, a positive 
social impacts such as increased public confidence in justice systems, improved access to 
justice and more efficient functioning of the competent authorities and the justice system 

74 Table 16 yearly benefits of the European Payment Procedure 
75   Currently, only the e-CODEX pilot implementations are providing for cross-border digital exchanges. 
This  leads  to  the  assumption    that  less  than  1%  of  the  total  transactions  in  cross-border  cases  are 
digital..see tables 12 and 16 

76 Table 17 – Participation in e-Codex Pilots 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
as  a  whole,  is  to  be  expected.  However,  with  an  increased  adoption  of  digital 
communication technology, the digital gap between those with access to such technology 
and others may be widened. 

impact  on 

the  overall 

With  EU-wide  adoption  of  electronic  means  of  communication,  the  use  of  the  digital 
channel can be expected to have a positive environmental impact, due to the use of less 
paper  and  postage.  While  the  production  and  operation  of  equipment  will  consume 
energy, 
the  environment  would  be  positive.  In  case 
videoconferencing or other means of distance communication technology are employed 
for  oral  hearings,  that  would  lead  to  reduction  of  carbon  emissions,  because 
videoconferencing  may  produce  only  7%  of  the  carbon  emissions  caused  by  physical 
meetings77.  Electronic  communication  has  a  smaller  carbon  footprint  than  equivalent 
standard  mail  (50  to  90%  less  per  transaction)78.   With  lower  rates  of  uptake  of  digital 
communication  technology,  there  will  be  environmental  impacts,  but  they  would  be 
closer to the status quo.  

The  impact  to  individuals,  legal  entities  (including  businesses),  legal  professionals, 
judges  and  Member  States  as  stakeholders  would  depend  on  the  uptake  of  digital 
communication technology with full adoption having an impact as described in Annex 1. 
However,  considering  the  current  trend  of  uptake,  full  adoption  is  not  likely.  These  in 
addition to the analysis in Annex 1, would be the main impacts on the stakeholders. 

Option 2 – Legislative option 

Under the legislative option, a digital channel for cross-border communication would be 
established. Previous e-CODEX projects (e.g. eEDES, iSupport) have shown that this is 
technically and operationally feasible. The additional legal elements associated with this 
option  (e.g. assurance  that  electronic  documents  and  evidence  sent  through  the  channel 
would  not  be  denied  legal  effect)  ensure  that  the  receiving  Member  State’s  authorities 
would  accept  digital  communications  as  procedurally  relevant.  This  would  improve 
access to justice and the enjoyment of fundamental rights. In addition, enabling parties to 
pay  court  fees  using  the  same  functionalities  as  would  be  available  for  communicating 
with the competent authorities would be less time-consuming and more inclusive than the 
current situation, where they may need to visit a bank or a court in person. 

As  regards  economic  impact,  the  obligation  to  set  up  a  digital  channel  would  require 
new  investment  from  the  Member  States  to  develop  the  necessary  infrastructure  to 
interact  with  e-CODEX.  The  scale  of  the  investment  would  depend  on  their  current 
degree  of  digitalisation,  their  level  of  involvement  in  the  e-CODEX  project,  the 
interoperability  of  current  solutions  and  the  scope  for  electronic  transmissions  under 
national  law.  However,  in  the  long  run,  the  digitalisation  of  justice  would  significantly 

77 Impact assessment on the Taking of evidence proposal - EUR-Lex - 52018SC0285 - EN - EUR-Lex 
(europa.eu). 
78 ibid 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
reduce  the  costs  incurred  by  national  justice  systems  in  cross-border  procedures79. 
Furthermore, it would positively influence the process of digitalisation at national level.  

Assuming that the IT systems for exchanges of EIOs and the service of documents/taking 
of evidence, as developed by the Commission, will be extended to cover communication 
in cross-border judicial procedures, the total one-off cost for extending the eEDES and 
service  of  documents/taking  of  evidence  systems  would  be  EUR 18.7 million  over  5 
years. This cost will be covered by the EU budget through the Digital Europe Program 
and the Justice Program. 

The costs for the Member States will be rather limited: EUR 8 100 000 per year i.e. EUR 
300 000 per year per Member State. In the first 2 years, the cost of installation will EUR 
100 000 per year per MS. This amount include hardware and the manpower to configure 
it.  The  remaining  EUR  200 000  are  necessary  for  support  to  the  increasing  number  of 
users. As of the third year, there are no hardware and installation costs, but only cost for 
user support and maintenance of the system. This is estimated at EUR 300 000. Since the 
solution is web-based, there are no additional costs for courts and competent authorities 
since there is only one instance of the software to be installed at national level.  

The cost per digital transaction80 is EUR 2.95. The average overall yearly saving at EU 
level is EUR 23 372 900 in postage costs and EUR 2 216 160 in paper costs amounting 
to  a  grand  total  of  EUR  25 589 060.  The  individuals  and  legal  entities  will  be  saving 
EUR 4 098 600 in postage costs and EUR 388 800 in paper costs.  

The  Member  States  will  be  gaining  EUR19 274 300  per  year  in  postage  cost  and  EU 
1 827 960 in postage costs. The overall saving of EUR 21 002 260 are offsetting the EUR 
8 100 000 costs for installation, maintenance and user support that the MS will have to 
cover for running the IT system at national level.  

The average posting time will be reduced to 0 resulting in an overall yearly reduction of 
the duration of the procedures by 15 389 999 days. The the individuals and legal entities 
will be gaining 2 700 000 days in average posting time.  

874 person-years will be gained in processing effort at court/competent authority level. 

181 448 100 A4 standard 80g printing paper pages will be saved out of which 31 833 000 
by individuals and legal entities. 

The other three measures refer to removing legal barriers.  For instance making the oral 
hearings by videoconference legally possible does not entail any obligation of the courts 
to provide the technical means for it. Therefore, even though not travelling for a hearing 
would  have  positive  environmental  impact,  cost  savings  for  the  parties  and  positive 

79   Ibid. 
80 Table 12 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
impact  on  fundamental  rights  due  to  the  increased  accessibility  of  the  procedure  and 
shortening of the delays, video-conference will remain subject  to  the availability of the 
equipment, the discretion of the court and the consent of all parties to the procedure. This 
is  why  the  costs  of  equipment  or  travel  savings  were  not  taken  into  account  in  the 
cost/benefit analysis. 

With its potential to cut substantially the cost of participating in cross-border cases, the 
initiative  would  also  directly  benefit  individuals  and  legal  entities  (including  SMEs) 
covered  by  the  various  EU  civil  law  instruments.  Individuals’,  legal  entities’  and  legal 
practitioners’ use of these instruments (e.g. European small claims procedure and EPO) 
is also likely to increase thanks to the new electronic access point on the e-Justice portal.  

While this option will probably have positive economic impacts for certain categories of 
business,  it  will  probably  reduce  the  revenue  of  others.  More  specifically,  the 
introduction  of  electronic  channels  of  communication  might  have  negative  economic 
impacts on providers of postal service, paper and office supplies, transport services, etc. 
The  revenue  of  such  businesses  is  expected  to  decrease  marginally  due  to  the  use  of  a 
digital  channel,  videoconferencing  and  other  means  of  distance  communication.  A 
comparison of prices charged by transport service providers in three Member States for 
long-distance  bus,  train  and  air  journeys  shows  that  cross-border  travel  is  around  17% 
more  expensive  than  domestic  travel81.  With  the  availability  of  an  electronic  channel, 
parties will probably travel to hearings only within their own country or not at all. This 
will probably result in a loss of revenue for transport service providers. 

Conversely,  increased  revenue  is  expected  for  providers  of  IT  consulting  services, 
internet and telecommunications services, cloud storage services and archiving services, 
and manufacturers of videoconferencing and other  remote  communication equipment82. 
Courts would probably have to spend around EUR 36 000 a year on videoconferencing83. 
Since there are about 6 000 courts in the EU84 (of which a limited number already have 
videoconferencing  facilities),  videoconferencing  equipment  manufacturers  and  service 
providers could gain as much as EUR 216 million across all Member States, if all courts 
were to be equipped with at least one videoconferencing facility. 

The  social  impacts  are  two-fold:  a  positive  impact  of  introducing  the  digital 
communication  channel  would  improve  public  confidence  in  justice  systems,  access  to 
justice and the efficient functioning of the competent authorities and the justice system as 
a  whole.  A  negative  social  impact  is  the  potential  widening  of  the  digital  divide. 
Therefore, the initiative would need to ensure equality between individuals who prefer to 
use  the  paper  channel  and  those  who  opt  for  digital  means.  The  initiative  would 
safeguard  the  needs  and  interests  of  individuals  who  are  not  digitally  skilled  by 
maintaining the current communication channels.  

81 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018SC0285 
82 EUR-Lex - 52018SC0285 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 
83 Ibid. 
84 European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (an initiative of the Council of Europe), 2014.  

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
More efficient judicial cooperation and facilitated access to justice have the potential to 
increase the number of cross-border cases, which in turn will lead to higher workload for 
the courts. Such possible risk cannot be supported by the existing data and may only be 
presumed.  Nevertheless,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  initiative,  and  in  particular  the 
possibility  for  the  parties  to  communicate  with  the  competent  authorities  electronically 
and the mandatory use of the digital communication channel between the authorities, has 
the  overwhelming  support  of  the  Member  States.  It  could  be  concluded  that  Member 
States do not perceive the possible increase of the number of the cases as an obstacle to 
the digitalisation of cross-border procedures and attribute more value to the protection of 
fundamental  rights,  shortening  the  procedures,  alleviating  administrative  burden  (with 
minimum  874  person/years)  and  facilitating  the  processing  of  the  cases.  Therefore,  the 
Impact  assessment  does  not  evaluate  the  possible  risk  of  increased  number  of  cross-
border cases as a negative impact. 

Other impacts under option 2, such as environmental and fundamental rights impacts, are 
suboption-specific. 

Impacts of suboptions 2.1.a and 2.1.b (voluntary vs mandatory use of digital channel) 

Concerning the use of electronic means of communication in cross-border cases between 
the competent authorities, the two suboptions proposed are to make such communication 
voluntary or mandatory. In case the legislative option would not impose the obligation to 
communicate electronically, the use of the digital channel would be left to the discretion 
of  the  Member  States,  and  the  frequency  with  which  it  would  be  used  in  cross-border 
cases  could  not  be  guaranteed.  On  the  other  hand,  provisions  which  would  impose  the 
use  of  the  digital  channel  as  mandatory  would  come  at  no  extra  cost  (as  the  channel 
would  be  established),  but  would  ensure  that  the  most  efficient  communication  tools 
available  are  used  in  cross-border  judicial  proceedings.  This  would  alleviate  the 
competent authorities’ administrative burden and shorten judicial proceedings. Since the 
communication channel will make it possible to identify the competent court or authority 
for  each  instrument,  the  risk  of  addressing  the  wrong  recipient,  and  thus  the  risk  of 
‘non-competence’ refusals, would be reduced.   

Regarding  the  impact  on  fundamental  rights,  shortening  proceedings  would  bring 
tangible benefits for individuals, legal entities (including SMEs) and legal practitioners, 
as  timely  proceedings  are  an  essential  element  of  the  right  to  a  fair  trial85.  This  was 
confirmed  by  the  study  supporting  this  impact  assessment,  with  57%  of  questionnaire 
respondents  stating  that  regulating  digital  communication  would  have  a  ‘very  positive’ 
effect  on  reducing  administrative  burden  and  an  additional  21%  stating  that  the  impact 
would be ‘rather positive’. Similarly, 45% and 38% of respondents respectively were of 

85   Article Art47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the  European Union stipulates that everyone is 

entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.           86  
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018SC0285  

https://eur-

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
the  opinion  that  such  an  initiative  would  impact  the  duration  of  judicial  proceedings 
‘very’ or ‘rather’ positively. 

The use of the digital channel can be expected to have a positive environmental impact, 
due to the use of less paper and postage. These environmental impacts relate mainly to 
the  adoption  of  electronic  means  of  communication  and  a  likely  increase  in  the  use  of 
videoconferencing and distance communication instead of in-person hearings. While the 
production  and  operation  of  equipment  will  consume  energy,  the  overall  impact  on  the 
environment  would  be  positive.  Videoconferencing  and  other  means  of  distance 
communication  may  produce  only  7%  of  the  carbon  emissions  caused  by  physical 
meetings86.  Electronic  communication  has  a  smaller  carbon  footprint  than  equivalent 
standard mail (50-90% less per transaction).   

Impacts of suboptions 2.2.a and 2.2.b (voluntary vs mandatory acceptance of electronic 
communication) 

Obliging Member States to accept electronic communication from individuals and legal 
entities would have a positive impact on access to justice, by providing additional, faster, 
more  secure  and  more  reliable  means  of  communicating  with  courts  and  thus  shorter 
judicial proceedings.  

Allowing  individuals  and  legal  entities  to  make  online  applications  would  not  only 
eliminate  potential  travel  costs  and  difficulties  in  accessing  infrastructure  (courts,  post 
offices, etc.), but  would make legal  redress  more accessible to  all, including victims of 
crime, people in remote and rural areas, and vulnerable individuals.  

Obliging  Member  States  to  accept  electronic  communication  would  have  a  positive 
impact  on  SMEs  and  companies  that  already  operate  in  a  digital  environment,  by 
allowing them to use similar digital tools when they communicate with courts/competent 
authorities  as  those  they  already  use  day  to  day.  If  the  acceptance  of  electronic 
communication  remains  voluntary,  the  positive  impact  and  legal  certainty  will  be 
reduced, as there is no guarantee that Member States will allow such communication.  

To  ensure  parties’  autonomy  and  the  rights  of  those  without  access  to  modern 
infrastructure,  individuals  and  legal  entities  would  be  free  to  opt  for  paper-based 
communication.  This  would  also  mitigate  the  risks  of  digital  divide  and  exclusion, 
which raise concerns among the stakeholders. 

The concerns raised by stakeholders with regards to the right to a fair trial and effective 
legal remedy, the equal opportunity for both parties to make their case, the right to have 
knowledge  of  and  to  comment  on  all  evidence  and  observations  in  adversarial 
proceedings and the right to a public hearing in criminal proceedings, not interfering with 
the  rights  of  the  defence,  including  access  to  a  lawyer  and  the  case  file,  are  general 

86   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018SC0285  

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
concerns rather than ones entirely specific to this initiative. The legislative option would 
on  one  hand  ensure  easier  access  to  justice  and  judicial  cooperation,  thereby  positively 
impacting  the  above  concerns,  while  on  the  other  hand  maintaining  traditional 
communication channels. However, it should be considered that the aim of the initiative 
is  not  to  interfere  with  courts  discretion  in  safeguarding  the  procedural  rights  of  the 
parties.  

Implementing  videoconferencing  tools  or  other  distance  communication  technology 
would  have  a  similar  impact,  as  it  may  eliminate  the  need  to  travel  in  some  cases  and 
make courts more accessible. This is expected to have positive environmental impacts, 
in view of the reduced traveling. At the same time, it would be beneficial for the effective 
protection  of  fundamental  rights.  In  the  context  of  force  majeure  events,  such  as  the 
COVID-19 pandemic, the videoconferencing tools could enable parties to participate in 
hearings, thus ensuring the right to a fair trial. To avoid negative impacts on the right to a 
fair  trial,  safeguards  would  have  to  be  provided  for  vulnerable  individuals  in  case 
videoconference is used.  

For example, where children are involved in criminal proceedings, they may have 
difficulties  in  understanding  and  following  a  procedural  act.  Therefore,  the 
holder  of  parental  responsibility  or  another  adult  (as  appropriate)  should  be 
informed as soon as possible about the use of videoconferencing or other digital 
communication  technology.  Specific  technical  assistance  should  be  ensured 
during  the hearing for  older people who are insufficiently familiar with modern 
communication  technology.  Also,  people  with  mental  disorders  or  intellectual 
incapacities may require special assistance in a digital environment. 

Remote hearings in EAW cases would, for example, enhance trust in the system of 
the executing state and support the operation of the European supervision order, 
as  videoconferencing  would  allow  the  presence  (next  to  the  suspect  or  the 
accused and their  defence lawyer)  of  the judicial  authorities of  both the issuing 
and  the  executing  state.  Information  on  the  requested  person’s  personal 
circumstances  (e.g. family,  home,  work)  could  easily  be  shared  with  the  issuing 
authority.  The  same  goes  for  information  on  possible  alternatives  to  pre-trial 
detention in the executing state, e.g. allowing the person to continue working or 
caring  for  family  while  awaiting  trial  in  the  issuing  state.  Thus,  unnecessary 
surrender under the EAW would also be avoided.  

The use of  videoconferencing  or  other  remote communication  technology would 
also eliminate the risk of further victimisation of victims of crime. For instance, 
the  use  of  digital  tools  could  reduce  their  contacts  with  the  offender  and  limit 
unnecessary interaction with competent authorities. However, it must be ensured 
that  each  victim’s  rights  are  fully  respected  in  accordance  with  their  individual 
needs. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Impacts of suboptions 2.3.a and 2.3.b ((non-)regulation of trust services) 

If the acceptance and recognition of electronic signatures and seals are not regulated, the 
development  of  trust  service  standards  will  remain  within  the  remit  of  the  Member 
States, who will therefore decide whether signed communication originating from other 
Member States is to be accepted. 

This  would  result  in  a  negative  impact  on  fundamental  rights.  Any  uncertainty  as 
regards the acceptance of communication and the required  type of electronic signatures 
and seals would detract from the legal certainty and thus individuals’ and legal entities’ 
willingness to assert their rights via digital means of communication and  they may feel 
obliged to incur travel or other associated costs.  

On the other hand, regulating the acceptance of electronic communication would result in 
greater legal certainty and a more secure business environment. 

No specific environmental impacts were identified for this particular sub-option.  

In  addition,  suboption 2.3.b  would  lead  to  synergy  with  the  digital  identity  framework, 
which would support identification of the parties for the purposes of making submissions 
or participating in remote hearings. 

7. 

HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? 

In  this  section,  we  compare  the  policy  options  and  suboptions  on  the  basis  of  the 
following four criteria: 

 

 

 

coherence with the existing legal framework at national and EU levels; and 

effectiveness,  in  terms  of  the  potential  to  achieve  the  general  and  specific 
objectives of the initiative; 

efficiency, in terms of the probability of achieving cost reductions in cross-border 
judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border cases; 

  EU  added  value,  as  compared  with  what  could  be  achieved  by  Member  States 
acting alone, and whether the objectives can be met more (cost-) efficiently at EU 
level. 

The  results  of  the  analysis  are  summarised  in  the  table  below  and  explained  in  further 
detail in this section. The table should be read as follows: ‘0’ if no new impact compared 
to  the  status  a  quo  is  expected;  ”-”  if  negative  impacts  are  likely  to  arise;  ”-  -”  if  the 
option  will  result  in  very  negative  impacts;  ”+”  pointing  to  positive  impacts;  ”++” 
referring to very positive impacts; and ”+++” to the best performance among the options. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1 - Policy option comparison table  

Optio
n 0 

Optio
n 1 

2.1.a  
Voluntary 
use 
of 
digital 
channel 

2.1.b  
Obligatory 
use 
of 
digital 
channel 

- 

0 

0 

0 

- 

0 
0 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 
+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

+ 
++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 
+++ 

/ 

Coherence 
Effectiveness 
Achievement  of 
objectives 
Social 
fundamental 
rights impacts 
Economic 
impacts 
Environmental 
impacts 
Efficiency 
EU 
value 

added 

Option 2 (suboptions) 

of 

2.2.a  
Voluntary 
acceptance 
electronic 
communication 
from individuals 
/ legal entities 
++ 

of 

2.2.b  
Obligatory 
acceptance 
electronic 
communication 
from individuals 
/ legal entities 
+++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 
++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 
+++ 

2.3.a  
Non-
regulation 
trust 
of 
services 

2.3.b  
Regulation 
of 
trust 
services 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 
++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 
+++ 

Under both the baseline scenario and the non-legislative option, Member States would 
use  the  digital  channel  for  cross-border  judicial  cooperation  in  civil,  commercial  and 
criminal  cases  on  a  voluntary  basis  only.  The  non-legislative  option  could  be  more 
effective and efficient, mainly as a result of a Commission recommendation leading the 
Member States to digitalise their justice-related services more quickly and with a higher 
degree  of  technical  and  legal  interoperability.  While  a  recommendation  could  set  out  a 
harmonised approach to  the adoption of e-CODEX-based tools (and common standards 
on  trust  services  and  the  acceptance  and  recognition  of  electronic  documents),  its 
non-binding  nature  would  mean  that  the  Member  States  may  not  uniformly  follow  its 
principles.  This  is  especially  true  for  Member  States  that  have  already  implemented 
national solutions as regards the digitalisation of judicial cooperation, as well as for those 
in  which  such  solutions  are  not  yet  in  place.  Consequently,  fragmentation  (and  thus 
inefficiencies) could be expected, as EU-wide coordination on the choice of instruments 
to be digitalised and IT tools and standards to be used would be difficult.  

As  concerns  coherence,  in  the  light  of  the  above,  the  baseline  scenario  and  the 
non-legislative approach could have negative impacts overall. This because the use of 
digital  tools  for  cross-border  judicial  cooperation  and  access  to  justice  in  cross-border 
cases  would  result  in  some  Member  States  joining  voluntary  initiatives  (e.g. e-CODEX 
and  eEDES)  and  others  not  being  involved  at  all.  This  would  probably  reinforce  or 
extend the current tendency to rely on the paper channel, which results in financial costs 
and negative environmental impacts. Also, the use of unsecure electronic communication 
would probably continue, which might raise privacy and data protection concerns.  

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
The legislative option would provide a digital communication channel for cross-border 
judicial  cooperation  and  access  to  justice,  and  arrangements  for  the  acceptance  and 
recognition  of  electronic  documents,  and  the  online  payment  of  fees.  As  a  result,  all 
Member States would have at their disposal the same tool, which would ensure secure, 
reliable  and  efficient  communication.  The  tool  would  be  adapted  to  the  needs  of  the 
judiciary, as it would be based on e-CODEX, which has been developed specifically for 
the  justice  sector.  In  terms  of  coherence,  the  legislative  option  would  have  a  positive 
impact, as an initiative on the digitalisation of justice would seek to provide a common 
framework for the digitalisation of the Union instruments in the civil and criminal area, 
and ensuring that they are treated under a common regime throughout the Member States 
would require legislative action so as to guarantee harmonisation. 

In  terms  of  effectiveness,  the  legislative  option  compares  favourably  to  the  baseline 
scenario and the non-legislative option. The data presented in section 2 allows us to make 
a limited projection of the expected results. However, the data still indicates that due to 
maintaining the status quo by the baseline option, and the voluntary element attached to 
the  non-legislative  option,  the  legislative  option  is  the  only  one  which  ensures  the 
achievement of the initiative’s objectives. However, whether the objectives could be fully 
achieved depends on the suboptions under the legislative option: 

  how  much  would  Member  States’  authorities  use  the  digital  communication 

channel? 

  would  Member  States  accept  electronic  communication  from  procedural  parties 

(including hearings conducted via videoconferencing)? 

  would the same standards be applied to trust services? 

Requiring  Member  States  to  use  the  digital  channel  in  all  instances  of  judicial 
cooperation covered by the relevant EU legal framework is the only way of guaranteeing 
its use. A voluntary approach would give rise to an economic impact in terms of resource 
allocation to develop the channel, but no significant additional assurance as to its use (as 
compared with the baseline scenario and the non-legislative option).  

While  one  Member  State’s  voluntary  use  of  the  digital  channel  could  improve  the 
functioning of the internal market, the enjoyment of fundamental rights and the capacity 
of the judiciary to process a volume of cases which is assumed to increase proportionally 
with the number of citizens and businesses finding themselves in a cross-border situation, 
there will always remain the possibility of another Member State’s authority choosing to 
reply using paper-based communication, thus limiting the benefits of digitalisation. 

The  establishment  of  EU  access  point  which  allows  the  use  translated  and  harmonised 
forms,  will  be  the  easiest  way  for  citizens  and  businesses  to  access  justice  related 
services. We assume that easier access to such services will result in an increased number 
of cross-border cases, due to the fact that barriers to initiating a cross-border cases (such 
as the need to appoint a lawyer at the forum Member State, the ned for translation, the 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
use of postal services) will be removed. Requiring Member States’ authorities to accept 
electronic communication from individuals and legal entities, regardless of whether it is 
made  through  the  EU  access  point  or  a  national  platform,  will  ensure  the  use  of  the 
digital  route in  this  context  and the elimination of the above mentioned  barriers.  In the 
absence of such a requirement, there would be no legal certainty regarding the use of the 
digital channel and individuals/legal entities may therefore be reluctant to use this route. 
As  access  to  justice  depends  partly  on  individuals’  and  legal  entities’  ease  of  access  to 
judicial authorities, limiting the scope for quick and efficient communication would have 
a negative social impact and may impair the protection of fundamental rights, particularly 
in the case of vulnerable groups. 

The  same  holds  for  the  use  of  videoconference  tools  for  oral  hearings.  By  failing  to 
provide  a  legal  basis  for  this,  the  baseline  scenario  would  leave  the  parties  without  the 
option of requesting the use of videoconferencing and the courts without a legal basis to 
set up remote hearings. The parties would therefore have fewer possibilities to participate 
in procedural action before the courts. This could negatively impact their procedural and 
fundamental rights and lead them to incur travel costs. In contrast, a legislative proposal 
providing for a legal basis for videoconferencing would ensure the existence of EU-level 
rules  in  this  area,  eliminating  conflicts  between  possibly  disparate  national  provisions 
and  helping  to  overcome  the  consequences  of  the  lack  of  such  rules.  Only  binding 
legislation would ensure that parties in all Member States can participate in oral hearings 
via videoconference; this would not be the case with a Commission recommendation. 

As  regards  the  regulation  of  trust  services  (legislative  option  with  regulation  of 
common  standards  of  trust  services)  or  their  non-regulation  (common  to  the  baseline 
scenario,  the  non-legislative  option  and  the  legislative  option  with  no  regulation  of 
common  standards),  only  the  adoption  of  common  standards  would  guarantee  the 
acceptance and recognition of electronic seals and signatures from other Member States. 
Trust  services  are  an  essential  component  of  a  well-functioning  digital  communication 
infrastructure, because, even where all Member States agree to accept a form of digital 
communication, authorities may still refuse it if the standards for the identification of the 
sender  are  not  compatible  or  if  the  trust  service  assurance  level  is  deemed  inadequate. 
The same applies to the identification of parties in the context of videoconferencing.  

A Commission recommendation would encourage Member States to adopt standards on 
the  use  of  the  trust  services  under  the  e-IDAS  regulation.  However,  the  adoption  of 
national  measures  may  lead  to  a  non-harmonised  approach  and  disparities,  putting  a 
question mark over the acceptance of electronic communications.  

Under option 2 and suboption 2.3.b, the legal instrument would introduce provisions on 
the  use  of  e-signatures  and  e-seals  as  regulated  under  the  e-IDAS  Regulation.  The 
introduction of such provisions and common standards for the recognition of e-signatures 
and  e-seals  would  strengthen  legal  certainty  for  individuals,  companies  and  public 
administrations.  

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In  this  context,  a  common  set  of  standards  is  necessary  to  ensure  seamless  judicial 
cooperation and access to justice. 

In terms of efficiency, the non-legislative option would generate moderate costs. These 
will be offset by a range of indirect positive economic impacts as outlined in section 6. 
However,  the  legislative  option  can  be  expected  to  have  significant  positive  economic 
effects  on  certain  categories  of  business,  whereas  it  will  affect  the  revenue  of  other 
businesses. Overall, a range of benefits would likely arise: time savings, decreased legal 
fees,  decreased  travel  costs,  decreased  labour  costs  etc.  No  impact  other  than  the 
maintaining of the status quo can be expected under the baseline scenario. 

In terms of the EU added value of the legislative option, it would be higher than it can 
be expected from the baseline scenario of the non-legislative option, given that by means 
of an EU instrument (allowing or requiring the use of the digital channel), a harmonized 
regime would be created in the Member States. This would likely tackle the current legal 
fragmentation and gaps across the concerned EU instruments and, thus, enhance access 
to justice and the resilience and the efficiency of justice in cross-border cases. 

8. 

PREFERRED OPTION 

In  the  light  of  the  above  comparison,  the  preferred  option  is  the  legislative  option 
(option 2), with suboptions 2.1.b, 2.2.b and 2.3.b; i.e. in summary: 

  requiring  the  use  of  the  established  digital  channel  for  communication  in 

cross-border judicial cooperation; 

  requiring  Member  States’  courts  and  competent  authorities  to  accept  electronic 
communication  from  individuals  and  legal  entities  via  the  access  point  on  the 
e-Justice portal or via national portals. Individuals and legal entities would remain 
free to choose between electronic and paper-based communication; 

  providing  a  legal  basis  for  parties  and  their  representatives  to  participate  in  oral 
hearings via videoconference or other distance communication technology tools; 

 

laying down provisions on e-signatures and e-seals through an explicit reference 
to the e-IDAS Regulation; 

  regulating the online payment of court fees; and  

  establishing the responsibilities of different data controllers and processors. 

In cumulative terms the effects of the preferred option are expected to yield the following 
benefits:  i)  more  accessible  tools  for  initiation  of  cases  and  undertaking  of  procedural; 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
actions for citizens and businesses and ii) improved capacity of competent authorities to 
process the increased volume of cross-border cases87. 

Proportionality assessment of the preferred option 

Despite  imposing  more  obligations  on  Member  States,  the  preferred  option  would  not 
require the adoption of measures that would burden them beyond what is necessary for 
the  achievement  of  this  initiative’s  objectives.  Member  States  would  only  have  to 
implement  measures  that  ensure  the  functioning  and  harmonised  use  of  the  digital 
communication  channel.  The  analysis  of  policy  options  has  shown  that  non-legislative 
measures cannot ensure that the objectives will be achieved. 

As  regards  the  suboptions  under  the  legislative  option,  non-mandatory  measures  would 
not result in a broad, harmonised approach to digital communication and would thus not 
fully  achieve  the  goals  of this  initiative.  While the suboptions  allowing  for  a voluntary 
approach  to  digital  communication,  videoconferencing  and  the  regulation  of  trust 
services  would  be  proportionate  to  their  realistically  achievable  goals,  this  would 
encompass only some of the goals. The objectives can be fully achieved only through 
legislative  provisions  requiring  the  use  of  digital  communication,  allowing 
videoconferencing  and  regulating  trust  services.  The  legislative  option  and  the 
suboptions imposing obligations on the above would thus be entirely proportionate to the 
objectives of the initiative. 

9. 

HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

A  sound  system  for  monitoring  the  proposed  legal  instrument  is  needed,  including  a 
comprehensive  set  of  qualitative  and  quantitative  indicators,  and  a  clear,  structured 
reporting process. This is important for tracking whether the instrument is implemented 
efficiently  in  the  Member  States  and  whether  it  is  successful  in  achieving  its  specific 
objectives. 

In order to provide guidance in the monitoring process,  Table 2 presents indicators that 
help  analyse  the  extent  to  which  the  objectives  are  achieved.  A  full  evaluation  every  5 
years  would  be  useful  for  assessing  impacts  and  contextual  issues.  Where  electronic 
communication  is  used,  monitoring  will  be  facilitated  by  automatically  compiling  data 
and  using  the  reporting  features  of  the  new  IT  system.  For  data  that  is  not  collected 
automatically,  a  monitoring  sample  of  at  least  one  court  or  competent  authority  to  be 
designated by each Member State will be put in place. 

87  As analysed in Section 2.3, we can only assume the potential for an increased workload for courts and 
other  competent  authorities  dealing  with  cross-border  judicial  cooperation.  However,  new  technologies 
have  the  potential  to  make  judicial  systems  more  efficient  in  this  regard,  by  easing  the  administrative 
burden,  shortening  case  processing  times,  and  partially  automating  case  handling.    Additionally,  the 
Commission  supports  the  efforts  of  Member  States  to  organise  their  respective  judiciaries,  including 
innovative tools and efficient functioning, through the availability of RRF. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
EJN-civil  and  EJN-criminal  will  play  an  important  role  in  the  implementation  and 
application  of  the  proposed  instrument.  These  forums  (which  bring  together  national 
stakeholders and the central authorities and agencies dealing with the implementation of 
the  relevant  regulations)  can  be  used  to  obtain  feedback  from  Member  States  on  the 
application of the instrument and identify practical problems.  

Table 2: evaluation and monitoring framework 

Assessment criterion 

Indicator 

Horizontal aspects 

Number  of  EU  instruments  under  the  scope 
of  the  regulation  for  which  digital  cross-
border communication is available for use in 
the Member States.  

Frequency 

Once a year. 

– 

Source 
Commission 
report. 

Costs  of  implementing  and  operating  the  IT 
system 

For 
evaluation. 

every 

– 

Source 
Commission 
and  Member 
States. 

Once a year. 

– 

– 

– 

Source 
Member 
States’ 
reporting. 

Once a year. 

Source 
monitoring 
sample. 

Once a year. 

Source 
monitoring 
sample. 

Number of electronic transactions through the 
digital 
of 
communication. 

cross-border 

channel 

improving 
Further 
efficiency  and 
the 
judicial 
speed 
of 
and 
proceedings 
reduce the burden for 
individuals  and  legal 
entities 

Percentage  of  transactions  through  a  paper 
channel in cross-border cases. 

cases  where 
cross-border 
Number  of 
videoconference 
distance 
or 
communication technology was used for oral 
hearings 

other 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number  of  submissions  of  all  type  made  by 
the 
individuals  and 
European access point on the e-Justice portal 

legal  entities  via 

Once a year. 

– 

Source 
Commission 
report. 

Duration  of  the  communication  in  cross-
border proceedings under the EU instruments 
in civil, commercial and criminal matters. 

least 

At 
every 
evaluation. 

for 

the  EU 

Estimates  on  transaction  costs  inherent  to 
communication  in  cross-border  proceedings 
under 
civil, 
commercial and criminal matters incurred by 
the courts and the competent authorities (and 
where relevant JHA agencies and EU bodies) 
and the parties to the proceedings. 

instruments 

in 

Number  of  disruptions  to  the  IT  system, 
duration of its unavailability and reasons why 

the 

Source  – 
monitoring 
sample. 

for 

least 

At 
every 
evaluation. 

the 

Source  – 
monitoring 
sample. 

Once a year. 

– 

Source 
Member 
States’ 
reporting. 

Number  of  attempted  or  actual  intrusions  to 
the IT system; Number of security incidents.  

Once per year. 

Source  –  eu-
the 
LISA  on 
of 
basis 
notification 
from  Member 
under 
States 
the  e-CODEX 
Regulation. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Lead DG: Directorate General Justice and Consumers 

Decide Planning: PLAN/2020/8681 - Digitalisation of cross-border judicial cooperation. 

The Initiative is part of CWP 2021- Digital judicial cooperation package, point 41 and is 
referenced  under  the  Policy  objective  “A  New  Push  for  European  Democracy”.  The 
adoption is planned for Q4 (December 2021). 

Organisation and timing 

An Interservice Group (ISG) was set up on 4 December 2020. 

The Inception Impact Assessment was validated by the Vice President Jourová’s Cabinet, 
the  Cabinet  of  Commissioner  Reynders  and  SG  in  January  2021  and  published  on  8 
January 2021. 

The ISG met two times and a written consultation was conducted before the submission 
of the Impact Assessment to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on 25 August. The ISG made 
written  comments  to  the  Impact  Assessment.  These  comments  are  summarised  in  a 
document  submitted  together  with  the  present  Impact  Assessment.  All  comments  have 
been  addressed  in  a  revised  version  of  the  Impact  assessment,  which  was  submitted  to 
RSB.  

Consultation of the RSB 

An  upstream  meeting  with  the  RSB  took  place  on  22  February  2021,  whose 
recommendations were duly taken into account.  

This draft Impact assessment was submitted to RSB on 25 August 2021 towards the 22 
September RSB hearing.  

The  RSB  delivered  a  positive  opinion  on  27  September  2021.  The  following 
recommendationshave been made: 

(1)  The  problem  analysis  should  be  reinforced  to  highlight  the  main  problems  this 
initiative aims to address. The analysis should be substantiated with evidence regarding 
voluntary  participation  in  digitalisation,  non-recognition  of  electronic  documents, 
signatures or seals and interoperability.  

(2)  The  report  should  explain  how  this  initiative  will  ensure  coherence  with  other  EU-
level  instruments  designed  to  enhance  digitalisation  that  could  be  used  in  cross-border 
judicial  cooperation.  The  report  should  also  explain  why  Member  States  do  not  fully 
exploit the existing possibilities for digitalisation.  

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(3)  The  impact  analysis  should  be  strengthened  with  a  transparent  presentation  of 
impacts, particularly investment costs and stakeholders affected. It should acknowledge 
the uncertainties in the assumptions made and the implications these have for the impacts 
assessed.  

(4) The report should assess effects of a potential increase of cross-border cases. It should 
discuss whether there is a risk that improved access to justice and more efficient cross-
border judicial cooperation could  lead to  delays  in  the treatment  of cases due to  higher 
workload for judges and the time legal proceedings take.  

(5)  The  report  should  clarify  the  data  protection  issues  and  acknowledge  that  moving 
from  a paper to  a digital  format  entails  other  risks. The report should  address  potential 
sensitivities linked to the fact that having more data in digital format may not only ease 
their  transmission,  but  also  creates  data  protection  and  security  issues.  The  concerns 
raised by stakeholders about data protection should be considered. 

Additional recommendations have been sent with the quality check list. 

 In addressing the RSB recommendations, the following changes were introduced in the 
Impact assessment: 

(1) The problem definition has been reformulated, so that it also reflected the actual 

problems analysed in Section 2. 

(2) The  coherence  with  other  initiatives,  such  as  e-CODEX  and  e-IDAS  have  been 

explained, as well as the interlinks with the e-Justice portal. 

(3) The  section  on  the  impacts  of  the  baseline  and  the  policy  options  has  been 
restructured and the main impacts (i.e. economic impacts, social impacts, impacts 
on  fundamental  rights)  have  been  outlined  for  each  of  the  options.  The  section 
also  addresses  in  what  way  the  main  stakeholders  will  be  affected  by  the 
initiative. 

(4) The section on the impacts clarified whether there is a potential risk of increased 
number of cross-border cases and the capacity of the judiciary to deal with it. 
(5) Clarification with regards to data protection has been added in the section on the 

impacts. 

In  addition,  the  report  was  supplemented  with  the  data  available  from  the  supporting 
study  and  from  Annex  7.  The  economic  analysis  and  the  costs  for  the  Member  States 
have  been  added  to  the  report.  The  views  of  the  consulted  stakeholders  have  been 
outlined  in  the  corresponding  sections  of  the  report.  The  technical  recommendations, 
such  as  merging  the  outcome  of  the  public  consultation  with  Annex  2,  numbering  the 
pages of the Annexes, deleting the Annex on the subsidiarity grid, have been addressed. 

Evidence, sources and quality 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For  more  than  a  decade  the  Commission  has  been  working  in  the  framework  of  the  e-
Justice policy with different stakeholders. These stakeholders have been consulted on the 
objectives  of  the  initiative  and  on  the  identified  policy  choices.  Following  the 
consultation strategy prepared for this initiative, a broad variety of different stakeholders 
have been contacted – consultations have been carried out within the e-Justice, Civil and 
Criminal Council Working Parties, EJN-civil, EJN-criminal. The following actions were 
envisaged as a minimum under the consultation strategy: 

  Feedback on the Roadmap.  
  Public consultation on the Commission’s consultations website ‘Have your say’.  

Both  the  feedback  on  the  Roadmap  and  the  results  of  the  public  consultation  are 
presented in Annex 2. 

In  addition,  the  Commission  used  the  considerable  amount  of  already  collected  factual 
data  concerning  digitalisation  of  justice  in  the  EU,  for  instance  from:  the  Justice 
Scoreboard, Rule of Law report, CEPEJ data (European Commission for the Efficiency 
of Justice, an initiative of the Council of Europe), a questionnaire sent to Member States 
by the Council General Secretariat and the Digital Criminal Justice study.  

A study to support the preparation of the Impact assessment has been commissioned. The 
contractor  employed  the  following  stakeholder  consultation  activities  specifically 
designed for the purposes of the study: 

  EU level focus group; 
  National stakeholder consultation on impacts of policy options 
  National-level survey 
  Focus groups at national level 
  Bilateral interviews 
  Validation of the policy choice 

All data collected fed into the different steps in the preparation of the initiative, including 
in the Impact Assessment.  

The Impact Assessment was based on certain assumptions, namely:  

 

 

It  was  estimated that  the number of  cross-border cases  in  civil,  commercial and 
criminal  matters  would  be  growing  with  the  increase  of  the  number  of  people 
living and working in a Member State different from the one of their origin and 
with the increase of the number of people traveling for tourism purposes. 
It  was  estimated  that  the  number  of  persons  visiting  and  using  the  European  e-
Justice Portal will result in increased number of cross-border cases. 

Other assumptions were used to help with the quantification of the current status quo and 
impacts  of  each  policy  option.  The  need  for  these  assumptions  was  dictated  by  data 
heterogeneity that the Impact Assessment encountered.  

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The data limitations encountered in this Impact Assessment were the following:  

 

 

fragmented  data  on  the  number  of  cross-border  cases  in  civil,  commercial  and 
criminal matters; 
fragmented data on the length and costs of the cross-border proceedings in civil, 
commercial  and  criminal  matters.  In  particular,  Member  States  do  not  keep 
records on the number of the cross border cases brought before their courts or the 
length of the cross-border proceedings. Therefore, the data regarding the number 
of  cases,  and  average  length  and  costs  of  the  cross-border  proceedings  in  civil, 
commercial and criminal matters had to be estimated or extrapolated based on the 
limited amount of data collected. 

To  mitigate  the  impact  of  the  data  limitations  (to  the  extent  possible),  the  external 
contractor  followed  up  directly  with  some  of  the  stakeholders  to  clarify  certain  aspects 
such as the length and the costs of the proceedings, sought to model certain use cases of 
cross-border judicial cooperation (e.g. EIO, EAW, EPO) and when feasible, attempted to 
corroborate the existing evidence through interviews with various stakeholder groups in 
different Member States. In addition, where quantification of costs and benefits was not 
feasible, a qualitative approach was chosen instead (description of processes and types of 
costs and benefits deriving from the options). 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation  

The consultation activities carried out in the preparation of the Impact assessment aimed 
at  ensuring  that  all  interested  parties  and  stakeholders  will  have  the  opportunity  to 
provide feedback on the various policy options that the Commission has identified with 
regard to its initiative, and their likely impacts, as well as on the relevance, effectiveness, 
efficiency and the added value of the initiative. In that context, the Commission reached 
out to a broad range of  stakeholders, including Member State national  authorities, non-
governmental  organisations,  professional  associations,  business  organisations  and 
individual citizens. 

 

  On 8 January 2021, the Commission published the  Inception Impact assessment 
(Roadmap), which was opened for a feedback until 5 February 2021 with a total 
of 19 replies.  
In  order  to  collect  views  from  the  general  public,  on  16  February  2021  the 
European  Commission  launched  an  internet-based  public  consultation  on  the 
Commission’s  consultations  website  ‘Have  your  say’  in  22  of  the  official  EU 
languages.  The  consultation  was  questionnaire-based.  The  consultation  period 
was twelve weeks and run until 11 May 2021. A total number of 89 replies have 
been received. 

2.1. SUMMARY OF THE FEEDBACK ON THE ROADMAP 

National Court administration, Finland: 

The  feedback  suggests  that  a  distinction  should  be  made  between  transferring  papers 
electronically  and  genuine  digitalisation.  The  expressed  preference  is  for  a  horizontal 
approach because a tailor-made solution to each EU instrument would not lead to a user-
friendly  outcome.  Long-term  and  all-encompassing  planning  would  ensure 
interoperability  of  the  different  systems  and  appropriate  prioritisation  of  projects,  and 
would  allow  for  long-term  financial  planning.  Digitalisation  of  justice  is  not  simply  a 
question  of  finding  the  technical  solution.  It  is  also  a  process  that  must  involve  the 
judiciary to ensure that their independence is not compromised. 

Digitalisation should go hand-in-hand with training and building relevant skills. 

Ministry of Justice of Poland: 

The  level  of  development  of  each  Member  State  should  be  taken  into  account  and 
digitalisation  should  be  promoted  for  national  proceedings  as  well.    Otherwise,  the 
digitalisation  of  cross-border  cooperation  will  have  limited  effect  if  the  operation  of 
national 
is  not  digitalised  first.  Poland  supports  mandatory  electronic 
communication between authorities subject to certain exceptions.  

justice 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
While there is a lack of EU competence to regulate technical standards and norms in the 
administration  of  justice,  the  use  of  a  common  IT  system  creates  a  new  quality  and  is 
useful for the citizens. 

Concerning  the  legal  effects  of  electronic  documents  and  the  recognition  of  electronic 
signatures, Poland submits that the e-IDAS Regulation is sufficient and there should not 
be a further regulation and rather more training and exchange of good practices between 
courts  in  the  field  of  assessing  the  reliability  of  evidence  presented  to  the  court  and 
recognition of electronic signatures.  

Ministry of justice Estonia: 

Estonia  fully  supports  the  Commission’s  intention  of  making  the  digital  channel  the 
default option in EU cross-border judicial cooperation. The exchange and operability of 
data must replace the exchange of documents.   

It  is  essential  that  digitalisation  of  cross-border  judicial  cooperation  is  implemented  in 
full compliance with  fundamental  rights,  such as  the right  to  the protection of personal 
data,  the  right  to  a  fair  trial  and  the  right  to  an  effective  remedy.  The  right  to  access 
justice should be fully respected also for disadvantaged groups and vulnerable people. 

For the Justice sector to become more digitalised, decentralised digital solutions for the 
Union  (e-CODEX)  and  the  overall  level  of  digitalisation  of  judicial  systems  in  the 
Member  States  should  be  developed  simultaneously.  However,  Union-level  solutions 
should not force digitally more developed Member States to regress. 

Estonia  supports  the  development  by  the  Commission  of  reference  implementation 
software solutions for Member States’ use by re-using the infrastructure being developed 
for  the  European  Investigation  Order  in  criminal  proceedings  (eEDES)  and  for  the 
Service of Documents and Taking of Evidence. 

National Council of the commercial court clerks, France: 

The  National  Council  welcomes  the  initiative  and  will  work  alongside  the  European 
Commission to achieve its goal. 

A  pioneer  in  digitalisation  for  several  years,  the  National  Council  of  the  commercial 
court clerks has developed (with the assistance of GIE Infogreffe, of which each clerk is 
a member) digital tools allowing on the one hand the dissemination of company data and, 
on  the  other  hand,  facilitating  business  procedures  and  formalities  as  well  as  access  to 
commercial  justice.  These  additional  and  faster  digital  resources  have  made  it  possible 
for commercial justice to operate, particularly during the period of the health crisis, and 
for companies to continue their procedures online. 

Ministry of Justice, Sweden: 

Sweden  recognises  the  importance  of  effective  access  to  justice,  especially  in  times  of 
crisis. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The challenges to be addressed are outlined as follows: everyone should be able to take 
part in the digital society in a safe and reliable way - not to exclude those who cannot, or 
don’t want to use digital tools; additional challenges are relating to information security, 
personal integrity, regulations, technology, and guarantees for finances. 

The  Ministry  submits  that  the  introduction  of  a  mandatory  digital  system  should  be 
discussed in relation to each legal act, and in ensuring proper funding. 

iSupport Governing Body (HCCH): 

The iSupport governing body welcomes the initiative. 

They insist on ensuring the coordination between the EU Regulation (Council Regulation 
(EC)  No  4/2009  of  18  December  2008  on  jurisdiction,  applicable  law,  recognition  and 
enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations) 
side  and  the  Convention  (Convention  of  23  November  2007  on  the  International 
Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance) side of iSupport, as 
a  divergence  could  be  created  by  different  technical  requirements  between  the 
Convention and the Regulation. 

Notes that iSupport is an example that could be relied upon for further development of 
applications  to  support  cross-border  communications  in  other  areas  than  maintenance 
obligations. 

Fair Trials, Belgium:  

Fair  Trials  welcome  the  search  for  ways  to  make  criminal  justice  systems  more 
accessible  through  digitalisation.  Digitalisation  presents  an  opportunity  not  only  to 
promote  cooperation  between  law-enforcement  agencies,  but  also  to  better  implement 
existing  EU  standards  on  defense  rights  in  cross-border  proceedings,  which  remains 
problematic  in  practice,  as  reported  by  the  EU  Fundamental  Rights  Agency  and  the 
European Commission (e.g. on the right to access a lawyer). 

They  note  the  need  to  ensure  that  the  fundamental  rights  enshrined  in  the  six  EU 
Procedural Rights Directives and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights are protected in 
a digital setting. 

They suggest the following approach: 

Promote the use of alternative measures to the European Arrest Warrant (EAW)  

• 
The Council has previously called for measures to address the overuse of pre-trial 
detention  and  to  promote  its  alternatives.  Reducing  over-reliance  of  European  Arrest 
Warrant is  key in  these  efforts.  Therefore, digital  solutions  (e.g. interviewing  a suspect 
through  videoconference)  should  be  used  to  promote  the  use  of  the  European 
Investigation Order instead of European Arrest Warrants for prosecution. 

Digitalisation  can  promote  more  effective  access  to  justice,  including  the 
• 
possibility to file submissions digitally in both the executing and issuing Member States. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
This would also enable defense lawyers to challenge unnecessary detention and apply for 
less restrictive cross-border cooperation instruments. 

Access to dual legal representation 

 • 
Article  10(5)  of  Directive  2013/48/EU  requires  Member  States  to  cooperate  to 
facilitate  appointment  of  a  lawyer  in  the  issuing  state.  In  European  Arrest  Warrant 
proceedings, digitalisation should seek to address a long-standing implementation gap in 
dual legal representation. Digital tools should be used to enable access to information on 
the appointment of a lawyer in the issuing State and legal aid schemes. 

• 
Digital tools should also enable a cooperation between lawyers in the issuing and 
executing  states  to  prepare  an  effective  defense  and  seek  an  effective  remedy  where 
necessary. 

Access to information  

To  promote  equality  of  arms  in  cross-border  proceedings  and  the  effective 
• 
implementation of Directive 2012/13/EU on the Right to  Information, the defense must 
also  be  able  to  access  digitalised  case  information  and  materials  in  cross-border 
proceedings.  

• 
In European Arrest Warrant proceedings, the defense must have access not only 
to the arrest warrant form but also to all documents necessary to understand its grounds 
in a timely manner. This could help prevent unnecessary arrest, detention and surrender 
of persons to other countries.  

• 
The  Letter  of  Rights  in  European  Arrest  Warrant  proceedings  (Article  5  of 
Directive 2012/13) should be made available in a digital format in different languages to 
ensure  that  every  person  receives  information  about  their  rights  in  a  language  they 
understand. 

Digitalisation  also  offers  the  possibility  to  enable  persons  to  make  online 
• 
submissions using multilingual forms and to get the necessary information and assistance 
online  in  their  own  language,  for  instance  on  legal  aid.  This  would  promote  access  to 
justice also for all persons, including vulnerable persons. 

Access to interpretation and translation  

• 
In  the  EU  Area  of  Freedom,  Security  and  Justice,  which  enables  the  free 
movement of persons across countries, digital tools must help secure access to translation 
and interpretation enshrined in Directive 2010/64/EU, to enable people to understand and 
participate effectively in cross-border proceedings. 

Council of the Notariats of the European Union: 

The Council of the Notariats agrees with the findings of the Inception Impact Assessment 
to the extent that digitalisation is key and that some issues still have to be tackled in order 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
to  ensure  that  cross-border  exchanges  can  be  carried  out  safely  and  securely  by  digital 
means.   

They  cautiously  welcome  the  creation  of  multilingual  online  forms  to  enable  remote 
procedures  to  be  carried  out  and  call  for  feasibility  studies  to  be  carried  out,  for  legal 
professionals to be consulted beforehand,, for the advisory dimension to be preserved and 
for citizens to be able to have all the necessary safeguards so that procedures cannot be 
initiated against the will of the parties. 

They  are  convinced  that  digitalisation  can  contribute  to  offer  a  better  service  to  the 
citizen, for example in the field of company law. 

The Council of Notariats believes that the creation of a new section on the European e-
Justice  Portal  dedicated  to  the  digitalisation  of  cross-border  judicial  cooperation  would 
facilitate the access to information for the EU citizens and law practitioners. Information 
such as the list of providers of the digital certification services for the qualified electronic 
signature and documents mandatory in the national legislation for each service provider 
in  the  field  of  certification  (information  concerning  trust  chain,  timestamp)  could 
facilitate the recognition of the electronic signature from the issuing Member State to the 
receiving Member State. 

They  welcome the fact  that  the  Inception  Impact Assessment  confirms  the approach of 
interoperability  between  national  systems  rather  than  building  complex  European 
systems; it is important that the Member States and the legal professions can continue to 
build the most useful tools for their specific needs. 

Further  development  of  videoconferencing  solutions  and  secure  and 
reliable 
identification  procedures  for  both  legal  professionals  and  their  clients  are  of  utmost 
importance  when  it  comes  to  the  further  promotion  and  the  fostering  of  digitalisation 
tools in cross-border proceedings. The notaries, in the context of their task of verifying 
the  identity  of  the  person  appearing  before  them,  must  be  able  to  check  the  identity 
documents of all EU citizens. 

The outlined challenges are the following: it has to be guaranteed, that legal certainty and 
the  quality  of  preventive  legality  control  within  the  justice  system  as  well  as  the 
reliability of public registers  will not be impaired by an enhanced digitalisation of cross-
border  cooperation;  the  control  of  the  technical  solution  is  crucial;  data  protection, 
confidentiality  and  high  securities  standards  in  the  digital  world  must  be  guaranteed  in 
the same way as in the “physical world”; not to exclude citizens who do not have internet 
access  or  cannot  use  technologies  for  various  reasons  and  make  sure  that  these  people 
will also continue to benefit from an efficient access to justice; the Commission should 
take  into  account  the  percentage  of  the  EU  population  living  in  remote  or  rural  areas, 
where access to internet or new technologies may not be easily achieved and where the 
drafting of documents on paper is necessary.  

German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection: 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The Ministry welcomes the initiative of the Commission to promote the digitalisation of 
cross-border judicial cooperation by means of a draft legislation. Both the analysis of the 
problem and the goals of the project are fundamentally shared. 

With regard to legislative options, consideration should be given to creating a minimum 
standard  for  the  participation  of  Member  States  in  cross-border  digital  communication 
via e-CODEX, which would offer a degree of trustworthiness of digital documents that is 
sufficient for a large number of the existing instruments in their current version. It should 
be  checked  whether  such  a  minimum  standard,  which  could  be  based  on  the  qualified 
electronic seal  in  accordance with  the e-IDAS  Regulation, cannot  already  be integrated 
into the proposal for e-CODEX Regulation. Insofar as individual instruments of judicial 
cooperation  have  higher  requirements  for  the  electronic  form  for  certain  documents, 
corresponding requirements could then be added to the legal acts concerned, again linked 
to quality levels of the e-IDAS Regulation. This approach would avoid having to reform 
a large number of legal acts, which experience shows would take a considerable amount 
of time. It should be avoided under all circumstances to define new, parallel standards in 
addition  to  the  established  and  directly  applicable  standards  of  the  e-IDAS  Regulation. 
Member  States  whose  institutions  already  use  qualified  e-IDAS-compliant  procedures 
must be able to rely on the fact that they will also be able to participate in future legal 
transactions on this basis. 

In  addition,  there  would  still  be  room  to  regulate  general  aspects  of  digitalised  judicial 
cooperation in a new regulation, such as the general obligation to use the digital channel 
and  the  obligation  to  accept  digital  documents  if  they  meet  the  requirements  of  the  e-
IDAS  Regulation.  This  would  also  ensure  the  uniformity  of  the  formats  and  formal 
requirements used. Exceptions with regard to the availability of the digital systems and 
the specific requirements of certain procedures would also have to be regulated. Last but 
not least, the rules for setting up of any IT systems that are still required could be set on 
the basis of already proven structures such as e-CODEX. 

The outlined challenges are the following: common IT solutions for judicial cooperation 
at European level must be designed in such a way that they respect the independence of 
the judiciary and the principle of subsidiarity; the judiciary in the Member States should 
have a say in the initial and further development of IT systems that enable cross-border 
legal exchanges; appropriate transition periods before an application becomes mandatory. 

The Ministry notes the need of developing reference implementation software that can be 
used  across  the  EU.  The  use  of  national  IT  systems  instead  of  the  reference 
implementations must remain possible if these systems meet the objective standards for 
security, authenticity and interoperability. 

European Disability Forum, Belgium: 

The Forum welcomes the initiatives of the European Commission to improve access and 
efficiency of the justice system. Modernising judicial cooperation between EU countries 
to improve access to justice in cross-border cases, through the use of digital technology, 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
can be very beneficial to persons with disabilities. Persons with disabilities currently face 
multiple barriers in the justice system (including digital barriers) that hinder their access 
to  justice  in  cross-border  cases.  They  are  also  affected  by  the  digital  gap.  The 
recommendations  made  include  recognising  the  accessibility  as  a  core  principle  of  the 
modernisation  of  the 
judicial  cooperation  between  EU  countries  and  ensuring 
accessibility is a requirement in all related EU initiatives. 

Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Latvia: 

Latvia  agrees  that  the  introduction  of  a  common  EU  legal  framework  in  the  field  of 
cross-border digitalisation of judicial cooperation would ensure faster and more efficient 
judicial cooperation between the Member States. 

In  cross-border  matters,  the  electronic  circulation  of  documents  is  currently  rare  in 
practice  due  to  a  lack  of  mutual  trust  between  the  countries.  Electronic  circulation  is 
mainly  ensured  by  converting  paper  documents  into  electronic  format,  scanning  and 
sending them to the Member State concerned, but the Member States still require that the 
original documents are sent to them in paper form. This is a time consuming process and 
requires  double  labor  resources.  The  introduction  of  a  mutual  mechanism  for  the 
recognition  of  electronic  signatures  between  the  Member  States  would  speed  up  these 
processes.  

The  proposal  to  establish  legal  channels  for  the  circulation  of  electronic  documents 
between MS is also to be supported, because it reduces the risks of information leakage 
and creates certainty in  cross-border judicial cooperation. Given that the instruments of 
judicial cooperation in both civil and criminal law are evolving and new electronic data 
transmission  channels  are  being  created,  the  idea  of  improving  existing  information 
transmission channels should be supported. 

International Union of Notaries Professional Assistants: 

Gathering all the necessary documents in  digital form  will be a great  help, to  send and 
receive digitally signed documents will save a lot of time and money. E-signature should 
be applied also in the copies of notarial acts with the same value in all countries.  

The usual problem is the lack of training of citizens, people usually don't know how to 
use  them  or  they  are  not  informed.  As  the  process  goes,  there  should  be  online  free 
seminars for everyone that is interested. 

Studio Legale de Franciscis, Italy: 

Studio  Legale  supports  the  establishment  of  a  system  for  digital  cooperation  in  cross-
border  cases.  Modernisation  and  development  in  this  sense  must  be  encouraged, 
including  the  necessary  protection  of  data.  In  case  the  system  is  not  used  –  respective 
penalties to be provided for. 

Brussels Human Rights and Development Organization: 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Brussels  Human  Rights  and  Development  Organization  supports  the  initiative.  The 
information must be protected and its safe transmission should be guaranteed. However, 
the paper exchanges should be kept.  

Francois Gerin, a citizen from Belgium, a software engineer: 

Mr  Gerin  submits  that  software  which  is  coded  will  lead  to  challenges  (as  it  happened 
with  BE  IDs),  therefore  the  source  should  be  open.  Since  this  is  an  EU matter,  and  no 
foreign software maker (Google and Microsoft) should interfere or get monopoly on or 
profit from this project. Small software companies, which participate much more in the 
economy should be favored. 

Anonymous citizen from France: 

It  seems  weird  that  nowadays  one  cannot  communicate  electronically  with  authorities. 
The paper format however should be kept. 

Giorgio Cannella, a citizen from Italy: 

Sanctions  should  be  applied  if  a  private  or  public  body  of  a  Member  State  does  not 
comply with the mandatory provisions of the Regulation. 

2.2. PUBLIC CONSULTATION RESULTS 

The public consultation sought the views and opinions of all stakeholders who could be 
impacted  by  the  future  initiative  (citizens,  ministries,  courts,  JHA  agencies  and  EU 
bodies, legal practitioners) in order to take them into consideration when deciding on the 
possible options and the way forward.  

A summary of some of the main findings could be found below. Detailed and visualised 
results of the Public consultation can be found in Annex 2. 

Benefits and disadvantages of the digitalisation of EU cross-border judicial procedures 

A  large  majority  of  respondents  perceive  benefits  from  the  digitalisation  of  EU  cross-
border  judicial  procedures  (≈98%),  with  only  very  few  stakeholders  (≈2%)  indicating 
that they do not perceive benefits at all. More than 80% of the respondents agree with the 
statement  that  digitalisation  will  lead  to  speedier  and  more  effective/efficient  cross-
border  procedures  (≈88%),  will  save  time  for  both  administrations  and  citizens  or 
businesses  (≈87%),  that  it  will  lead  to  better  accessibility  of  information  and  easier 
access  to  judicial  procedures  (≈86%),  and  will  lower  costs  of  handling  cases  both  for 
administrations and citizens/businesses (≈81%). A minority of stakeholders believe that it 
will increase the resilience of judicial systems (≈38%) or  will lead to any other type of 
benefit. 

With  regards  to  the  disadvantages,  62.5%  of  the  stakeholders  express  cybersecurity 
concerns. Data protection is a concern for ≈49% of the respondents, and so is the risk of 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
exclusion due to different factors, including lack of digital skills (≈42%), lack of access 
to  the  internet/unreliable  internet  connection  (≈32%)  or  due  to  lack  of  adequate 
equipment  (≈31%).  For  12.5%  of  the  stakeholders  the  digitalisation  will  not  bring  any 
disadvantages. 

Concerning the rights to a fair trial and the right of defense, more than two thirds (≈66%) 
of the stakeholders do not see in the digitalisation of cross-border judicial cooperation a 
threat to the right to a fair trial and the right of defense. A fifth of the respondents (≈20%) 
perceive a threat to these rights. 

Key barriers to the digitalisation of cross-border judicial cooperation 

A majority of stakeholders identify six specific barriers to digitalisation of cross-border 
judicial  cooperation.  These  are  i)  the  different  level  of  digitalisation  of  the  Member 
States  (≈84%),  ii)  the  lack  of  financial  and  human  resources  for  developing  and 
maintaining  IT systems  (≈68%),  iii) the lack of  digital  skills  of users and/or competent 
authority  staff  (≈65%),  iv)  lack  of  interoperable  national  IT  systems  which  can 
communicate with each other (≈62%), v) the lack of regulation recognising legal effects 
of  considering  electronic  evidence  admissible  under  national  law  (≈54%),  and  vi)  the 
lack  of  recognition  of  electronic  identities  and  electronic  signatures/seals  between 
Member States (50%). 

The  stakeholders  were  asked  further  questions  on  other  challenges  that  should  be 
considered during the transition to digitalisation of cross-border judicial cooperation. 57 
respondents  provided  open-ended  responses.  The  most  frequently  mentioned  challenge 
(13 respondents) was the need to secure harmonised or mutually recognised channels for 
communication that are interoperable; 8 respondents indicated the heterogeneous degree 
of digitalisation across the EU in general or in particular in relation to the justice system; 
7 respondents indicated the security of the channels, and the same number of respondents 
pointed  out  challenges  to  the  security,  privacy,  and  independence  of  the  judiciary  and 
judicial  bodies.  Other  challenges  identified  are  the  digital  transition  as  such  (6),  issues 
related  to  equal  access  to  justice  and  guarantees  to  fundamental  rights  (6),  the 
admissibility of electronic documents and language issues (both 4).  

According to ≈51% of respondents the digitalisation of cross-border judicial cooperation 
could  lead  to  exclusion  of  individuals  and  businesses,  including  SMEs,  due  to  lack  of 
internet access, low digital skills, vulnerability or other reasons. 

Preferred  scenario  for  digitalisation  of  EU  cross-border  judicial  cooperation  and 
access to justice 

Regarding the digitalisation of the cooperation between  the  courts  and other competent 
authorities of Member States, 80% of the respondents would prefer the digitalisation of 
this  cooperation  to  be  mandatory,  for  only  ≈16%  that  would  prefer  it  to  be  optional. 
Among  the  public  authorities,  support  for  a  mandatory  digitalisation  of  the  judicial 
cooperation  is  expressed  by  ≈68%  of  the  respondents,  for  ≈26%  of  them  that  would 
prefer the electronic exchange to be optional. Roughly 67% of the respondents prefer the 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
electronic  format  as  the  most  adequate  for  communication  between  judicial  and  other 
competent authorities across borders, while approximately 28% of the respondents prefer 
a  combination  of  paper-based  and  electronic  communication.  Thus,  95%  of  the 
respondents  identify  the  electronic  format  as  the  most  appropriate  channel  for 
communication, either exclusively or in combination with the paper-based channel. The 
involvement  of  the  JHA  agencies  and  EU  bodies  in  the  digital  channels  of 
communication is thought to bring added value for a large majority of the respondents to 
the specific question (≈68%). 

Regarding  access  to  justice  two  thirds  (≈66%)  of  the  respondents  support  mandatory 
digitalisation  of  cross-border  electronic  communication  of  individuals  and  businesses 
with the courts and other authorities. The public consultation did not include a question 
on the use of the videoconferencing or other distance communication technology for the 
purposes  of  the  oral  hearings,  because  this  option  was  identified  after  the  public 
consultation was launched. 

Two-thirds  of  the  respondents  indicated  that  they  would  directly  benefit  from  an  EU-
developed IT solution provided to them in the context of a possible transition to a digital 
channel of communication for EU cross-border judicial cooperation procedures. 

Results of the public consultation 

Consultation on the Digitalisation of Cross-Border Judicial Cooperation 
in the EU 

The  main  observations  from  the  extraction  of  the  89  replies  to  the  public  consultation  are  the 
following: The most frequent (43) replies were from EU citizens, followed by public authorities 
(20).  Their  six  main  countries  of  origin  were  Spain  (11),  Germany  (10,)  Belgium  (7)  Italy, 
Portugal, and Romania (6). 

Table 6 - Feedback by stakeholders 

–  Stakeholder type 

–  Number of replies 

–  Academic/research institution 

–  Business association 

–  Company/business organisation 

–  Consumer organisation 

–  EU citizen 

–  Non-governmental organisation (NGO) 

–  4 

–  1 

–  6 

–  1 

–  43 

–  7 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
–  Other 

–  Public authority 

–  Total 

–  7 

–  20 

–  89 

Table 7 - Feedback by country of origin/affiliation 

–  Country 

–  Austria 

–  Belgium 

–  Bulgaria 

–  Croatia 

–  Cyprus 

–  Czechia 

–  Estonia 

–  Finland 

–  France 

–  Germany 

–  Greece 

–  Hungary 

–  Ireland 

–  Italy 

–  Latvia 

–  Lithuania 

–  Luxembourg 

–  Malta 

–  Netherlands 

–  Poland 

–  Portugal 

–  Number of replies 

–  5 

–  7 

–  4 

–  2 

–  1 

–  2 

–  1 

–  1 

–  4 

–  10 

–  2 

–  1 

–  1 

–  6 

–  1 

–  5 

–  1 

–  2 

–  2 

–  3 

–  6 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
–  Romania 

–  Slovakia 

–  Slovenia 

–  Spain 

–  Switzerland 

–  United Kingdom 

–  Total 

–  6 

–  2 

–  1 

–  11 

–  1 

–  1 

–  89 

The  overview  below  focuses  on  the  main  questions  that  can  be  analysed  from  a  purely 
quantitative approach. 

Benefits of the digitalisation of EU cross-border judicial procedures 

A  large  majority  of  respondents  perceive  benefits  from  the  digitalisation  of  EU  cross-border 
judicial  procedures  (≈98%),  with  only  very  few  stakeholders  (≈2%)  indicating  that  the  do  not 
perceive benefits at all. More than 80% of the respondents agree with the statement that it will 
lead to speedier and more effective/efficient cross-border procedures (≈89%), cause less time to 
be consumed for both administrations and citizens or businesses (≈88%), that it will lead to better 
accessibility of information and easier access to judicial procedures (≈85%), and to lower costs of 
handling cases both for administrations and citizens/businesses (≈81%). 

A minority of stakeholders believe that it will increase the resilience of judicial systems (≈37) or 
lead to any other type of benefit. 

Figure 2: What would be, in  your view, the benefits of the digitalisation of 

EU cross-border? 

100,00%

90,00%

80,00%

70,00%

60,00%

50,00%

40,00%

30,00%

20,00%

10,00%

0,00%

88,64%

87,50%

85,23%

80,68%

36,36%

22,73%

2,27%

Speedier and more
effective/efficient
cross-border
procedures

Less time consumed
for both
administrations and
citizens/businesses

Better accessibility of
information and easier
access to judicial
procedures

Lower costs of
handling cases for
both administrations
and citizens /
businesses

Increased resilience of
judicial systems

Other (please
elaborate in the box
below)

I don’t see any 
benefits

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key barriers to the digitalisation of cross-border judicial cooperation 

A majority of stakeholders identify six specific barriers to digitalisation of cross-border judicial 
cooperation.  The  barriers  perceived  by  the  most  stakeholders  is  the  different  level  of 
digitalisation  of  the  Member  States  (≈84%),  followed  by  the  lack  of  financial  and  human 
resources for developing and maintaining IT systems (≈67%), the lack of digital  skills of users 
and/or  competent  authority  staff  (≈65%),  lack  of  interoperable  national  IT  systems  which  can 
communicate  with  each  other  (≈61%),  the  lack  of  regulation  recognising  legal  effects  of 
considering  electronic  evidence  admissible  under  national  law  (≈56%),  and  the  lack  of 
recognition of electronic identities and electronic signatures/seals between Member States (50%). 

Figure 3: What do you consider as key barriers to the digitalisation of cross-

border judicial cooperation? 

84,09%

67,05%

64,77%

61,36%

55,68%

50,00%

47,73%

42,05%

36,36%

21,59%

100,00%

90,00%

80,00%

70,00%

60,00%

50,00%

40,00%

30,00%

20,00%

10,00%

0,00%

Disadvantages of the digitalisation of EU cross-border judicial 
procedures 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Despite  some  concerns  derived  from  the  digitalisation  of  EU  cross-border  judicial  procedures, 
12.5% of the stakeholders do not see disadvantages of it. 

Instead, 62.5% of the stakeholders express cybersecurity concerns. Data protection is a concern 
for ≈49%  of  the  respondents,  and  so is the risk  of  exclusion  due to  different factors, including 
lack of digital skills (≈42%), lack of access to the internet/unreliable internet connection (≈32%) 
or due to lack of adequate equipment (≈31%). 

Figure  4:  Disadvantages  of  the  digitalisation  of  EU  cross-border  judicial 

procedures 

100,00%

90,00%

80,00%

70,00%

60,00%

50,00%

40,00%

30,00%

20,00%

10,00%

0,00%

62,50%

48,86%

42,05%

Cybersecurity
concerns

Data protection
concerns

Risk of exclusion
due to:Lack of
digital skills

32,95%

30,68%

Risk of exclusion
due to:Lack of
access to the
internet /
unreliable internet
connection

Risk of exclusion
due to: Lack of
adequate
equipment (e.g. no
access to a
computer, or a
mobile device)

20,45%

14,77%

12,50%

Other (please
elaborate in the
box below)

Disproportionate
need of
investments

I don’t see any 
disadvantages

Right to a fair trial and defence 

More than two thirds (≈68%) of the stakeholders do not see in the digitalisation of cross-border 
judicial cooperation a threat to the right to a fair trial and the defence rights. Less than one fifth of 
the respondents (≈18%) perceive a threat to these rights. 

Figure 5: Could digitalisation of cross-border judicial cooperation adversely 

affect the right to a fair trial and defence rights? 

18%

14%

68%

No

Undecided

Yes

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Risk of exclusion of individuals and businesses, including SMEs 

A majority (≈54%) of the respondents to the question below identify that digitalisation of cross-
border judicial cooperation could exclude individuals and businesses, including SMEs.  

Figure  6:  In the  context  of a possible transition  to  an electronic  channel  of 
communication for EU cross-border judicial cooperation procedures: 
a) do you consider that there are risks of exclusion of individuals and 
businesses  (including  SMEs)  if  the  electronic  channel  becomes  the 
default one  (e.g. owing to lack of internet  access, low digital  skills, 
vulnerability or due to other reasons)? 

54%

37%

9%

No

Undecided

Yes

Preferred scenario for digitalisation of EU cross-border judicial 
cooperation 

Electronic communication between courts and other competent authorities 
of Member States 

Roughly 80% of the respondents would prefer electronic cooperation between courts and other 
competent authorities of Member States to be mandatory, for only  ≈15% that would prefer it to 
be optional. Among public authorities, ≈68% of them would like to have mandatory digitalisation 
of cross-border judicial cooperation, for ≈26% of them that would prefer this to be optional. 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  7:  Electronic  communication  of  individuals/businesses  with  the 
courts and other competent authorities of the Member States should 
be... 

Question 8b: Electronic communication of 
individuals/businesses with the courts and other competent 
authorities of the Member Stateshould be...

5%

15%

80%

Mandatory - i.e. use of the digital channel by default, subject to justified exceptions

Optional – i.e. left at the discretion of Member States

Undecided

Electronic communication of individuals/businesses with the courts and 
other competent authorities of the Member States 

Support for mandatory digitalisation of cross-border electronic communication of individuals and 
businesses with the courts and other authorities is relatively smaller, but majoritarian, with two 
thirds (≈67%) of the respondents supporting this option. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  8:  Electronic  communication  of  individuals/businesses  with  the 
courts and other competent authorities of the Member States should 
be... 

3%

30%

67%

Mandatory - i.e. obliging Member States to provide for such a possibility, without excluding alternative
channels

Optional - i.e. left at the discretion of Member States

Undecided

Aspects of digitalisation to be regulated through a new EU legal instrument 

There  is  widespread  support  for  the  regulation  of  four  aspects  of  digitalisation  of  cross-border 
judicial cooperation to be regulated in a new EU legal instrument. A large majority of consulted 
stakeholders (≈88%) indicate that the mandatory or optional nature of electronic communication 
with  and  between  competent  national  authorities  should  be  regulated.  The  legal  validity  of 
electronic documents and evidence should be subject to regulation for more than fourfifths of the 
respondents  (≈82%).  The  regulation  of  the  conditions  for  the  use  of  electronic  signature/seals 
(≈74%) and the responsibilities for data protection obligations (≈68%) also enjoy wide support. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  9:  In case it is  decided to  propose a new EU legal  instrument,  what 

aspects of digitalisation should it regulate? 

88,10%

82,14%

73,81%

67,86%

46,43%

19,05%

100,00%

90,00%

80,00%

70,00%

60,00%

50,00%

40,00%

30,00%

20,00%

10,00%

0,00%

The mandatory or optional
nature of electronic
communication with and
between competent
national authorities

The legal validity of
electronic documents and
evidence

The conditions for the use
of electronic
signatures/seals

The responsibilities for data
protection obligations

The architecture of the IT
system to be used

Other

Most adequate legal channel for communication between authorities across 

borders 

Roughly  66%  of  the  respondents  prefer  the  electronic  format  as  the  most  adequate  for 
communication  between  judicial  and  other  competent  authorities  across  borders,  while 
approximately 29% of the respondents think that the combination of paper-based and electronic 
communication is preferred. 33 (≈37%) respondents out of 89 respondents of the survey did not 
indicate any opinion. 

Figure 10: Which communication channel do you think is most appropriate 
for communication between judicial and other competent authorities 
across borders? 

3% 2%

29%

66%

Both

Electronic

Paper-based

Undecided

Involvement of EU bodies and services 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  involvement  of  EU  bodies  and/or  services  in  the  digital  channels  of  communication  is 
thought  to  bring  added  value  for  a  large  majority  of  the  respondents  to  the  specific  question 
(≈68%). The reasons why respondents argue that this would deliver added value will be explored 
in the final analysis. 

14 (≈25%) respondents out of 89 respondents of the survey replied that they were undecided and 
7% did not reply to the question at all. 

Figure  11:  Do  you  consider  that  the  involvement  of  EU  bodies  and/or 
services (such as the EPPO, OLAF, Eurojust) in the digital channels 
of communication would bring added value to the overall concept of 
digitalisation of judicial cooperation? 

7%

25%

68%

No

Undecided

Yes

Benefits of from an EU-developed IT solution 

Two-thirds  of  the  respondents  to  the  question  below  indicate  that  they  would  directly  benefit 
from and EU-developed IT solution provided to them in the context of a possible transition to an 
electronic  channel  of  communication  for  EU  cross-border  judicial  cooperation  procedures.  15 
(≈27%)  respondents  out  of  89  respondents  of  the  survey  indicated  that  they  were  undecided 
whereas the remaining 6% of the respondents did not answer to this question at all. 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 12: In the context of a possible transition to an electronic channel of 

communication 

6%

27%

67%

No

Undecided

Yes

Optimum way to achieve full digitalisation of cross-border judicial 
procedures at the European level 

A majority of the respondents (≈57%) indicate that the best way of achieving full digitalisation of 
cross-border judicial procedures at the EU level would be by adopting one EU legal instrument 
which  provides  for  the  digitalisation  of  all  cross-border  civil,  commercial  and  criminal 
procedures.  Less  than  one-fourth  (≈22%)  of  the  respondents  are  in  favour  adopting  a  series  of 
amendments to civil, commercial and criminal EU law instruments for the digitalisation of cross-
border  judicial  procedures,  and  one-seventh  of  the  respondents  (≈14%)  would  prefer  a 
promotional  campaign  regarding  the  use  of  the  various  channels  of  communication  without 
mandating their use.  

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  13:  What  would  be  the  best  way  to  achieve  full  digitalisation  of 

cross-border judicial procedures at the European level? 

7%

22%

14%

57%

By adopting a series of amendments to civil, commercial and criminal EU law instruments for the digitalisation
of cross-border judicial procedures

By adopting one EU legal instrument which provides for the digitalisation of all cross-border civil, commercial
and criminal procedures

By carrying out a promotional campaign regarding the use of the various electronic channels of communication,
without mandating their use

Undecided

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3: Who is affected and how? 

1. Practical implications of the initiative 

The preferred policy option would affect the following stakeholders: 

1.1.  Citizens 

Introducing  digital  use  for  enhancing  access  to  justice  for  cross-border  cases  in  civil, 
commercial and criminal matters will affect the citizens. The possibility for the citizens 
to file claims and to digitally communicate with the courts and competent authorities, as 
well  as  the  possibility  to  participate  in  oral  hearings  through  videoconference  or  other 
distance  communication  technology  will  ensure  improved  access  to  justice  in  cross-
border  procedures,  once  they  are  digitalised.  While  the  current  possibilities  for 
submission  of  claims  online  is  limited  to  a  few  Member  States  and  mainly  under  pilot 
projects,  this  will  now  be  extended  to  cover  all  Member  States.  As  a  consequence, 
barriers  for  citizens  to  take  action  will  be  reduced.  The  use  of  digital  tools  will  not 
require significant costs or investments on the part of the citizens. What would be needed 
is a computer and access to the internet. In order to ensure that citizens who lack digital 
skills,  who  live  in  remote  areas  or  whose  personal  capacity  does  not  allow  them  a 
seamless access to the digital tools, the paper based communication will be maintained. 

1.2.  Businesses and SMEs 

The businesses will be affected by the new initiative in a similar manner as the citizens. 
All legal entities will have the possibilities to digitally communicate with the courts and 
the competent authorities and to  take part of oral hearings though a videoconference or 
other  distance  communication  technology.  The  paper-based  communication  will  be 
maintained  for  the  legal  entities  as  for  the  citizens.  There  are  no  specific  costs  that  are 
foreseen for businesses – in order to make use of the digital communication, they need to 
possess a computer and to have access to the internet. The businesses will benefit from 
the  improved  access  to  justice  and  more  efficient  protection  of  their  rights,  which  is 
expected to have a beneficial effect on and to boost the cross-border trade. 

Similarly,  SMEs  involved  in  cross-border  transactions  are  expected  to  benefit  directly 
from the improved access to justice, as well as from lower costs and shorter proceedings 
when enforcing their rights across borders. This could also give impetus to the SMEs to 
engage more in cross-border transactions within EU. The lower costs of proceedings will 
have an indirect effect by improving the competitiveness of the SMEs. 

1.3. 

 Legal professionals 

Lawyers will be able to use the access point on the e-Justice portal or where established 
the  national  portals  of  the  Member  States,  to  electronically  sign  and  send  claims  and 
other  submissions  in  cross-border  cases  under  the  respective  EU  instruments  to 
competent courts and authorities in the Member States. The bailiff and notaries who are 
competent to act under the EU instruments for judicial cooperation in civil matters would 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
communicate between themselves and with the courts and the other competent authorities 
through the IT system which will be based on e-CODEX. To that end, the bailiffs and the 
notaries  will  need  to  be  connected  to  the  system,  through  the  access  point  of  the 
respective Member State, where they perform their duties. 

1.4.  National courts and other competent authorities 

The e-CODEX based IT system will be used to facilitate the communication between the 
courts and competent authorities and where relevant the JHA agencies and EU bodies in 
the context of the cross-border judicial cooperation procedures. The digital channel will 
be  used  to  transmit  documents,  requests,  forms,  messages  and  data  from  the 
courts/authorities  of  one  Member  State  to  courts/authorities  in  another  Member  State, 
with  the  purpose  of  conducting  the  proceedings  as  foreseen  under  the  rules  of  the 
respective EU instruments. The processing of the communication will be  similar to  the 
exchange of requests, forms and documents under the recently adopted recasts of service 
of documents and taking of evidence regulations. 

It  is  expected  that  Member  States  will  incur  one-off  expenditures  for  installing  the 
national  access  points  interconnecting  the  national  IT  systems  in  the  context  of  the 
decentralised IT system. Furthermore, each Member State will have to bear the costs for 
the  operation  and  maintenance  of  its  access  points,  as  well  as  for  establishing  and 
adjusting its national IT systems to make them interoperable with the access points and 
for administering, operating and maintaining those systems. Member States will be free 
to  use  the  Reference  Implementation  software  which  the  Commission  will  develop  for 
them, instead of their national IT systems. The e-CODEX tool is an open-source solution 
that  could  be  used  free  of  charge.  All  these  extra  costs  from  national  authorities  go 
alongside  with  co-financing  from  the  European  Commission.  It  should  be  highlighted 
that  some  Member  States  already  possess  and  operate  a  pilot  version  of  e-CODEX, 
which they may reinstall and upgrade for the current purposes. Similarly, eEDES and the 
decentralised  IT  system  for  the  service  of  documents  and  taking  of  evidence  recast 
Regulation,  which  is  currently  being  set  up,  could  also  be  re-used.  These  electronic 
systems follow a multifunctional approach for other digitalised EU mechanisms in order 
to avoid unnecessary expenses. 

Courts and competent authorities, which are not equipped with videoconferencing tools, 
will have to invest in buying such equipment, if they are planning to use the possibility to 
organise remote hearings. 

Finally,  improving  the  efficiency  of  the  communication  in  the  context  of  cross-border 
judicial cooperation and access to justice by employing digital tools, will probably lead 
to an increased use of the EU instruments for cross-border judicial cooperation in civil, 
commercial and criminal matters. That would bring about an increase in the costs for the 
national judicial systems.  

It  is  expected  that  in  the  medium  and  long  term,  all  these  costs  will  be  offset  by  the 
expected  decrease  in  the  length  of  proceedings,  the  expected  decrease  of  the  time  for 
processing  the  cases,  by  the  alleviated  administrative  burden  and  also  by  reducing  the 
cost  for  the  communication  itself  (the  costs  for  sending  electronic  communication  is 
lower than the costs for sending postal packages).  

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Summary of costs and benefits 

Description 

Compliance cost reductions 

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 

Amount 

Direct benefits (EUR) 

Comments 

25,589,060  The average overall yearly savings in 

postage costs and in paper costs for 
individuals/legal entities and courts 

II. Overview of costs – Preferred option 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

0 

0 

0 

0  18,700,000  8,100,000 

Direct costs 

Action (a)   

Indirect costs 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 4: Analytical methods 

4.1 Methodology used to collect data 

The evidence, relevant data and information collected to support the Impact Assessment 
were collected from the following sources: 

  Study by an external contractor; 
  Public consultation; 
  Other sources of information – EU Justice Scoreboard and the accompanying 

factsheets; Eurostat surveys, data collected by CEPEJ; statistics on the 
European e-Justice Portal. 

The  data  used  in  the  Impact  Assessment  is  largely  based  on  the  Study.  The 
methodological  approach  used  by  the  external  contractor  builds  upon  a  variety  of 
research  methods  to  ensure  that  all  relevant  data  is  gathered  to  perform  an  in-depth 
assessment of the selected policy options and their impacts: (1) primary  data collection 
methods  (e.g.  interviews,  focus  groups,  workshop);  (2)  secondary  data  collection 
methods (e.g. desk research, national legal mapping in all 26 Member States (all Member 
States  except  Denmark),  legal  review  of  EU  standards,  literature  review  etc.);  (3) 
quantitative  analysis  (e.g.  costs  benefits  analysis)  and  (4)  qualitative  analysis  methods 
(e.g. content analysis). The policies and legislation are assessed transparently, based on 
factual evidence and considering the views of the stakeholders concerned.  

Specifically, the following stakeholder consultation activities were undertaken: 

  EU level focus group; 
  National stakeholder consultation on impacts of policy options 

o  National-level survey; 
o  Focus groups at national level ; 

  Validation by stakeholders. 

EU level focus group 

The EU-level focus group was held online on May 4, 2021. The aim of the focus group 
was  to  bring  together  the  EU-level  stakeholders  that  have  knowledge  and/or  interest  in 
the topic concerned in order to:  

 

Identify  and  discuss  synergies  with  existing  and  planned  digital  channels  of 
communication with the JHA agencies, EJN-criminal, and JITs; 

  Analyse and discuss coherence with the e-IDAS and EU identity initiatives; 

 

Identify  technical  solutions  that  could  be  proposed  for  the  purposes  of 
digitalisation of cross-border judicial cooperation; 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Identify and analyse problems and issues related to the use of digital solutions in 
communications  between  the  competent  authorities  of  the  Member  States  and 
between those authorities and the parties to the proceedings; 

  Discuss  potential  impacts  of  the  various  proposed  policy  options,  including 
impacts on fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair trial, right to defence, the 
right to data protection. 

The focus group gathered representatives from relevant EU agencies (Eurojust, EU-Lisa, 
European  Judicial  Network  in  criminal  matters,  European  Judicial  Network  in  civil 
matters,  FRA),  institutions  involved  in  EU  pilots  on  digitalisation  of  cross-border 
communication (The e-CODEX consortium, E-Evidence group), consumer associations, 
legal and judicial practitioners, and NGOs.  

National stakeholder consultation on impacts of policy options 

The  national-level  targeted  stakeholder  consultation  was  concentrated  around  a  limited 
number of Member States (15 Member States), on the basis of the following criteria:  

 

geographical  criteria,  e.g.,  larger  and  smaller  Member  States,  Western  and 
Eastern Member States, Northern and Southern Member States;  

  Level  of  digitalisation  of  justice  system,  as  assessed  by  the  Justice  Scoreboard, 

having Member States with high, medium and low levels of digitalisation;  

  Participation  in  EU  pilot  projects,  such  as  those  for  the  e-Codex  (e.g.  European 

Payment Order, Small Claims procedures);  

  Type of legal system.  

The  following  Member  States  were  selected  for  the  national-level  targeted  stakeholder 
consultation: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, 
Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden. 

The  national  stakeholder  consultation  was  carried  out  by  means  of  a  (1)  national-level 
survey  of  selected  stakeholder  groups  in  the  15  representative  Member  States;  (2) 
national-level  focus  group  with  key  stakeholders  from  the  15  representative  Member 
States. 

National-level survey 

The national-level survey in the selected 15 Member States aimed to:  

  Collect  information  for  testing  the  legal,  technical  and  political  feasibility  of  the 
policy  options,  their  efficiency  and  effectiveness,  proportionality  and  relevance  for 
the different categories of impacted stakeholders;  

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  Gather additional qualitative and quantitative inputs on the likely consequences of the 
policy  options,  to  be  included  in  the  analysis  of  impacts  and  comparison  of  the 
options.  

The following groups of stakeholders were targeted by this exercise:  

o  National  Authorities,  most  specifically  Ministries  (e.g.  Justice,  Interior 

etc.), IT departments and agencies;  

o  National contact points of Eurojust and the EJN-civil and EJN-criminal;  
o  Organisations 

judges,  prosecutors 

representing 

courts 

and 

in 

civil/criminal/commercial areas;  

o  Organisations  representing 

legal/judicial  practitioners 

in 

the  civil, 

commercial and criminal justice system (lawyers, notaries, bailiffs);  

o  Consumers’ organisations;  
o  NGOs 

involved 

in  projects  promoting  digitalisation 

in 

judicial 

cooperation; 

o  NGOs  representing  citizens  interests  (e.g.  NGOs  providing  legal  support 

in cross-border proceedings);  

o  Chambers of Commerce or Business Associations providing legal support 
services in cross-border proceedings to businesses (including SMEs). 

The  questionnaire  for  the  national-level  stakeholder  consultation  remained  open  in  the 
online  survey  platform  Surveygizmo  for  approximately  four  weeks.  Information  about 
the  survey  was    disseminated  among  relevant  stakeholder  groups,  with  follow-up  and 
assistance provided, whenever necessary. 

Data  collected  through  the  national-level  focus  group  feeds  into  the  analysis  of  policy 
options and their impacts, as well as into the comparison of policy options. 

Focus groups at national level 

The  focus  group  at  national  level  was  carried  out  online  on  the  15th  July  2021.  The 
objective of the national-level focus group was to obtain an in-depth exploration of views 
of national-level stakeholders on the proposed policy options and their potential impact 
on various stakeholder groups. A total of 15 to 20 participants from the selected Member 
States were invited, and an equal representation of all relevant stakeholder groups ((Legal 
practitioners;  Business  organisations;  Consumers  organisations;  NGOs  providing  legal 
assistance  and  representation)  was  ensured.  While  mainly  qualitative  information  was  
collected  through  the  focus  group  discussions,  an  attempt  was  made  to  also  collect  as 
much quantitative information as possible. 

Data  collected  through  the  national-level  focus  group  feeds  into  the  analysis  of  policy 
options and their impacts, as well as into the comparison of policy options. 

4.2. Methodology used to compare the policy options 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The comparison of the policy options was performed based on their impacts. The policy 
options  have  been  compared  systematically,  and  their  impacts  presented  in  a  user-
friendly  format.  Strengths  and  weaknesses  have  been  identified  both  qualitatively  and 
quantitatively,  to  the  extent  possible.  Specifically,  each  option  has  been  evaluated  with 
regard to how it addresses the identified problems.  

The table below outlines the criteria used for the comparison of policy options. 

Table 3 - criteria used for the comparison of policy options 

Criterion 

Key questions 

Indicators/methods for comparison 

Coherence 

Effectiveness 

•  To what extent is each policy 
option coherent with other 
relevant initiatives? 

•  To what extent is each policy 

option coherent with wider EU 
policy? 

•  To what extent is each option is 
contributing to establish a 
coherent framework by reducing 
the legal fragmentation across 
Member States? 

  What would be the (quantitative 
and qualitative) effects of each 
option? 

  Which policy option would be 
most effective in achieving the 
set objectives of the current 
initiative? 

Efficiency 

  What would be the incurred costs 
and benefits under each policy 
option? 

• 

• 

• 

Identification of overlaps and/or 
synergies between policy options and 
relevant initiatives; 
Identification of contrasts and/or 
discrepancies between policy options 
and relevant initiatives;  
Identification of a preferred option, 
where possible. 

  Comparison of expected 

effectiveness of each policy option 
against the evaluation baseline; 

  Comparison of expected 

effectiveness of the policy options 
against each other; 
Identification of a preferred option, 
where possible. 

 

  Comparison of potential costs and 

benefits borne by each stakeholder group 
under each policy option; 
Identification of a preferred option, 
where possible. 

  To what extent will the costs 

 

associated with the intervention be 
proportionate to the benefits it is 
expected to generate? 

  How proportionate will be the costs 

of the intervention borne by different 
stakeholder groups, taking into 
account the distribution of associated 
benefits? 

  Which policy option would be most 

cost-effective? 

EU added 

  Are there clear benefits from EU 

  Comparison of EU added value against 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
value 

level action? 

the evaluation baseline; 

  Can the objectives be met more 

  Comparison of EU added value of each 

efficiently (less 
  costly) at EU level? 

 

policy option; 
Identification of a preferred option, 
where possible. 

The application to each of the above criteria is described below to the identified policy 
options is explained below: 

Coherence refers to synergies between the proposed options and existing initiatives such 
as  e-CODEX,  eEDES,  the  new  e-identity  initiative  by  the  Commission  and  the  digital 
solutions  under  the  Digital  Criminal  Justice  Study.  Under  this  aspect,  similarities  and 
complementarities  between  initiatives  on  the  one  hand,  and  potential  contrasts  and 
discrepancies between them on the other hand have been detected. The final aim of this 
analysis  was  to  identify  the  policy  option(s)  which  would  ensure  the  highest  level  of 
coherence  with  the  existing  initiatives.  Moreover,  coherence  refers  also  to  the  level  of 
harmonisation  of  the  legal  frameworks  across  Member  States,  involved  under  each 
option. In this regard, the options aimed to reduce legal fragmentation across countries, 
thus  eliminating  uncertainty  for  individuals  and  legal  entities  were  identified.  Finally, 
coherence was examined with regard to the existing EU instruments in civil/commercial 
and criminal law. 

Effectiveness  analysis  considered  how  successful  the  proposed  options  would  be  in 
achieving or progressing towards their objectives. It examined whether the objectives of 
the initiative will likely be achieved or not. 

Efficiency  looked  closely  to  the  extent possible at  both  the likely  costs and benefits  of 
the  proposed  options  as  they  accrue  to  different  stakeholders,  identifying  what  factors 
were driving these costs/benefits and how these factors related to the examined options. 

The  efficiency  analysis  was  based  on  quantitative  information  collected  through  a 
national-level  online  survey,  as  well  as  through  bilateral  e-mail  exchanges  with 
representatives  of  Member  States’  authorities.  Since  the  quantitative  information 
gathered  was  heterogeneous,  to  overcome  the  encountered  limitation  of  lacking 
comparable  national-level  quantitative  data,  the  efficiency  analysis  was  complemented 
with      qualitative  information  (description  of  processes  and  types  of  costs  and  benefits 
deriving from the options), collected through interviews with various stakeholder groups 
in different Member States. The consultation with the relevant stakeholders revealed that 
little to no statistical data is collected by the Member States on the number of the cross-
border cases, the cost and the length of the cross-border proceedings. Therefore statistical 
inferences had to be made. Similarly, data on the means of communication between the 
courts/competent authorities is not systematically collected. Therefore, the analysis was 
based  on  the  limited  data  collected  through  bilateral  interviews  with  some  of  the 
stakeholders and estimations were made on that basis. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  EU  added  value  considered  the  arguments  about  the  value  resulting  from  the 
proposed  options  that  is  additional  to  the  value  that  would  have  resulted  from 
levels.
interventions 

initiated 

national 

at 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
–  COUN
TRY 

–  AUST
RIA 
(AT) 

Annex 5: COVID19 impact on civil proceedings – national measures  

Table 4 - Comparative Table of 14 April 2020 

–  Time limits in civil proceedings 

–  Judicial organization and Judiciary 

– 

International/EU Cooperation 

–  Case 

of 

workers 

Central 
Authorities are working from home 
:  communication  by  email 
is 
recommended  

–  Law on 22/03/2020  

–  Restriction  of  contacts  between  courts  and 

parties.  

– 
–  General shutdown of specific courts if need be, 
accompanied  by  the  possibility  to  direct  urgent 
cases to other courts.  

– 

– 

–  Procedural  time  limits  open  on  22/03  or  time  limits  that 
under  normal  circumstances  would  have  started  to  run  after 
this  date  are  interrupted  and  will  be  suspended  until  30-04-
2020. They will start running again. That means that a 14-day 
time limit will end on 15/05 and a 4-week time limit will end 
on 29/05. 

– 

–  Exceptions  (inter  alia):  payment  deadlines,  forced  psychiatric 
admission. In cases of imminent danger for safety or personal 
freedom as well as in cases of irretrievable damages, the court 
can end the interruption earlier. 

– 

–  Limitation  periods (e.g. prescription) are suspended between 

22/03 and 30/04.  

– 

–  Enforcement  proceedings:  Enforcement  orders  are  only 
carried  out  in  the  event  of  imminent  danger  to  life,  limb, 
security  or  freedom  or  to  avert  substantial  and  irretrievable 
damage.    Possible  stay  of  a  forced  auction  of  movable  and 
immovable  property  if  the  debtor  faces  economic  difficulties 
due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  Evictions  can  be  suspended 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
–  BELGI
UM 
(BE) 

upon request if the debtor would otherwise become homeless. 

–  Adopted measures (8 April 2020): 

–  Adopted measures (8 April 2020): 

– 

–  Limitation  periods  and  deadlines  for  introducing  judicial 
remedies that expire between the 8th of April 2020 and the 3rd 
of May 2020 are extended by one month after the expiration of 
this period (i.e. postponed to the 3rd of June 2020). If need be, 
the government may extend the final date of this period.  

– 

–  Deadlines in judicial proceedings in civil matters that expire 
between the 8th of April 2020 and the 3rd of May 2020 and the 
expiration  of  which  could  lead  to  forfeiture  or  any  other 
damage, are extended by one month after the expiration of the 
crisis period (i.e. postponed to the 3rd of June 2020). If need be, 
the government may extend the final date of the crisis period. 
This doesn’t apply to urgent matters. 

– 

– 

– 

In  civil  matters,  judicial  hearings  that  were 
supposed to occur between the 10th of April 2020 
and  the  3th  of  June  2020  (this  may  be  extended 
by  the  government)  are  cancelled  when  all 
parties  have 
their  written 
conclusions.  The  judge  shall  take  a  decision 
without  hearing,  solely  on  the  basis  of  the 
written conclusions, unless the parties oppose. If 
the parties oppose, the case will be postponed. 

already 

sent 

–  Civil  courts  have  resorted 

to  using  video 
conference  tools  when  continuing  to  proceed 
with handling cases in court. 

– 

–  Foreseen measures: 

–  Foreseen measures: 

– 

– 

–  Extension  by  6  months  of  the  deadlines  in  the  context  of 
judicial sales of immovable properties that expire between the 
18th of March 2020 and the 30th of June 2020. 

– 

–  Suspension of enforcement proceedings against companies.  

–  The  following  regime  should  be  finalised  soon. 
Legal  deadlines  that  apply  to  notaries  and  that 
expire  between  3  April  2020  and  the  entry  into 
force  of  the  foreseen  royal  decree  are  extended 
by  one  month.  Notarized  powers  received  from 
March 13, 2020 to June 30, 2020 and which take 
effect  only  from  March  13  until  June  30,  2020 
will be free of charge. Notarized powers may be 
received 
(on 
and 
electronic  support  and  with  an  electronic 
identification  and  signature).  Removal  of  the 
requirement  for  witnesses  and  the  presence  of 
several notaries in an authentic will.  

electronically 

remotely 

82 

–  Following 

COVID-19 
the 
outbreak, the modality of work and 
the  organisation  of  the  Belgian 
Central Authorities in civil matters 
have  not  changed,  with 
the 
that  most  Belgian 
exception 
Central  Authority 
caseworkers 
only  operate  via  telework.  A  few 
agents continue to be present 1 day 
per  week,  to  check  incoming  post 
and  secure  outgoing  post,  for 
instance  with  regard  to  service  of 
documents. 

– 

–  A  message  has  been  sent  out  via 
the  European  judicial  network  to 
all  contact  points  indicating  that 
communications can continue to be 
sent  exclusively  by  e-mail  to  the 
caseworkers.  The  Belgian  Central 
Authorities  remain  available  by 
telephone  and  e-mail.  It  has  been 
advised to send new requests to the 
functional  mailboxes  with  regard 
taking  of 
to  child  abduction, 
evidence,  legal  aid,  maintenance 
obligations, and child protection. 

– 

–  The  treatment  of  individual  cases 
could  be  delayed  as  a  result  of 
lower  staffing.  So  far,  all  agents 
remain active and cases continue to 
be  handled  on  a  daily  basis  as 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
before the COVID-19 outbreak. 

International legal assistance is still 
provided by the Ministry of Justice 
and  by  the  courts  but  might  be 
delayed. 

– 

– 

– 

– 

–  BULG
ARIA 
(BG) 

–  Specific legislation:  

- Law on the measures and actions during the state of emergency 
declared  by  a  decision  of  the  National  Assembly  of  13  March 
2020, adopted on 23 march 2020 and amended on 6 April 2020. 

– 

– 

–  State of emergency: 13 March – 13 May 2020  

Initially,  the  period of  the  state  of  emergency  was  fixed  from 
13 March until 13 April 2020. This period has been prolonged 
until 13 May 2020. 

– 

– 

–  Procedural deadlines: 

– 

-  Suspension of deadlines: 

– 

 All  procedural  deadlines  in  civil  judicial,  arbitration  and 
enforcement  proceedings  are  suspended  except  in 
  the 
following  civil and commercial litigation cases: 

–  1.  Cases  for  exercising  parental  rights  only  in  respect  of 

provisional measures; 

–  2.  Cases  under  the  Domestic  Violence  Protection  Act  only 
concerning  an  order  for  immediate  protection  or  amendment 
thereof, as well as in cases where the request for protection is 
rejected; 

–  Court hearings 

– 

–  Until  the  state  of  emergency  is  lifted,  court 
hearings,  may  be  held  remotely,  ensuring  direct 
and  virtual  participation  of  the  parties  and 
participants in the proceedings. Minutes shall be 
drawn  up  for  the  meetings  held  and  shall  be 
published  without  delay  and  the  minutes  of  the 
meeting  shall  be  kept  until  the  deadline  for 
amendment  and  completion  of  the  minutes.  The 
court  shall  inform  the  parties  when  the  hearing 
will be held at a distance. 

– 

– 

–  The Supreme Judicial Council has issued orders 
for  the  provision of  the  necessary  precautionary 
measures  to  prevent  the  spread  of  the  virus  in 
court buildings, for filing documents to courts by 
mail or electronically, as well as for consultation 
on 
the 
the  phone  or  electronically.  For 
mentioned  hearings,  summons  is  served  by 
telephone or electronically.  

– 

–  Registry proceedings 

–  The  services  provided  by 

the  Commercial 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
–  3. Permits for withdrawal of funds from children's deposits; 

Register and Register of non-profit legal entities 
and other registers are accessible online. 

–  4.Interim proceedings; 

–  5. Evidence preservation cases; 

–  6.  Requests  under  the  Electronic  Communications  Act  and  in 
connection  with  termination  of  registry  proceedings  on  the 
basis of an act of the court  under the Law on the Commercial 
Register and the Register of Non-Profit Legal Entities; 

–  7.  The  cases  under  Art.  62,  para.  3  of  the  Credit  Institutions 
Act.  concerning  signing  a  declaration  pledging  to  safeguard 
bank secrecy; 

–  Тhe  prescription  periods  upon  the  lapse  whereof  rights  are 

extinguished or acquired for individuals are suspended. 

–  All  public  sales  and  coercive  seizures of  possession,  announced 
by  public  and  private  enforcement  agents,  shall  be  suspended. 
After the lifting of the state of emergency, the public sales and the 
coercive seizures of possession shall be scheduled anew without 
levying new fees and costs. 

– 

-  Extension of deadlines: 

–  Deadlines established by law (except  in the cases mentioned 
above),  expiring  during  the  times  of  the  state  of  emergency 
and which are related to the exercise of rights and obligations 
of private persons, are extended from 1 month as of the end of 
the state of emergency.   

– 

–  Specific cases: 

–  The  bank  accounts  of  natural  persons  and  of  medical-treatment 
to  preservation  orders,  labour 

facilities  shall  be 

immune 

– 

– 

–  Notarial procedures 

–  Notarial  procedures  are  limited  only  to  the 
emergency  ones.  Notarial  proceedings  shall  be 
limited to urgent matters while complying with the 
hygiene  requirements.  The  Notary  Chamber  shall 
provide notaries on duty in a proportion of at least 
one  notary  per  50,000  residents  for  the  area  of 
practice concerned. 

– 

– 

– 

– 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
remunerations  and  pensions  shall  be  immune  to  attachment 
orders, protective measures shall not be imposed against medical 
apparatus and equipment, and an inventory shall not be taken of 
corporeal  movable  things  and  corporeal  immovables  owned  by 
natural persons, except for maintenance obligations, for damages 
sustained as a result of a tort or delict, and for claims for labour 
remunerations. 

– 

–  Exempted  from  preservation/  protective  measures  shall  be  bank 
accounts of individuals and medical establishments, salaries and 
pensions,  medical  apparatus  and  equipment.  No  inventory  of 
movable  property  and  real  estate  owned  by  individuals  shall  be 
made,  except  for  liabilities  for  maintenance,  for  damage  caused 
by illicit injury and for claims for salaries. 

–  The  fulfilment  of  an  obligation  to  surrender  a  child  or  the 
subsequent  return  of  a  child  in  accordance  with  the  Civil 
Procedure Code shall not be suspended. 

– 

–  Until  the  state  of  emergency  is  lifted    in  case  of  delay  in 
payment  of  obligations  of  individuals,  debtors  under  credit 
agreements  and other  forms  of  financing  (factoring,  forfeiting 
and others) provided by banks and financial institutions under 
Art.  3  of  the  Law  on  Credit  Institutions,  including  when 
financial 
receivables  are  acquired 
institutions  or  third  parties,  and  under  leasing  contracts,  no 
interest  and  penalty  interest  are  charged,  the  obligation 
cannot be declared early due and the contract it cannot be 
terminated by default and no property can be seized. 

from  other  banks, 

– 

– 

–  CROA

–  On 18  April  2020,  amendments  to  the Act  on  Enforcement 

–  All  judicial  authorities  continue  to  work. 

–  Parties  must  send  their  inquiries, 

85 

 
 
          
 
 
 
TIA 
(HR) 

over  Monetary  Assets  entered  into  force  :  enforcement   on 
accounts  of  natural  persons  are  suspended  for  3 months 
(with a possible extension of additional 3 months).  

–  The calculation of statutory interests is also suspended for the 

same time period. 

– 
– 

However only those proceedings that have been 
identified  as  urgent  are  carried  out  by 
appropriate  security  measures.  Hearings  and 
other  non-urgent  cases  have  been  postponed 
until further notice.  

– 

In  cases  where  judges  can  make  decision  as 
single  judges  or  in  which  the  hearing  is  not 
required,  it  is  first  of  all  necessary  to  make 
decisions  from  home  and  then  arrange  for  their 
dispatch.  Heads  of  the  judicial  authorities  have 
the  mandate  to  allow  employees  to  work  from 
home where possible.  

requests  and  applications  to  the 
Ministry  of  Justice  during  regular 
office  hours  by  email,  telephone 
and postal service providers. 

International legal assistance is still 
provided but might be delayed. 

– 

– 

– 

in 

and 
is 

–  Communication  with  parties 
proceedings 

all 
participants 
done 
electronically in all cases where that is possible. 
In  cases  requiring  meeting  or  hearing,  all 
precautionary  measures  imposed  by  the  health 
authorities should be taken. In each situation, the 
technical  means  of  distance  communication 
available  to  judges  and  courts,  including  within 
the court (email, videolink, etc.) should be used.  

– 

– 

– 

is  also 

recommended 

It 
that  enforcement 
proceedings,  especially  enforcement  related  to 
vacating  and  handing  over  of  real  estate  are 
postponed.   

–  Due  to  the  outbreak  of  epidemic  of  COVID-19 
in  Croatia  all  electronic  public  auction 
openings in enforcement and insolvency cases 
have been postponed, except those in which the 
bidding  has  begun  by  March  24,  2020  at  the 
latest,  which  are  to  be  finished  according  to 
published  Calls  for  participation  in  Electronic 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
–  CYPR
US 
(CY) 

–  Procedural time limits are suspended until 30.4.2020. 

– 

– 

Public Auction.  

–  All  requests  for  sale  received  after  the  13th  of 
March,  2020,  which  have  not  been  processed, 
will  be  processed  upon  termination  of  special 
circumstances  of  epidemic  of  COVID-19.  All 
published Calls for down Payment for Costs and 
Calls  for  Participation  in  the  Electronic  Public 
Auction  will  be  put  out  of  force  and  will  be 
reissued under the same conditions of sale by the 
end  of  the  special  circumstances  of  outbreak  of 
epidemic of COVID-19. 

– 

– 

until 

–  All  hearings  and  other  procedures  are 
suspended 
30.4.2020.   Exceptions:  
application  for  extremely  urgent  interim  order, 
extradition  proceedings  and  other  proceedings 
dealing  with  restrictions  to  personal  freedom 
(e.g.  illegal  detention,  detention in  a  psychiatric 
institution.)  

– 

–  The  Registrar accepts  the  filing  of  an  action 
only  if  it  is  supported  by  an  interim  order 
application and provided that it is  

–  urgent for it to be heard.  The matter of urgency 
is to be examined and decided by the judge. 

–  CZEC
HIA 
(CZ) 

–  Several measures have been taken to alleviate the most urgent 
difficulties  of  citizens  with  regard  to  court  proceedings, 
executions  or  insolvency  proceedings.  Extensive  use  of 
existing  provisions  of  the  codes  of  procedure  on  waiver  of 
missed  time  limits  in  court  proceedings,  if  the  time  limit  was 
missed  due  to  limitations  resulting  from  the  extraordinary 
measures  (mandatory  quarantines,  restrictions  on  movement 

– 

of 

Justice 

 The  Ministry 
recommended 
postponing  all  court  hearings.  If  postponement 
not possible, it must be carried out strictly in line 
with  the  Government  Regulation  on  State  of 
Emergency. Public is excluded in court hearings 
and  its  movement  within  the  court  building 
restricted.  

87 

–  Office 

for 

International  Legal 
Protection  of  Children  (  Brussels 
IIa & Maintenance Regulation) : 
The Office's agenda will be carried 
out 
the state  of  emergency 
mode; all  personal  contact  with 
the Office  shall  be  replaced  by 
written  (written  or  electronic)  and 

in 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and gathering of persons). 

– 

Information 
telephone/email.  

provided 

by 

courts 

via 

telephone  contact;  Office  hours 
shall  be  limited  to  Mondays  and 
Wednesdays from 9 am to 12 pm. 

– 

– 

– 

–  Delay  in  legal  proceedings  resulting  of  the 
application  of  this  recommendations  will  not  be 
considered  by  MoJ  as  delays  in  the  exercise  of 
its supervisory powers.  

– 

–  Notarial service still available to the public, but 

work carried out in restricted mode.  

–  Czech  Ministry 

of 

Justice 
(Central  authority  for  Service  of 
Document & Taking of Evidence 
Regulations)     :  Staff  members 
(including  all  contact  points)  are 
currently  mostly  working  from 
home. 
Electronic 
communication/distance 
communication 
recommended.  All 
should be kept.  

strongly 
limits 

time 

are 

–  The  only  complication 

is 

the 
increasing  restrictions  on  postal 
services  in  some  States,  which  we 
try, in agreement with the Ministry 
of Foreign Affairs, to overcome by 
use  of  diplomatic  channel  for 
service  of  judicial  documents. 
Foreign  Central  authorities  should 
advise 
courts/competent 
authorities  to  send  all  requests  on 
service of documents and taking of 
evidence  directly  to  the  competent 
courts 
and  not  via  Central 
Authority  (Ministry  of  Justice)  as 
this  will  currently  significantly 
for 
time 
shorten 
successful execution of the request.  

limits 

the 

the 

–  DENM
ARK 
(DK) 

–  No  measures  directed  at 

legal  proceedings  have  been 

introduced so far. 

–  The  Danish  courts  have  initiated  an  emergency 
procedure  in  order  handle  certain  critical  areas. 
The  critical  areas,  which  continue  to  be  dealt 
with locally by the courts, are particularly by law 

– 

In general, the Danish Courts seek 
to handle as much work as possible 
from  home  workplaces  during  the 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
– 

time-bound cases or are particularly intrusive. 

emergency period. 

– 

– 

– 

It  is  up  to  the  courts  to  make  an  assessment  in 
each  case  whether  a  case  fulfills  the  conditions 
to be ‘critical’, and it is also up to the courts to 
organize  the  work  taking  into  account  the 
circumstances. 

–  The  decision  to  prioritize  critical  cases  entails 
that a number of significant case types, including 
cases  with  physical  court  meetings,  will  not  be 
prioritized.  These  cases  are  postponed  until 
further notice. 

– 

period. 

–  The Danish Courts seek to handle as much work 
as  possible  from  home  workplaces  during  the 
emergency 
The  Danish  Court 
Administration  has  secured  the  possibility  of 
establishing home workplaces for all employees. 
In  addition,  court  employees  can  (to  a  limited 
extent)  be  physically  present  in  the  courts  in 
order  to  ensure  that  they  themselves  and  others 
can solve tasks from home. 

– 

–  As  far  as  possible,  the  courts  use  telephone 
conferences  to  prepare  cases  in  several  areas  of 
law,  including  civil  cases  and  bailiff  cases.  The 
family  courts  handle  cases  as  far  as  possible 
without  physical  attendance.  There  are  also 
certain  probate  cases  that  can  be  processed  by 
phone. 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
– 

–  The Crisis Committee (consisting of The Danish 
Court  Administration  and  a  group  of  Presidents 
of  the  courts)  have  also  called  for  the  courts  to 
consider,  as  far  as  possible,  whether  the  current 
situation  gives  rise  to  further  use  of  video 
conferencing,  if  it  is  deemed  sound  from  a  rule 
of law perspective. 

–  ESTO
NIA 
(EE) 

–  General 

information 

in  English  may  be  found  at 

the 

–  State of emergency from 12/03 to 01/05.  

Government’s webpage 

– 

– 
–  Procedural  time  limits  are  extended  by  courts  on  a  case-by-
case basis. Courts will take in to account the additional burden, 
tasks or difficulties for parties to a proceeding due to the crisis. 

– 

– 

In general, virtual meeting rooms have been created to raise 
the capacity of the Ministry of Justice, courts, prosecution 
offices and prisons to hold video conferences. This solution 
can  also  be  used  to  hold  oral  hearings  with  parties  to 
proceedings.  In  addition,  available  video  conference 
equipment  has  been  relocated  to  support  the  increase  in 
demand within courthouses and prisons. 

–  The Estonian Central Authority has 
been  teleworking  as  of  13  March. 
Communications  (messages  and 
documents)  are  established  by 
email  (in civil matters and most of 
the  criminal  matters).  If  needed, 
original documents will be sent via 
airmail 
emergency 
after 
situation ends.  

the 

– 

–  No  legislation  on  the  extension  of  deadlines,  judges  have  the 
discretionary power to set longer deadlines in the future or to 
extend existing deadlines. 

– 

– 

–  However,  in  order  to  prevent  the  spread  of  the  COVID-19 
virus by avoiding physical human contacts in care facilities the 
terms for which mentally ill persons have been placed in a 
psychiatric  hospital  or  a  social  welfare  institution  as  well  as 
hospitalisation  of    persons  suffering  from  a  communicable 
disease will be suspended (MoJ proposal): 

– 

–  No 

change 

regarding 

legislative 

court 
proceedings. The Council for Administration of 
Courts  has  issued  recommendations.  The  work 
of Estonian courts is reorganised (opening hours 
9.00–13.00)  and  courthouses  on  working  days 
until 14.00. 

– 

– 

-  in  the  case  of  extended  provisional  protection,  for  the 
duration of the emergency situation; 

-  in  the  case  of  placement,  for  the  duration  of  the  emergency 
situation  and  up  to  two  months  after  termination  of  the 

–  Where  possible,  cases  are  handled  in  writing 
through the information system of courts and by 
means of a digital court file application.  

– 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
emergency situation. 

–  This  is  without  prejudice  to  the  obligation  to  terminate  any 
placement  and  any  application  of  provisional  legal  protection 
after the prerequisites for placement have ceased to exist or it 
becomes evident that the prerequisites were not fulfilled. 

In  the  area  of  law  of  obligations,  currently  no  fundamental 
changes.  The  Ministry  of  Justice  has  analysed  different  legal 
options already provided in Estonian law and could be used in 
this  difficult 
time.  The  focus  has  been  on  providing 
explanations  and  on  answering  information  requests.  There 
have also been proposals for amending certain rules in the area 
of law of obligations, but that discussion is still ongoing.   

– 

– 

– 

– 

–  Urgent  hearings  and  cases  are  held  by 
electronic means of communication, and if not 
possible,  the  Court  decide  on  a  case-by-case 
basis.  The  following  cases  could  be  considered 
as  urgent  :  placing  a  person  in  a  closed 
institution;  separating  a  child  from  his  or  her 
family; establishing guardianship for an adult. In 
non-urgent 
of 
communication can be used by the court (or any 
other  means  necessary),  but  generally  the  court 
the 
would  postpone 
procedural act.  

the  hearing  and/or 

electronic  means 

case, 

– 

–  According  to  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  the 
court  in  exceptional  and  urgent  cases  related  to 
children can give preliminary / protective orders 
without  hearing  them  –  many  judges  have  used 
this possibility. 

– 

–  Service 

of  procedural  documents 

are 

preferably executed by e-File and email. 

– 

the 

such  as 

–  The Chamber of notaries authorized notaries to 
take  all  measures, 
remote 
authentication  service  e-Notar  which  allows  for 
the  performance  of  notarial  acts  using  a  video 
bridge: while up until April 6 only certain types 
of  acts  could  be  done  remotely  (power  of 
attorneys,  sells  of  shares  of  private  limited 
companies and a few more) then as of April 6 all 
kinds of acts can be remotely authenticated (the 
only  exceptions  are  concluding  marriages  and 
divorces).  So,  even  real  estate  can  be  sold  now 
via  online  authentication.  And  this  does  not 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
apply  only  during  the  crisis,  but  also  after  the 
quarantine  is  over.  The  clients  can  do  it  from 
wherever they are (if the notary  agrees  with it  - 
the  remote  authentication  is  still  voluntary  for 
the notaries, i.e. they may refuse to do it). 

– 

the  need 

–  The  Estonian  Bar  Association  has  also 
encouraged its members to work remotely and to 
use  all  technical  means  of  communication  to 
continue  providing  legal  counsel.  It  has  also 
stressed 
to  ensure  attorney-client 
confidentiality.  The  Bar  Association  has  further 
emphasized  that  limitations  on  rights  imposed 
due to the emergency situation must be justified 
and should be challenged if this is called for in a 
particular  case.  Attorneys  also  have  a  duty  to 
the  working 
adapt  quickly 
environment,  show  flexibility  and  innovation 
and to ensure that the possibilities for requesting 
extensions for time limits are not abused.   

to  changes 

in 

– 

–  The  Chamber  of  Bailiffs  and  Trustees  in 
Bankruptcy has also announced that bailiffs and 
trustees  in  bankruptcy  have  reorganized  their 
work in order to work remotely.  

– 

– 

–  FINLA
ND 

– 

–  Courts  remain  independent.  However,  the 
National  Court  Administration  (NCA)  gives 
their 
recommendations 

courts 

on 

to 

– 

International legal assistance is still 
provided,  but  Courts  prioritise 
cases  according  to  the  resources 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(FI) 

management.  

– 

available.  

– 

–  NCA  has  provided  guidelines  recommending 
to  continue  handling  cases,  with 
courts 
precautionary  measures,  for  instance  physical 
presence should be limited to urgent case. The 
NCA  advises  courts 
to  hold  hearings  by 
videoconference,  or  by  other  available  and 
suitable technological means.  

– 

–  Most  of  the  caseworkers  in  the 
Authority 
Central 
Finnish 
(Regulations  2201/2003,  4/2009, 
1393/2007  and  1206/2001)  are 
currently 
is 
limited  presence  in  the  office  for 
urgent  cases.  Communication  by 
email 
recommended  when 
is 
possible:  

teleworking.  There 

–  Many  court  sessions  scheduled  in  the  coming 

–  central.authority@om.fi 

weeks are cancelled.  

– 

–  Contacts to the courts is encouraged to be made 

primarily by phone and email.  

– 

– 

 and  

–  maintenance.ca@om.fi 

(maintenance matters only). 

–  FRAN
CE 
(FR) 

–  Time  limits  (procedural),  including  limitation  periods, 
expiring between 12/03 and the end of the state of emergency 
period  +1  month  are  extended.  At 
the 
aforementioned  period,  all  time  limits  resume  normally  but 
within  a  limit  of  2  months.  The  extended  period  does  not 
however  restrain  parties  to  seek  remedy  or  to  exercise  their 
rights  of  action  in  any  possible  manner  during  the  state  of 
emergency period, to the extent possible. 

the  end  of 

–  Courts  deal  with  urgent  cases 

(hearing 
regarding  civil  freedom  and  custody  in  civil 
matter,  enforcement,  child  protection,  family 
court  urgent  case,  including  protection  orders, 
and emergency interim proceedings). 

–  Regarding 

judicial  cooperation, 
requests  continue  to  be  dealt  with 
but competent authorities prioritize 
urgent  cases.  Central  authorities 
have to be seized by e-mail. 

– 

– 

– 

– 

In principal, performance duties and time limits provided for in 
contracts  are  not  affected,  national  law  being  applicable  to 
specific  circumstances  (force  majeure  etc.)  will  apply. 
However,  contractual  sanctions  of  non-performance  from 

–  Non-urgent hearings are cancelled or postponed, 
sometimes  sine  die.  In  this  case  courts  inform 
parties  by  all  means,  including  by  electronic 
communications.  

– 

93 

–  Family  cooperation 

In 

the 

(Regulation 
2201/2003): 
field  of 
international  child  abduction  and 
protection  of  children,  the  French 
central 
caseworker 
telework and continue to deal with 
ongoing  cases  and  new  requests 

authority 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
debtor  (penalty  clause,  termination  clause  etc.)  are  deemed 
ineffective within the state of emergency period, and will only 
enter into force after a period of one month following the end 
of the state of emergency period, if the obligation has not been 
performed by that time. 

– 

–  Contract  penalties,  renewals  and  notice  periods  provided  by 

law are also suspended. 

– 

– 

In  case  a  Court  cannot  work,  another  court  can 
be  designated  to  deal  with  urgent  cases.  All 
hearings  and  sessions  can  be  closed  to  public 
or  canceled.  Parties  can  seize  the  court  only  in 
writing.  Any 
communication 
(including  phone,  emails  or  letters)  can  be 
used  for  the  judge  to  inform/hear  the  parties 
during  the  course of  the proceedings.  Cases  can 
be dealt by a single judge. 

type 

of 

–  Parties are informed of the court decisions by 
all  means,  in  particular  by  email  or  by  phone 
(decisions will not be considered as served to the 
recipient).   

– 

–  Concerning protective measures for children and 
adults,  those  that  expire  during  the  state  of 
emergency  period  are  automatically  extended, 
unless the judge decides otherwise.  

– 

–  Enquiry  and  mediation  measures  are  suspended 
and  are  extended  by  an  additional  two  months 
after the end of the state of emergency period + 
one more month.  

– 

94 

received  by  e-mail.  For  urgent 
requests,  caseworkers  will  be 
physically present in the office. All 
other  central  authorities  have  been 
informed about this new temporary 
organization.  

–  Concerning  child  abduction,  some 
courts  hold  hearings  for  cases 
reported  as  urgent,  while  other 
prefer 
postponing. 
courts 
Enforcement 
is 
of 
postponed  to  the  end  of  the  health 
crisis, except for specific cases. 

decisions 

– 

new 

French 

–  Taking  of  evidence  (Regulation 
1206/2001): 
central 
authority  deals  with  ongoing  cases 
through 
and 
electronic  means  and 
replies, 
where  needed  by  email.  However 
courts  will  only  execute  taking  of 
evidence  requests  after  the  end  of 
the emergency state.   

requests 

– 

service 

–  Service  of  documents  (Regulation 
the  current 
1393/2007):  Under 
circumstances, 
of 
documents  is  significantly  slowed 
down.  Electronic  service  can  be 
performed on the condition that the 
recipient  has  given  prior  consent.  
Where  electronic  service  is  not 
possible,  the  service  of  document 
might be postponed if not urgent. 

 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
– 

three 

these 

–  The  French  Central  Authority 
regulations 
1206/2001, 
by 
entraide-civile-

under 
(2201/2003, 
1393/2007) 
email: 
internationale@justice.gouv.fr 

communicates 

– 

regulation 

–  The  French  Central  Authority 
under 
(CE)  4/2009 
relating to maintenance obligations 
: 
communicates 
obligation.alimentaire@diplomatie
.gouv.fr 

email 

by 

–  GERM
ANY 
(DE) 

–  So  far,  no  measures  on  civil  time  limits,  only  provisions 
regarding  the  longer  interruption  of  criminal  proceedings  was 
adopted. 

– 

– 

– 

(German civil procedure law contains provisions regarding the 
extension of time limits, stay of proceedings and the restitutio 
in integrum which help in litigation during the Covid 19 crisis 

–  For  further  information  on  legislative  actions  the  webpage  of 
the  Federal  Ministry  of  Justice  and  Consumer  Protection  can 
be 
consulted 
https://www.bmjv.de/DE/Themen/FokusThemen/Corona/Coro
na_node.html 

–  Statutory  provisions 

for  civil  proceedings 
already  provide  the  courts  with  an  extensive 
scope to react flexibly to the current exceptional 
situation.  It  is  for  the  respective  courts  and 
judges to decide what measures are taken in each 
individual  case. 
is 
Judicial 
preserved. 

independence 

– 

– 

95 

– 

–  Family  cooperation 

(Regulation 

2201/2003): 

–  The  Federal  Office  of  Justice  as 
German  Central  Authority  under 
Regulation  2201/2003 
(Brussels 
IIa)  has  reduced  physical  presence 
for  protective  health 
of  staff 
is  otherwise  fully 
reasons,  but 
operable on reduced capacity. 

– 

–  Taking  of  evidence  (Regulation 
of 
and 
(Regulation 

Service 

1206/2001) 
documents 
1393/2007): 

– 

It  should  be  noted  that  especially 
the  execution  of  request  for  the 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
– 

– 

–  GREE
CE 
(EL) 

taking  of  evidence  remains  at  the 
discretion  of  the  judge.  In  general 
it  can  be  said  that  the  working 
capacities  of 
are 
severely  limited  do  to  absence  of 
judicial personnel. 

courts 

the 

–  By Ministerial Decision, all procedures carried 
out before the Greek courts and their services 
are  suspended  until  27  April,  with 
the 
exception  of  urgent  and  significant  actions  and 
cases.  The  operation  of  the  judicial  services  is 
limited only to the necessary actions to carry out 
the  necessary  work  and  urgent  cases.  Meetings 
and  any  other  action  related  to  the  operation  of 
the judiciary is carried out remotely, if possible, 
using technological means. 

– 

–  Precautionary 

containment 
and 
measures have been adopted by the 
Greek  Government  in  order  to 
address the danger of the spread of 
the coronavirus, its socio-economic 
impact  and  to  ensure  the  good 
functioning  of  the  market  and  the 
public sector. 

and 

–  The  Ministry  of  Justice,  in  its 
capacity  as  Central  Authority 
Law 
under 
Civil 
Conventions/Treaties 
in 
compliance  with  EU  Regulations 
on  Judicial  Cooperation  in  Civil 
and  Commercial  Matters,  has 
established  a  mixed  system  of 
remote  working  and  physical 
attendance  at  the  workplace  in 
rotation. 

–  Until now,  the Central Authority 
fully  operational, 
is  almost 
in 
although  occasional  delays 
requests  are 
some 
processing 
inevitable  due  to  the  persisting 
health crisis. 

– 

–  HUNG

–  As  a  general  rule  time  limits  continue  to  run  during  the 

–  Access  to  justice  and  the  continuity  of  the 

–  With regard to judicial cooperation 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ARY 
(HU) 

period  of  the  state  of  danger.  The  only  exception  on  this  is 
where the procedural act in question cannot be carried out 
in writing or by electronic means (i.e. procedural acts which 
require  personal  contribution  and  cannot  otherwise  be  carried 
out)  which  brings  the  proceedings  to  a  halt.  In  this  case  the 
period until the obstacle has been removed or the period until 
the  end  of  the  state  of  danger  shall  not  be  counted  in  a  time 
limit. 

– 

– 

– 

– 

pending  proceedings  is  ensured,  there  is  no 
recess for courts of justice in Hungary. 

In  the  courts  procedural  acts  requiring 
physical  contact  are  not  performed.  Special 
procedural 
written 
communication,  remote  hearing  and  hearings 
using electronic means of personal identification.  

facilitate 

rules 

to 

civil  matters, 

regard 
measures, 

there  are 
in 
restrictions 
enforcement 
on 
procedures  during  the  state  of 
the 
danger.  With 
enforcement 
for 
example no on-site proceeding and 
no  auction  of  real  estate  may  be 
conducted.  Enforcement  measures 
may  not  be  ordered  in  respect  of 
acts of transfer of children in cases 
of  illegal  child  abduction  and  on 
the basis of Brussels IIa. 

– 

–  The  Central  Authorities 

are 

operational.  

– 

–  Execution  of  requests  for  legal 
assistance  may  be  delayed 
in 
comparison 
normal 
circumstances. 

to 

–  Staff of the Ministry of Justice and 
Equality 
Central 
and 
Authorities  are  mostly  working 
from  home.  Communication  by 
email only is preferred. 

the 

– 

IRELA
ND 
(IE) 

–  No  specific  legislation  on  time  limits.  Issue  of  proceedings 
where  the  statutory  time  limit  to  issue  will  expire  before  the 
end of the “restriction” period are considered essential business 
(see second column). 

–  Court  offices  will  remain  open,  and  are 
accepting urgent papers. Drop boxes are being 
provided  for  documents  to  be  left  in,  reducing 
the  need  to  interact  with  staff  at  the  public 
counter.  Court  offices  can  continue 
to  be 
contacted by email or by post.  

– 

–  Civil matters can be adjourned by consent via 
e-mail.  Only  urgent  cases  will  go  ahead  in  the 
coming weeks.   

– 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
–  Applications  relating  to  urgent  Family  Law 
matters are allowed, including protection orders, 
interim  barring  orders,  emergency  barring 
orders, extension of orders. 

– 

–  Applications  can  also  be  filed  for  essential 
business  such  as  urgent  wardship  matters  or 
urgent judicial review applications. 

– 

–  Videolink appearances are being facilitated from 
prisons  for  all  people  currently  in  custody 
following order of President of the High Court.  

– 

–  Piloting  underway  to  facilitate  courts  hearings 
remotely  and  by  video  with  the  consent  of  the 
parties. 

– 

– 

– 

– 

ITALY 
(IT) 

–  Time 

limits  for  exercising  judicial  acts  within  civil 
proceedings  were  initially  suspended  for  the  period  9/03  to 
22/03 (then postponed to 15/04).  

–  Decree Law No 23 of 8 April 2020 extended the postponement 
of hearings and the suspension of procedural deadlines until 11 
May 2020. 

–  Most  civil  hearings  scheduled  between  the  day 
following  the  entry  into  force  of  the  decree  (9 
March 2020) and 22/03 (then 15/04, and finally 
11 May) will not take place due to a mandatory 
postponement. 

– 

– 

–  All  hearings  scheduled  during  the  crisis  period 

–  A significant part of case Ministry 
of  Justice  staff  members  are 
working from home. 

– 

–  The  judicial  cooperation  in  civil 
matters  will  be  affected  for  an 
of 
unpredictable 
time.  Electronic communication of 

period 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
requests  of  judicial  cooperation 
(including  request  for  information 
on  foreign law under  the  London 
1968  Convention).  The documents 
sent in hard copy may be processed 
with a significant delay.  

– 
–  All  communications  to  be  sent  to 
ufficio2.dgcivile.dag@giustizia.it 

– 

will be postponed (except urgent case).  

–  Where a time limit would normally begin during the period of 
suspension,  the  starting  point  is  delayed  until  the  end  of  the 
latter period. 

– 

– 

–  Local 

courts 

own 
organizational  measures  (restricted  access  to 
buildings, office closed).  

adopt 

their 

can 

–  Exceptions:  adoption  of  children,  unaccompanied  minors, 
foster  care,  compulsory  health  treatment,  VTP,  provisional 
enforceability & all matters entailing a risk of serious prejudice 
to the parties.  

– 

– 

– 

In particular, for non-suspended activities (those 
that have been declared urgent on a case by case 
basis  or  those  considered  by  the  law  as  top 
priority), civil hearings that require the presence 
of lawyers or parties only, subject to the respect 
of  the  adversarial  process  and  the  effective 
participation of the parties, may be held through 
remote connections. For this purpose, a decision 
by the Heads of the judicial offices is necessary, 
after hearing the advice of the Bar Association. 

–  For  the  period  between  11  May  and  30  June 
2020,  the  Heads  of  the  judicial  offices  are  than 
expected  to  take  a  series  of  organisational 
measures  in  order  to  avoid  close  gatherings  and 
contacts  between  people  within  each  office 
space.  

–  These measures may include: 

– 

-  the  carrying  out  of  civil  hearings  by  means  of 
remote  connections  that  require  the  presence 
only  of  lawyers  or  the  parties,  subject  to  the 
respect  of  the  adversarial  process  and  the 
effective participation of the parties;  

– 

-  the  postponement  of  hearings  after  30  June 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
–  LATVI
A (LV) 

–  Written  civil  procedure  if  it  does  not  violate  rights  of 
parties  and  court  finds  it  possible.  Instead  of  postponing 
court  hearings  Latvia  has  switched  to  written  court procedure 
unless it is absolutely necessary to hold a proper court hearing 
or  there  is  high  urgency  to  examine  the  case  or  there  is  high 
risk of grave infringement of rights. 

2020;  

– 

-  the  holding  of  civil  hearings  that  require  the 
participation  only  of  the  defendants  through 
written procedure. 

–  The Republic of Latvia has issued Guidelines for 
the organization of the work of the district (city) 
and  regional  courts  during  the  emergency. 
Those  guidelines  recommend  that  in  urgent 
cases,  hearings  in  the  event  of  an  emergency 
shall, where possible, be  organized by means of 
a video conference  

If  the  hearing  is  organized  in  person,  the 
necessary distance shall be provided between the 
persons at the hearing and other precautions shall 
be taken (rooms to be ventilated, etc.). 

– 

–  Limitation  periods (e.g. prescription) are suspended between 

12/03 and 01/07.  

– 

–  Enforcement proceedings:    the maximum term of voluntary 
fulfillment  of  obligations  under  the  judgment  concerning  the 
returning  of  goods,  recovery  of  debt,  evictions  from  premises 
is  prolonged  from  10  days  to  60  days  except  the  cases  when 
judgment should be enforced immediately. 

– 

–  Commercial  pledge.  Time  limits  for  taking  the  decision  on 
delivering the commercial pledge is prolonged form 30 days to 
60 days. 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

In  the  event  of  emergency  all  the 
requests  and  attached  documents 
are  accepted  sent  electronically 
(via  email)  maintaining  a  moment 
of  credibility.  MLA  requests  are 
scanned  and  transformed  to  PDF 
form  and  forwarded  to  foreign 
countries  from  the  official  e-mail 
of  the  Ministry  of  Justice.  The 
same 
from  other 
countries. 

is  accepted 

– 

– 

–  LITH
UANI

–  Lithuania  has  not  adopted  official  legal  acts  suspending  or 
extending  procedural  deadlines  in  civil  cases.  The  renewal  or 
extension  of  procedural  time  limits  is  decided  on  a  case-by-

– 

Judicial  Council  has  issued recommendations  to 
the  Chairpersons  of  the  Courts  regarding  the 
organization  of  work  in  their  respective  courts 

–  Most public authorities’ employees 
work  remotely.  International  legal 
assistance  is  still  provided,  but 

100 

 
 
 
 
      
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
A (LT) 

case basis by the court hearing the case.  

– 

–  The  Judicial  Council  circulated  recommendations  to  courts, 
urging  Lithuanian  courts  to  “flexibly  assess  requests  from 
individuals  to  renew  a  missed  deadline  for  submitting  a 
procedural  document  or  to  perform  a  procedural  action” 
during  and  after  the  quarantine  period  if  said  actions  were 
impeded  by  the  emergency  state  declared  in  the  Republic  of 
Lithuania  and  subsequently  altered  organization  of  work  in 
state  institutions.  The  person  requesting  to  renew  missed 
deadlines  shall  provide  the  court  with  the  data  substantiating 
such circumstances together with the request 

some processes can take longer. 

– 

quarantine 

the 
during 
specification  of  the  recommendations  to  the 
discretion of each Chairperson.  

leaving 

period, 

– 
–  Civil  proceedings,  where  possible  by  written 
procedure,  take  place  in  the  normal  way.  In 
civil  cases  where  an  oral  hearing  is  mandatory 
and  the  parties  have  expressed  a  position  that 
they  wish  to  take  part  in  the  hearing,  the 
scheduled  oral  hearings  shall  be  adjourned 
without a date, informing the participants in the 
proceedings,  agreeing  on  possible  preliminary 
hearing dates with the parties. 

– 
–  Oral proceedings in courts are limited to civil 
cases that  must be dealt  with immediately, such 
as  civil  cases  concerning  the  court's  permission 
to  extend 
involuntary  hospitalization  and/or 
involuntary  treatment,  the  removal  of  a  child 
from an unsafe environment,  cases provided for 
by 
the 
organization  of  oral  meetings  remotely  if  the 
court has the means to do so; 

the  CPC  and  giving  priority 

to 

– 
– 

In  urgent  cases,  safety  recommendations  are 
followed  during  oral  proceedings 
(social 
distancing, courtroom disinfection) 

– 
–  Judicial  procedural  decisions  are  sent  by 
electronic  means  of  communication,  giving 
priority  to  the  judicial  information  system.  In 
exceptional cases, documents are sent by e-mail 
and  regular  mail  to  persons  who  do  not  have 
access 
information  system. 
Procedural documents and other correspondence 
are  sent  to  non-participants  in  the  proceedings 
(e.g.  bailiffs,  notaries)  via  the  state  E-delivery 
system  or  by  e-mail,  and  only  in  exceptional 
cases by post. Communication/cooperation takes 
place by electronic means of communication, by 
telephone. 

judicial 

the 

to 

101 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
– 
–  Upon  the  suspension  of  the  direct  service  of 
persons  in  the  courts, procedural  documents  are 
received electronically or sent by post. 

– 
– 

employees  will 

 Bailiffs: After transitioning to working remotely 
as  of  16-03,  judicial  officers  are  continuing  to 
provide most of their regular services to creditors 
and debtors during the quarantine period. While 
direct  contact  is  limited,  judicial  officers  and 
communicate  with 
their 
participants of proceedings by phone, e-mail, via 
the website www.antstoliai.lt or by regular mail. 
The current quarantine is also not an obstacle for 
the  submission  of  new  enforcement  orders: 
written enforcement orders may  be submitted to 
judicial  officers  by  mail,  and  electronic 
enforcement  orders  –  by  e-mail  or  via  the 
Internet  by  logging  into  the  Judicial  Officers' 
Information  System  at  http://www.antstoliai.lt/. 
During  the  quarantine  period,  judicial  officers 
shall also refrain from announcing new auctions. 

– 
–  Regarding  the  organization  of  the  notaries’ 
work,  draft  amendments  to  the  Law  on  the 
Notarial Profession and the Civil Code are being 
prepared.  They  provide  that  the  majority  of 
notarial  services  will  be  moved  online  and 
provided 
remotely.  The  draft  amendments 
propose  granting  notaries  the  right  to  perform 
remote  notarial  acts  and  execute 
them  as 
electronic  notarial  documents.  The  information 
will  be  transmitted  to  operating  state  registers 
and information systems. Visits to notary offices 
the  direct 
would  be 
identification of a person or expressed will. It is 
also  planned  to  refuse  the  participation  of  a 
notary in approving some simpler mandates and 
enable  electronic  registration  of  mandates  for 
which a notarial form is not required. The remote 
notarial  services  will  exclude  certification  of 

reserved  solely 

for 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
wills  and  their  acceptance  into  custody,  as  well 
as  authentication  of  the  fact  that  a  person  is 
alive.  Also  Notaries  should  not  provide  remote 
services  if  they  believe  that  they  would  be  able 
to ensure better protection of a client’s legitimate 
interests  only  when  meeting  with  him  or  her  in 
person  or  in  case  they  need  to  document  a 
person’s  will,  explain 
the  consequences  of 
notarial acts or ascertain a person’s identity. 

– 
–  Regarding  the  provision  of  state-guaranteed 
legal  aid  services,  recommendations  have  been 
published  on  the  State-guaranteed  legal  aid 
service  webpage.  It  is  strongly  advised  to  avoid 
personal  contact  and  organize  the  provision  of 
legal aid using remote working tools, i.e. send all 
request  by  e-mail,  provide  consultations  by 
phone,  online  or  use  other  means  of 
telecommunication.  In  urgent  cases  when  the 
participation  of  an  advocate  is  necessary  in 
certain  pre-trial  investigation  actions  or  court 
proceedings,  act  with  due  care,  follow  national 
guidelines for preventing the spread of Covid-19 
(safe  distance,  hygiene,  etc.),  refuse  to  attend 
proceedings  if  adequate  protective  measures 
have  not  been  taken  (e.g.  the  room  is  not 
ventilated,  there  is  no  disinfectant,  suspicions 
regarding the health of others in the room arise).  

– 

–  The  Lithuanian  Bar  has  also  published  similar 
recommendations to all practising advocates in 
Lithuania. 

– 
– 
– 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
–  All  instruments  in  the  field  of 
judicial  cooperation  in  civil  and 
criminal  matters  are  executed  and 
emitted  by  the  central  authority, 
the  Prosecutor  General.  The 
been 
has 
rhythm 
working 
somewhat  reduced 
to  allow  a 
maximum  of  people  to  work  from 
home. 

– 

–  LUXE
MBOU
RG 
(LU) 

–  The  state  of  crisis,  based  on  a  grand-ducal  regulation  of 
March 18,2020 introducing a series of measures in the context 
of  the  fight  against  Covid-19,  has  been  extended  for  three 
months by a law on March 24,2020. 

– 

–  The  parliament  cannot  be  dissolved  during  the  state  of  crisis, 
preserves  all  its  legislative  powers  and  can  at  any  moment, 
during the period of three months, adopt a law to end the state 
of crisis. The decrees adopted during this period legally cease 
to exist the day the state of crisis ends.  

– 

–  The  government  adopted  at  the  council  of  government  on 
March  25,  2020  a  grand-ducal  regulation  drawn  up  by  the 
Ministry  of  Justice  suspending  time  limits  in  jurisdictional 
matters and adapting certain other procedural modalities. 

– 

–  A  general provision suspends all the time limits prescribed in 
the proceedings before the judicial, administrative, military and 
constitutional  courts.  The  text  provides  for  some  exceptions 
concerning the deprivation of liberty for which swift decisions 
must be taken. 

– 

–  Time limits in civil and commercial matters 

–  The Judicial Administration has put in place the 
necessary measures at this stage of the pandemic 
to,  on  the  one  hand,  to  guarantee  a  reduced 
functional  service  and  on  the  other  hand  to 
safeguard  as  much  as  possible  the  health  of  all 
employees. 

in 

–  These  provisions  are 

taken 

compliance  with 
Luxembourg's 
especially 
those  relating 
rights.  They  are  applied  according 
criteria of necessity and proportionality. 

strict 
the  Constitution  and 
international  commitments 
fundamental 
the 
to 

to 

– 

–  As  part  of  the  fight  against  coronavirus,  many 
member  states  have  imposed  restrictions  on 
movement. Luxembourg has done so too, whilst 
providing  for  a  number  of  exceptions  to  these 
restrictions  (for  instance  for  workers  in  the 
healthcare  sector  and  other  essential  sectors  in 
the current crisis). 

– 

–  One of these exceptions provides that separated 
parents are still allowed to leave their home for 
the  exercise  of  their  parental  responsibility 
especially  for the exercise of the right of access 
vis-à-vis their child. 

– 

– 

–  Luxembourg  suspended  deadlines  in  legal  proceedings  and 

extended certain deadlines in specific procedures. 

– 

–  The  courts  in  Luxembourg  are  functioning  at  a 
reduced  pace  but  maintaining  a  sufficient  level 
of  activity  to  process  the  essential  and  urgent 
matters.  During  the  period of  the  state  of  crisis, 
requests and requests addressed to the chambers 
of  the  council  of  the  district  courts  and  of  the 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
–  Luxembourg  also  set  some  exceptions  particularly  for  urgent 

matters that cannot suffer suspensions of deadlines. 

Court  of  Appeal  are  judged  based  on  a  written 
procedure. 

– 

– 

–  The time limits for appeal or opposition are suspended. 

– 

 

– 
 

In tenancy matters, the enforcement of eviction sentences has been 
suspended. The provision provides for the suspension of evictions in 
the  area  of  residential  leases.  The  deadlines  for  the  execution  of 
evictions in terms of commercial lease were also suspended, as were 
those for foreclosures and forced sale. 

In  matters  of  civil  status,  the  period  of  5  days  within  which  birth 
declarations  must  be  made  is  suspended.  For  marriage  certificates, 
the possibility of dispensing with the publication of banns eliminates 
any time constraint. 

– 
  A  specific  provision  provides  for  the  suspension  of  deadlines  in 
matters  of  succession,  outside  any  judicial  procedure.  It  is 
important to preserve the rights of citizens, insofar as the liquidation 
of successions is a very formalistic procedure with many delays. 

–  The  notaries  continue  their  activity.  Measures 
were  taken  to  grant  derogations  in  certain  legal 
procedures  in  order  to  reduce  the  need  of 
physical contact. 

– 

–  The  lawyers  are  also  continuing  their  activity 
and  are  encouraged  -during  the  crisis  -to  use 
electronic  means  of  communication  with  the 
courts. 

– 

–  As  to  avoid  physical  contact,  the  bailiffs  serve 
documents not on the addressee in person but at 
the  address  of  the  addressees  only  in  their  post 
boxes. 

– 
 

– 

It is planned to extend for three months the deadlines for filing and 
publication  of  annual  accounts,  consolidated  accounts  and 
related  reports  of  companies.  This  only  applies  to  financial  years 
closed  on  the  date  of  end  of  the  state  of  crisis  and  for  which  the 
deadlines  for  filing  and  publication  had  not  expired  by  March  18, 
2020. 

– 

– 

– 

– 

–  MALT
A 

–  As  from  16-03  all 

including 
prescription  in  civil  matters  and  any  peremptory  time  limits 

legal  and 

judicial 

times, 

–  With effect from the 16-03 the Courts of Justice 
and  registries  were  closed  -  including  the 

–  Cross-border  judicial  cooperation 
continued  on a  business  as  usual 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(MT) 

have  been  suspended  until  seven  days  after  the  Order  for 
closure of the Courts is lifted. 

– 

–  Apart from this, all ex lege time limits imposed upon Notaries 
Public  have  also  been  suspended  during  the  time  when  the 
Courts  are  closed.  The  time  limits  for  concluding  a  sale 
stipulated in a registered promise of sale agreement  were also 
suspended. The suspension of time limits concerning Notaries 
shall last until twenty days after the Order for the closure of the 
courts is lifted. 

– 

– 

–  NETH
ERLA
NDS 
(NL) 

superior,  inferior  and  appellate  courts;  any 
tribunal established  by  law  operating  from  the 
building of the Courts of Justice; and any boards, 
commissions,  committees  or  other  entities,  also 
operating from the same building of the Courts, 
and before which any proceedings are heard. 

– 

– 

the 

under 

basis  -  of  course  as  far  as  this  is 
possible 
present 
circumstances  particularly  in  the 
context  of  reduced  activity  in  the 
Courts  and  reduced  international 
travel.  

–  Despite 

this 

closure, 

the  Courts 

have 
nevertheless  been  given  the  power  to  order  the 
hearing  of  urgent  cases  or  of  cases  where  the 
Court  deems  that  the  public  interest  should 
prevail  in  having  the  case  heard.  This  was  of 
to  any  specific 
course,  however  subjected 
arrangements for the guarding against the spread 
of the virus as the court may determine. 

–  The  central  authorities 

the 
Netherlands are mostly working  in 
home  office.  Communication  by 
email is recommended.  

in 

– 

–  Following the measures announced by the Dutch 
government  on  March  15,  2020,  up  to  and 
including  April  6,  to  combat  the  spread  of 
COVID-19,  the  judiciary  has  accordingly  taken 
the following measures: 

– 

1. 
The  courthouses  have  been  closed  since  March 
17,  2020.  This  means  that  physical  sessions  will  not  take 
place from that date until April 6, unless there is an urgent 
need for a hearing. 
2. 
Urgent  matters  will  continue,  but  as  much  as 
possible with the use of audio-visual means. Urgent matters 
include far-reaching decisions such as placing children out 
of the house, supervision orders and the detention of aliens 
for the purpose of deportation. 
3. 
Justice  is  a  vital  process  in  the  democratic 
constitutional  state  and  must  therefore  continue  in  this 
crisis. The Judiciary does this by handling as many cases as 
possible in writing or with the aid of audio-visual means. 
4. 

On  March  31,  2020,  the  Dutch  Government 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
decided  to  continue  the  measures  previously  taken  until 
April 28, 2020. In line with this, the Judiciary has decided 
to  continue  the  measures  previously  taken,  but  also  to 
increase  the  number  and  type  of  cases  that  are  handled 
using  audio-visual  resources.  In  this  way,  it  is  possible  to 
prevent the work stocks becoming too big. 
5. 
Extending  the  handling  of  cases  is  possible, 
because  many  extra  possibilities  have  been  realized  in 
recent weeks to make the use of audio-visual means and the 
digital submission of procedural documents. 
6. 
The  Judiciary  has  provided  for  a  temporary 
adjustment  of 
for  all 
jurisdictions and has created a page on its website with all 
current overview and instruction on how to work during the 
COVID-19 crises. www.rechtspraak.nl  
7. 
is  working  on  an 
emergency  law  that  will,  among  other  things,  temporarily 
enhance  the  possibility  of  making  use  of  audio-visual 
means in the Judiciary and facilitate the progress of cases. 

The  Dutch  government 

the  procedural 

regulations 

–  POLA
ND 
(PL) 

–  The Polish special legislation provides, among other things, for 
the  suspension  of  a  not  yet  started  and  postponement  of 
commenced: 

–  Specific measures have been adopted to mitigate 
the  negative  consequences  of  the  COVID-19 
pandemic including. 

–  Ministry  of  Justice  employees 
working in the central authority are 
teleworking. 

– 

•   limitation periods of enforcement of judgements,  

– 

– 

– 

•    time  limits  in  proceedings  and  for  court's  actions  in  legal 
proceedings, including in enforcement proceedings. 

– 

– 

– 

–  The  transfer  of  cases  among  Polish  courts  (by 
judicial  authority  and  for  a  defined  period  in 
urgent cases as defined by the special legislation 
concerning  mitigating  impact  of  the  COVID-19 
pandemic on the Polish justice system) has been 
made possible. 

– 

–  The  category  of  urgent  cases  is  defined  as 

following:  

107 

–  All  communication  to  the  Polish 
Ministry  of  Justice  as  the  Central 
Authority  (including  service  of 
documents 
of 
and 
evidence),  or  Polish  EJN  contact 
point  must  be 
through 
electronic  means  with  necessary 
attachments in the form of scanned 
copies. 

taking 

sent 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
–  1. Proceedings concerning minors including:  

– 

– 

– 

-  proceedings  for   the  removal  of  a  minor  from 
parental authority or custody; 

-  proceedings  concerning  placement  of  a 
foreigner  minor  in  a  care  and  educational 
institution;  

- proceedings for the establishment of a guardian 
to  represent  the  interests  of  a  minor  in  judicial 
proceedings;  

– 

-  proceedings  regarding  placement  or  extension 
of a juvenile's stay in a juvenile shelter; 

– 

- enforcement proceedings involving minors.  

–  2.  Proceedings  concerning  mentally 

ill  and 

incapacitated persons 

– 

–  The  president  of  each  competent  Polish  court 
may  order  that  any  case  be  considered urgent  if 
the  failure  to  adjudicate  on  such  a  case:  - could 
cause danger to human or animal life or health; 

– 

- could cause serious harm to the public interest;   

- could  cause  imminent  and  irreparable  material 
damage; 

- and  when  urgent  adjudication  on  such  case  is 
required by the interests of justice. 

– 

– 

– 

–  Detachment  of  judges 

to  other  courts 

is 

108 

 
 
 
 
simplified. Decisions in that regard are taken by 
judicial  authorities,  in  accordance  with  the 
principle  of  independence  of  judges  and  for  a 
period  of 
in  advance.  Such 
procedures will enable to provide support courts 
experiencing a heavier caseload. 

time  defined 

– 

–  Suspension  and  postponement  of  court’s 
proceedings is also possible in certain cases. 

– 

– 

–  PORT
UGAL 
(PT) 

–  The state of emergency was declared. 

–  Any  procedural  acts  are  permitted 

through 

tele/video conference.  

–  The national legislation concerning the Judiciary is: Decree 14-
A/2020,  Decree  17-A/2020  and  Law  1-A/2020  amended  by 
Law 4-A/2020. 

– 

In  judicial  processes  deadlines  are  suspended  within  a 
period to be ended by Decree Law. 

– 

–  Telework  is  mandatory  whenever  the  nature  of 

the work allows it. 

–  The  use  of  email  instead  of  telephone  is 
recommended to seek information from Courts. 

– 

– 

– 

–  Urgent  judicial  processes  shall  run  without  suspension  of 

deadlines or acts. 

– 

–  Limitation periods and prescription periods are suspended. 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Judges keep doing their normal work from home 
where they have access to the case management 
system.  They  remain  available  to  go  to  Court 
whenever it is necessary. 

–  Eviction of tenants and enforcement of mortgages that fall on 

–  Urgent  acts  and  procedures 

in  which 

109 

–  EJN  Civil  contact  point  are 
from  home, 
currently  working 
the  requests  for 
processing  all 
cooperation  and 
information  as 
swiftly  as  possible.  However  the 
suspension  of 
limits  and 
periods set forth Portuguese special 
law applies. 

time 

– 

–  EJN Civil contact points will go to 
their  workplace  whenever  it  is 
needed and in urgent cases. 

– 

–  Preference  should  be  given 

to 
communication 
to 
correio@redecivil.mj.pt    in  cases 
regarding judicial cooperation. 

email 

by 

 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
private housing are suspended.  

– 

fundamental  rights  are  at  stake  are  carried 
out  in  person  (urgent  protection  of  children, 
procedural  acts  and 
imprisoned 
defendants).  

trial  of 

– 

–  The deadlines set forth for debtors to file applications to open 

insolvency proceedings are suspended. 

– 

– 

–  Acts 

in  enforcement  procedures, 

including  enforcement 
measures, are suspended unless this causes irreparable damage 
or endangers the creditor´s livelihood. 

– 

–  Final remark:  

–  Although  this  information  was  carefully  collected,  it  does  not 
exempt  from  consulting  the  applicable  legal  texts  and  their 
further  amendments.  In  light  of  Article  5(2)(c)  of  Decision 
2001/470/EC, 
the 
Portuguese  High  Judicial  Council,  for  national  Courts  or  for 
the Contact Point. 

is  not  binding  for 

information 

this 

–  Trials and procedural acts that are not urgent 
have  been  adjourned  except  when  Judges 
deem it necessary to hold hearings, namely to 
avoid  irreparable  harm  or  in  cases  where  all 
the  parties  agree  on  using 
tele/video 
conference.  

– 

–  Judgements  can  be  pronounced  if  all  the 
parties  agree  that  further  enquiries  by  the 
Court are unnecessary.  

– 

–  Acts  and  procedures  carried  out  in  person 
shall  take  place  in  adequate  rooms  that  were 
made  available  in  each  district  Court,  with 
protection  and  disinfection  material.  The 
number of attendants shall be adjusted by the 
Judge  to  the  limits  recommended  by  the 
health authorities. 

– 

–  Going  to  Court  is  not  advised  unless  for  those 
who  are  summoned  to  appear  (presentation of  a 
medical  certificate  of  quarantine  = 
force 
majeure). 

– 

In case of Court closure, which has happened in 
a few exceptional cases, periods and time limits 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
–  ROMA
NIA 
(RO) 

–  According to the State of Emergency Decree No. 195/2020 and 
Decree  for  Prolongation  of  the  State  of  Emergency  No. 
250/2020,  limitation  and  prescription  time  limits  do  not 
commence  or  they  are  suspended  if  they  are  running, 
during the state of emergency.  

– 

Interruption of time limits for lodging appeals.  

– 

– 

are suspended. 

– 

–  The  Portuguese  High  Judicial  Council  stresses 
that  Courts  must  remain  the  ultimate  guarantor 
of fundamental rights. 

– 

–  Practical  information  on  the  functioning  of 
national  courts  during  the  emergency  period  is 
available  in  the  website  of  the  High  Judicial 
Council 

– 

 https://www.csm.org.pt/ 

– 

–  State  of  emergency  declared  on  16/03,  with 
specific  measures  regarding  the  organization  of 
the justice system:  

– 
–  Judicial activity in civil matters is suspended, 
except for urgent cases, which are determined by 
decision  No.  417/24.3.2020  of  the  Council  of 
Magistracy; 

–  Decisions  continue  to  be  drafted,  as  well  as  the 
registrations of documents from the parties. 

– 
–  Use  of  videoconference 

is  encouraged  – 
including  through  letter  rogatory,  as  well  as 
hearings closed to the public, where the situation 
permits. 

– 
–  All  the  documents  of  the  parties  are  sent  to 
the  courts  by  electronic  means,  exception 
being allowed where these persons have no such 
means. 

111 

–  Part  of 

for 

from 

time. 

home. 

the  personnel  of 

the 
Ministry  of  Justice  is  entitled  to 
work 
Judicial 
cooperation in civil matters will be 
an  unpredictable 
affected 
period  of 
to 
In  order 
minimise  the  delays,  electronic 
communication  of  requests  of 
judicial cooperation to the Central 
Authority  is  strongly  encouraged. 
Documents  sent  in  hard  copy  will 
be  processed  with 
significant 
delays. 

– 
–  The Ministry of Justice acts on the 
basis of Article 3 c) of the Service 
of  Documents  and  Taking  of 
Evidence 
as 
transmitting/receiving  authority  in 
exceptional  cases.  All  requests 
(service  of  documents,  taking  of 

Regulations 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
– 

–  Transfers of files from a court to another is made 
by  electronic  means;  also  the  notification  of 
judicial documents to the parties. 

– 

–  Where the panel of judges cannot be completed, 
delegation of judges from another division of the 
court is allowed. 

evidence, maintenance cases, child 
abduction  cases  etc.)  are  currently 
dealt  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice  as 
usually, with no prioritisation. 

– 
–  The following e-mail addresses can 
used: 

be 
dreptinternational@just.ro, 
ddit@just.ro. 

– 

– 

–  SLOV
AKIA 
(SK) 

–  Legal deadlines, enforcement proceedings, statutory interest rates:  
–  On 27 March the Act No 62/2020 Coll. on certain extraordinary measures 
in  connection  with  COVID-19  outbreak  and  on  measures  in  the  justice 
area  (hereinafter  the  “COVID  Act”)  (https://www.slov-lex.sk/pravne-
predpisy/SK/ZZ/2020/62/) entered into force which introduced restrictive 
and other measures that required statutory legal basis. 

– 

–  Article 3 of the COVID Act limited the necessity 
to  conduct  hearings  in  courts  and  the  public 
participation  if  such  hearings  do  take  place 
during the emergency situation. In case the court 
hearing  is  conducted  with  the  exclusion  of 
public,  there  is  a  legal  obligation  to  make  an 
audio  recording  of  the  hearing  which  should  be 
made  accessible  as  soon  as  possible  after  the 
hearing. 

–  §  1  of  the  COVID  Act  temporarily  (until  30  April  2020) 
suspended    the  running  of  the  limitation  and  prescription 
periods in private law or introduced a waiver of such deadlines 
in specified cases 

– 

– 

– 

the  law  was  complemented  by  guidelines  for 
courts  issued  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice  that 
instructed the courts to : 

–  Pursuant  to  §2  of  the  COVID  Act  the  same  applies  to 
procedural  deadlines  on  the  part  of  the  parties  to  the 
proceedings.  If  the  extension  of  the  deadline  in  not  possible 
due  to  threat  to  life,  health,  security,  freedom  and  possible 
significant damage, the court has a discretion not to apply this 
provision and continue within the set deadline.  

- 
- 

- 
- 
- 

restrict the movement of the public within the court 
introduce  compliance  with  hygienic  preventive 
measures 
provide information via telephone/email 
limit participation of public in court hearings 
limit the conduct of hearings only to : 

o 

custodial matters, conditional release 

112 

– 

in 

In the area of cross-border judicial 
cooperation 
civil  matters 
COVID  Act  did  not  introduce  any 
specific 
however 
restrictions, 
general restrictions applies. 

– 
–  The  central  authorities  are  mostly 

working from home. 

– 
–  At the end of April we encountered 
first  problems  with  postal  delivery 
- the court letters addressed even to 
EU  member  states  were  returned 
undelivered. 

– 

the  absence  of  a 

In 
secure 
electronic  delivery  the  use  of  e-
mails can is legally acceptable only 
in  certain  cases.  Moreover,  when 
using  e-mails,  there  is  a  risk  of 
breach  of  security  and  a  risk  of  a 
leak of sensitive personal data. 

–  There  is  also  a  problem  with  the 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
– 

proceedings related to minors and  

o 
o  matters  where 

failure 

to  act  would  cause 

–  No changes to statutory interest rates were introduced (yet). 

irreparable damage 

– 

– 
–  Courts  reduced  working  time  and  allowed  work  from 

–  Restrictive  provisions  in  the  COVID  Act  are  limited  in  time 
(30  April  2020).  Possible  extension  will  be  subject  to  future 
consideration  (consent  of  the  Government  and  the  Parliament 
will be required to amend the law).  

home 

– 

– 

- 

- 

–  SLOV
ENIA 
(SI) 

–  The Decree of March 13 of the President of the Supreme Court 
on  the  basis  of  a  proposal  by  the  Minister  of  Justice, 
determined  that  except  in  the  urgent  matters,  procedural 
deadlines are suspended. 

–  The 13 March Decree invoked special measures 
stipulated in the Courts' Act that can be used in 
cases of natural disasters and large epidemics.  

– 

–  A  Law  on  temporary  measures  in  judicial,  administrative  and 
other  public  matters  in  order  to  damage  control  of  the 
spreading of the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) was adopted on 20 
march  2020  and  came  into  force  on  29  March  2020.  All  the 
measures determined in this law and any other measures taken 

– 
Main  hearings  will  only  be  held  and 
decisions will only be taken in urgent matters 
(what  is  urgent  matter  is  established  in  the 
Courts  act.  The  law  authorised  the  President  of 
the  Supreme  Court  with  the  power  to  further 
limit the list of urgent procedures.  
– 
Second  Decree  of  the  President  of  the 
Supreme  Court  was  issued  on  31  March  2020 

113 

proof  of  delivery 
documents. 

/  service  of 

–  Slovakia  would  welcome 

a 
uniform  EU  approach  that  would 
meet the criteria required for cross-
border judicial cooperation. 

– 
–  General 

requests/  questions 

to 
central  authority  may  be  sent  via 
email:  

the  central  authority  for  the  Regulation 
(EC)  No 1393/2007  and  the  Council 
1206/2001 
(EC)  No 
Regulation 
(Ministry 
Justice): 
of 
civil.inter.coop@justice.sk 

– 

the  central  Authority  for  the  Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  2201/2003  and 
the  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
for 
4/2009 
Legal 
International 
Protection  of  Children  and 
Youth): info@cipc.gov.sk 

Centre 

(The 

– 
–  The 

Central 

(Ministry 

1206/2001 

for 
authority 
Regulation 
(EC)  No 1393/2007 
and  the  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 
of 
Justice)  established  a  system  of 
Therefore, 
teleworking. 
communication 
be 
transmitted as much as possible via 
e-mail instead of paper mail, to the 
address: 
following 
e-mail 
to 
mailto:mgp.mp@gov.si.  Due 
circumstances, 
these 

special 

should 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
on the basis of this law are valid until it is established by the 
decision  of  the  Government,  that  the  reasons  for  these 
measures have ceased, but at the longest until 1 July 2020. 

– 
–  The Law introduced provisions for all time limits (material 
and  procedural).  Time  limits  to  bring  up  a  claim  in  judicial 
proceedings),  which  are  determined  by  law,  are  suspended  as 
from  29  March  2020.  Deadlines  in  judicial  proceedings 
(procedural  deadlines)  are  also  suspended  as  from  29  March 
2020, except in judicial matters that are established as urgent.  

– 

– 

– 

In addition, the deadline to lodge the constitutional complaint 
is suspended.  

–  Time limits will continue to run after the measures determined 

by the Law will expire. 

– 

further limiting the list of urgent matters. 
–  Urgent  civil  matters  are  currently 

the 

following:  

transmitting  of  requests  in  paper 
mail  to  competent  courts  may  be 
delayed. 

(i.e. 

securing 

security  matters 

- 
evidence, 
withholding the payment, execution of forbidding of certain 
actions)  except  the  actions  where  personal  contact  of  the 
enforcement  officers,  parties  and  other  persons  is  needed 
under  the  condition  that  these  actions  are  not  urgent  in 
order  to  prevent  danger  for  life  and  health  of  citizens  or 
their property of higher value, 
- 
alimony, 
- 
psychiatric establishments, 
- 
Claims 
information. 

non-contentious  maters  regarding  detention  in 

civil  enforcement  regarding  child  custody  and 

publishing 

regarding 

correct 

of 

–  All  main  hearings,  sittings  of  the  court  and 
hearings  of  witnesses/parties  in  urgent  matters 
are  to  be  held  via  videoconference,  if  the 
technical and spatial conditions are fulfilled. 
–  All scheduled hearings in non-urgent matters are 

cancelled. 

– 
–  Communication with parties. Except in urgent 
matters,  during  the  time  when  special  measures 
are in place, parties and their representatives and 
other persons: 

–  1. Are not allowed to enter court buildings, 
–  2. All applications, in the proceedings where this 
is possible, are to be filed by a postal way or via 
portal e-Justice, 

–  3. For the communication with courts, published 
email addresses or phone numbers are to be used 
during official hours. 

–  During  the  time  when  special  measures  are  in 
force, parties and their representatives and other 
persons  who 
request 
information regarding their proceedings, have to 
give notice using the published e-mail addresses 
and phone numbers during the official hours. 

in  urgent  matters 

114 

– 

the 

–  The Ministry of Labour, Family, 
and  Equal 
Social  Affairs 
Central 
Opportunities, 
the  Council 
Authority  under 
Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 has 
established  a  system  of  remote 
physical 
working, 
reducing 
presence  at  workplaces 
to  a 
minimum.  In  view  of  the  current 
long  as 
situation,  and  as 
this 
the  Central 
situation  persists, 
Authority  cannot  guarantee 
the 
normal  processing  of  all  incoming 
requests.  Processing  of  incoming 
applications 
be 
can 
guaranteed  when  received  by  e-
mail  to  gp.mddsz@gov.si.  They 
strongly  encourage  keeping  all 
electronic 
communications 
means.  Outgoing  requests  will  be 
sent  exclusively  by  electronic 
means. 

only 

by 

– 

–  Public 

Scholarship, 
Development,  Disability 
and  Maintenance  Fund  of 
the 
of 
Republic 
Slovenia,  the  Central 
Authority 
the 
(EC)  No 
Council  Regulation 
currently 
4/2009 
operating  remotely  from 

under 

is 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
– 

In all cases, that are not included in the examples 
from  the  first  and  the  second  paragraph  of  this 
point,  courts  determine  one  access  to  the  court 
building,  where  all  preventive  measures  against 
the COVID-19 infection are taken. 

– 
–  Judicial documents are not served as from 16 

March 2020. 

– 
– 
–  Enforcement  of  the  decisions  is  suspended, 
from  the  day  of  the  entering  into  force  of  the 
COVID-19  law,  except  in  cases  of  enforcement 
of maintenance claims, and in cases for damages 
for lost maintenance because of the death of the 
providing  person.  The  suspension  comes  into 
effect  by  operation  of  law,  therefore  courts  and 
tax  authorities  will  not  issue  any  decisions 
during this time.  

– 

– 
– 

–  SPAIN 
(ES) 

–  All  terms  are  suspended,  and  time  limits  provided  for  in 
the  procedural  laws  for  all  jurisdictional  orders  are 
suspended  and  discontinued.  The  calculation  of  the  time 
limits  will  be  resumed  at  the  moment  that  the  extensions  of 
Royal Decree 463/2020 become invalid.  

–  The  work  within  judicial  premises  has  been 
significantly 
and 
communication  tools  have  been  provided  or 
reinforced,  in  order  to  facilitate  teleworking  of 
judges, prosecutors, and other legal actors.  

solutions 

reduced. 

I.T. 

– 

– 

–  Suspension of procedural deadline don’t apply to a number of 
specific proceedings, including the protection of children.  

–  Public  Notaries  and  Public  Registries  are 
considered  as  an  essential  public  service  and 
they are guaranteed.  

– 

–  The  judge  or  court  may  agree  to  conduct  any  judicial 

– 

115 

if 

home.  Therefore,  the 
Central  Authority  would 
appreciate 
the 
communications 
were 
sent  via  e-mail  to  the 
e-mail 
following 
address: 
jpsklad@jps-rs.si. 
The  Central  Authority 
will  also  communicate 
and  send  requests  via 
email. 

– 

– 

–  Spanish  central  authority  cannot 
guarantee  normal  processing  of 
(especially 
requests 
incoming 
paper  requests).  Requests  must  be 
sent by electronic means. 

– 

– 

-  Taking  of  evidence  (art  3  of 
Regulation  1206/2001  :  Serious 
and  urgent 
requests  will  be 
processed, requests must be sent to 
rogatoriascivil@mjusticia.es  .  All 
the  rest  must  follow  the  usual 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
   
 
 
proceedings that are necessary to avoid irreparable damage to 
the  rights  and  legitimate  interests  of  the  parties  to  the 
proceedings.  

– 

–  No  measures  directed  at 

legal  proceedings  have  been 

– 

–  SWED
EN 
(SE) 

introduced so far. 

– 

– 

– 

–  The  Swedish  courts,  that  are  independent  from 
the Government, have taken diverse measures to 
face  the  current  situation.  In  general,  more 
hearings 
than  usual  have  been  cancelled, 
primarily  due  to  illness  of  parties,  lawyers  and 
witnesses.  The  courts  have  increased  the  use  of 
video-  and  telephone  conference.  The  existing 
rules  are  used  to  carry  on  business  as  safe  and 
effective as possible. 

– 

– 

116 

procedure by sending them directly 
to  the  competent  Spanish  Court  in 
paper. 

- Child abduction and maintenance 
recovery  :  Processing  of  requests 
can  only  be  guaranteed  when 
received  by  email.  Enforcement 
shall  be  subject  to  urgency,  taking 
limitation  of 
into  account 
the 
movement 
on 
citizens. (sustraccionmenores@mj
usticia.es) 
(SGCJIAlimentos@mjusticia.es) 

imposed 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6: Statistical data on the use of the e-Justice portal 

Table 5 - Number of visitors of the e-Justice Portal’s pages related to criminal matters 

50000

45000

40000

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

Sum of Unique visitors

Sum of Visits

1
0
-
9
1
0
2

2
0
-
9
1
0
2

3
0
-
9
1
0
2

4
0
-
9
1
0
2

5
0
-
9
1
0
2

6
0
-
9
1
0
2

7
0
-
9
1
0
2

8
0
-
9
1
0
2

9
0
-
9
1
0
2

0
1
-
9
1
0
2

1
1
-
9
1
0
2

2
1
-
9
1
0
2

1
0
-
0
2
0
2

2
0
-
0
2
0
2

3
0
-
0
2
0
2

4
0
-
0
2
0
2

5
0
-
0
2
0
2

6
0
-
0
2
0
2

7
0
-
0
2
0
2

8
0
-
0
2
0
2

9
0
-
0
2
0
2

0
1
-
0
2
0
2

1
1
-
0
2
0
2

2
1
-
0
2
0
2

1
0
-
1
2
0
2

2
0
-
1
2
0
2

3
0
-
1
2
0
2

4
0
-
1
2
0
2

5
0
-
1
2
0
2

6
0
-
1
2
0
2

7
0
-
1
2
0
2

Number of visitors of the e-Justice Portal’s pages related to civil and commercial matters 

140000

120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0

Sum of Unique visitors

Sum of Visits

2
0
-
9
1
0
2

3
0
-
9
1
0
2

4
0
-
9
1
0
2

5
0
-
9
1
0
2

6
0
-
9
1
0
2

7
0
-
9
1
0
2

8
0
-
9
1
0
2

9
0
-
9
1
0
2

0
1
-
9
1
0
2

1
1
-
9
1
0
2

2
1
-
9
1
0
2

1
0
-
0
2
0
2

2
0
-
0
2
0
2

3
0
-
0
2
0
2

4
0
-
0
2
0
2

5
0
-
0
2
0
2

6
0
-
0
2
0
2

7
0
-
0
2
0
2

8
0
-
0
2
0
2

9
0
-
0
2
0
2

0
1
-
0
2
0
2

1
1
-
0
2
0
2

2
1
-
0
2
0
2

1
0
-
1
2
0
2

2
0
-
1
2
0
2

3
0
-
1
2
0
2

4
0
-
1
2
0
2

5
0
-
1
2
0
2

6
0
-
1
2
0
2

7
0
-
1
2
0
2

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 7: The standard cost model for estimating 
administrative costs  

Detailed description of the approach to the assessment of costs and benefits 

This annex provides a description of the approach to assess the main benefits and costs to 
competent  authorities  and  EU  citizens  that  can  be  attributed  to  the  communication  in 
cross-border judicial cooperation under the baseline scenario and for the selected policy 
measure. For the assessment of costs and benefits against baseline scenario, combination 
of reported data and estimated data based on the reported one was used. 

–  For the purpose if this analyses we consider the term “transaction” which refer 
to  the  instance  where  a  package  of  documents  is  sent  cross  border  with 
acknowledgement of receipt from a citizen, legal practitioner or court in one MS 
to a court in another MS. 

The following data is used as input for the calculations:  

The average cost of communication is EUR 10.55 per transaction88. The calculation is 
based on an average of the costs of sending an international certified letter from Belgium, 
Bulgaria,  Finland,  France,  Italy  and  Estonia.  When  further  information  was  available 
online, it was factored in, including average cost of sending to different Member States 
(the Member States used were the remaining 5 in the list), the weight of the letter (250 
grams  was  used)  and  the  possibility  to  have  the  letter  picked  up  in  the  facilities  of  the 
judicial authority.  

The  average  time  declared  by  operators  (postal  services,  carriers  etc.)  for  posting  a 
first-class letter in the EU-27 is 2 days (48 hours). This number has been taken as an 
average for the time it takes to send a letter from Member State A to Member State B. 
However, anecdotal50 evidence suggests the time is much longer – between 3 to 15 days 
depending on the destination. Therefore, we have considered  an average  of  5 days per 
transaction.  

The processing of paper forms i.e. registration, archiving, making copies, scanning was 
estimated  at  1.5  hours  per  transaction  (45  min  for  each  instance,  sending  and 
receiving).  

The  average  number  of  paper  pages  per  transaction  (the  average  length  of  the 
template forms associated to the considered cross-border instruments) is 19.65 at a cost 
of EUR 0.24 per transaction.  

88 Study by the contractor – Study on the digitalisation of cross-border judicial cooperation in the EU prepared by 
Valdani Vicari & Associati (VVA) 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
For the administrative court processes, there are at least  3 copies of each document: 
the  one  being  send,  the  one  being  kept  in  the  file,  one  that  is  circulated  with  the 
enforcement authorities.   

For each the resolution of each instrument we consider that a minimum of 3 transactions 
take  place:  send  a  request,  receive  acknowledgement  of  receipt  from  the  court,  receive 
result of the request. 

Data reported by Member States and centralised in table 10 show quite a heterogeneous 
availability of statistics and also ranging from 3 cases of request for the application of the 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/200389 in CZ in 2020 to 1530 active cases, with 3060 
messages needed every year for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 in 
FR  in  2020  and  20226  European  Arrest  Warrants  issued  in  EU  27  in  2020.  For  the 
purpose  of  this  analysis  we  considered  and  average  of  1000  transactions  per 
instrument per Member State.  

Total yearly transactions EU27: 3,078,000 = 1000 (transactions/instrument) x 3 
exchanges x 38 instruments x 27 MS  

Option 0 - Baseline scenario 

The  baseline  scenario  considers  the  as  is  situation  i.e.  the  use  of  the  digital  channel  of 
communication  would  remain voluntary  for each Member  State,  and  thus  most  of  the 
cross-border judicial communication will be done in the traditional way.   

This  will  result  in  continuing  to  have  the  following yearly costs  and  delays  attached  to 
cross-border cooperation at EU level:  

  EUR  32   472 900  for  communication  in physical format  (out  of  which  EUR 

5,697,000 for the individuals, legal entities);  

  15 390 000 days for communication by post or equivalent services (out of which 

2,700.000 days for the individuals and legal entities);  

  192 375  days  in  administrative  overheads  linked  to  paper  processing  which 

translates to 874 person-years in processing effort in courts;  

  181 448 100 A4 standard 80g printing paper pages (out of which 31 833 000 for 
the individuals and legal entities) with the overall average cost of EUR 2 216 160 
(EUR 388 800). 

Under  this  scenario,  the  digitalisation  costs  are  not  considered  as  their  weight  in 
offsetting these costs can be calculated only when instruments are fully digitised.  

Option 1 

Transaction  costs  and  times  in  cross-border  judicial  cooperation,  as  presented  in  the 
baseline option, will start to decrease only when the first two Member States put in place 
interoperable  IT  systems  fully  supporting  communication  or  if  all  Member  States  are 
fully  digitising  one  procedure90.  The  voluntary  initiatives  of  the  past  decade  show  a 

89 Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 
90 Table 16 yearly benefits of the European Payment Procedure 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
coverage  of  at  most  1%  of  total  transactions  being  carried  out  by  digital  means91.  This 
has not been sufficient to produce any tangible cost savings, as most communication has 
been  by  traditional  means.  For  the  purpose  of  this  assessment  we  will  be  using  the 
calculation  of  the  yearly  benefits  of  digitising  the  European  Payment  Procedure  as 
presented in the Impact Assessment of e-Codex. This is consistent with the current level 
of participation92 in  the e-Codex pilots which shows a maximum number of 6 Member 
States participating in a certain procedure. Therefore, it is safe to assume that any further 
voluntary  cooperation  can  at  best  be  approximated  in  terms  of  benefits  with  one 
procedure like the European payment order being fully digitised. 

Based  on  tables  12  and  16  it  will  result  that  the  costs  for  Member  States  will  slightly 
decrease to: 

  EUR 32 174 616 for communication using physical formats;  

  15 387 525 days for communication by post or equivalent services; 

The e-Codex cost model do not offer us any indication of the savings in administrative 
costs or in paper. 

Option 2 - Preferred Option – Legislative option: mandatory establishment and use 
of a digital channel for cross-border communication  

This  option  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  the  IT  systems  for  the  exchanges  of  the 
European Investigation Orders and for Service of Documents/Taking of Evidence that are 
developed  by  the  European  Commission  will  be  extended  to  cover  the  cross-border 
judicial  communication  (table  3).  The  total  one-off  cost  for  extending  the  eEDES  and 
Service  of  documents/Taking  of  evidence93  to  the  full  scope  of  the  legislative  option 
would be EUR 18 700 000 over 5 years. This will result in a yearly investment of EUR 
3 740 000.  This  cost  will  be  covered  by  the  EU  Budget  thorough  the  Digital  Europe 
Program  and  the  Justice  Program.    The  yearly  business  as  usual  (maintenance  and 
support) costs that are associated with operating the IT system at EU27 level is estimated 
at EUR 8 100 000 which corresponds to 3 person-years/Member State x EUR 100,000. 
This is an average cost to be covered by each MS.   

The cost  per digital  transaction is  EUR 2.95.  The average overall  yearly saving at  EU 
level is EUR 23 372 900 in postage costs and EUR 2 216 160 in paper costs amounting 
to a grand total of EUR 25 589 060. The individuals and legal entities will be saving 
EUR 4 098 600 in postage costs and EUR 388 800 in paper costs.  

91   Currently, only the e-CODEX pilot implementations are providing for cross-border digital exchanges. 
This  leads  to  the  assumption    that  less  than  1%  of  the  total  transactions  in  cross-border  cases  are 
digital..see tables 12 and 16 

92 Table 17 – Participation in e-Codex Pilots 
93Table  3  –  investment  and  running  costs  for  the  e-Evidence  Digital  Exchange  System  and  Service  of 
Documents/Taking of Evidence IT system(s) 

121 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
The average posting time will be reduced to 0 resulting in an overall yearly reduction of 
the duration of the procedures by 15 389 999 days. The the individuals and legal entities 
will be gaining 2 700 000 days in average posting time.  

874 person-years will be gained in processing effort at court/competent authority level. 

181 448 100 A4 standard 80g printing paper pages will be saved out of which 31 833 000 
by individuals and legal entities. 

Sensitivity analysis – after 1 year of implementation at 1/5 of digital exchanges 

Even in the year 1 of implementing on 1/5 of exchanges digital will have a net gain of 
EUR  4 672 404  in  postage  costs  to  which  it  adds  EUR  443 232  in  paper.  Further 
deducting the  yearly  investment  of  EUR 3 740 000 in  the  IT system, the partial  digital 
exchange will generate a net benefit of EUR 1 375 636.  

175 person-years will be gained in processing effort in courts. 

36 289 620 A4 standard 80g printing paper pages will be saved. 

This  analysis  demonstrated  net  benefits  of  implementing  the  digital  channel  even  from 
the first year of hybrid operation digital/traditional, where the investment costs are offset 
by the gain in postal and paper costs.  

–  This analysis demonstrated net benefits of implementing the digital channel even 
from  the  first  year  of  hybrid  operation  digital/traditional,  where  the  investment 
costs are offset by the gain in postal and paper costs. The man/year effort saved 
in courts is substantial.  

 Sources of data 

Statistics of cross-border communication by purpose of request94 

This  subsection  presents  an  overview  of  available  relevant  statistics  of  cross-border 
communication inn judicial cooperation in EU Member States. Consultation of relevant 
stakeholders  suggests  that  little  to  no  statistical  records  are  currently  collected  at  the 
institutional  and  Member  States  level  in  what  concerns  the  means  of  exchange  of 
information (paper-based vs. digital). Where information is available, it indicates that the 
vast majority of cross-border exchanges are currently carried out in paper-based form.  

According to a representative of the Slovenian Office of the State Prosecutor General, 
their Office is the first judicial authority in Slovenia that will be using e-CODEX for the 
purpose of exchanging requests in the frame of EIO and MLA (through the e-Evidence 
portal).  Currently,  they  do  not  have  a  lot  of  EIO  and  MLA  cases.  According  to  an 
interviewed stakeholder, Slovenian Office of the State Prosecutor General joined EXEC 

94 Study by the contractor – Study on the digitalisation of cross-border judicial cooperation in the EU prepared by 
Valdani Vicari & Associati (VVA) 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
II95 because of the fast exchange of digital information through this tool, as well as of the 
intention that other instruments will be included in the e-Evidence portal in the future. 

The  table  below  presents  statistics  for  the  exchange  of  data  on  received  and  issued 
requests regarding the European Investigation Order and the Mutual Legal Assistance in 
Slovenia in 2019:  

Table  8  -  Statistical  data  on  received  and  issued  requests  regarding  European 
Investigation Order and Mutual Legal Assistance in Slovenia (2019) 

–  European Investigation Order – issued requests 

–  EIO – issued 

–  Receipt of data  

–  Rejected EIO 

–  European Investigation Order – received requests 

–  EIO – received 

–  Answers – sent evidence 

–  Assignment to another authority 

–  Rejection  

–  Mutual Legal Assistance – issued requests 

–  Issued requests  

–  Closed cases - no answer  

–  Received answer 

–  Mutual Legal Assistance – received requests 

–  Received requests 

–  Closed cases - no answer 

–  Answers sent 

–  Events together 96 

–  135 

–  89 

–  45 

–  1 

–  114 

–  68 

–  13 

–  32 

–  1 

–  221 

–  154 

–  2 

–  65 

–  173 

–  105 

–  4 

–  64 

–  637 

95 The EXEC II project (Electronic Xchange of e-Evidences) is the follow-up project of the previous EXEC and 
EVIDENCE2-e-CODEX projects. It provides a package of activities for its project partners to set up, roll out, maintain 
and integrate the eEDES (e-Evidence Digital Exchange System) of the European Commission. 
96 Excluded closed cases with no answer 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
According  to  the Austrian  Federal  Computing  Centre,  Austria  currently  exchanges  e-
CODEX messages predominantly with Germany – with other Member States there is no 
significant communication. The exchanges through e-CODEX between the two countries 
happen in relation to the European Payment Order and Small Claims, while iSupport is 
currently in evaluation, and EIO is in the course of preparation.  

The  table  below  presents  statistics  for  the  exchange  of  e-CODEX  messages  between 
Austria and Germany in the first quarter of 202197: 

Table  9  -  Exchange  of  e-CODEX  messages  between  Austria  and  Germany  in  the  first 
quarter of 2021 

Party 

Service 

Messages received by AT  
from DE 

Messages sent by AT to DE 

DE 

EPO 

DE 

EPO 

133 
Totals  133 

186 
Totals  186 

DE 

EPO 

255 
Totals  255 
Overall Totals  574 

1/2021 

2/2021 

3/2021 

194 
194 

373 
373 

296 
296 
863 

In turn, the consulted Swedish national authority, deals with the following number of 
cases (both received and issued requests) on a yearly basis: 

  European Payment Order: 200-300; 
  Small Claims: 30; 
  Financial Penalties: 200-300; 
  EIO and MLA: 1 300 from the Prosecution Authority of which the EIOs are about 

90%; 

  MLA: 500 from The County Administrative Board; 
 
  European Arrest Warrants: 200. 

iSupport: 2 000; 

No information is available on whether the above exchanges are implemented in paper-
based or digital form. 

to  a  representative  of 

the  Directorate-General  for  the 
Moreover,  according 
Administration  of  Justice  of  the  Portuguese  Central  Authority,  for  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States 
in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, there is  an average of 40 new 
cases per month where Portugal is the requesting State. If the case is to be sent to another 
Member State, the initial request is always handled by post. Any further communication 
within Central Authorities of receiving Member States is carried out by e-mail. 

97 Statistics provided by the Austrian Federal Computing Centre 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Each letter sent by post by the Portuguese Central Authority to another Member State has 
a cost between EUR 5.25 and EUR 8.80, depending on the letter weight and the distance 
to the recipient Member State. On average, each letter takes 10 minutes to be processed, 
which  implies  at  least  6  hours  per  month  dealing  with  letters  that  are  sent  by  post. 
Portuguese  authorities  estimate  that  with  digitalisation,  processing  of  each  case  would 
take  5  to  10  minutes,  depending  on  the  volume  of  the  case.  The  total  monthly  time 
dedicated  to  processing  of  requests  would  then  be  reduced  by  half  in  case  of 
digitalisation of the process.  

According to the information in the annual report of the Sofia City Court in Bulgaria, 
the following number of requests were received by the Court in 2019-2020: 

Table 10: Requests for judicial cooperation procedures received by the Sofia City Court 
in 2019-2020 

Judicial cooperation procedures 

EPO applications 

Enforcement  of  foreign  judgments 
on maintenance 

Requests for ToE 

Requests 
judgments on uncontested claims 

enforcement 

for 

of 

Requests  for  recognition  of  foreign 
judgments  based  on  Brussels  I  and 
Brussels Ia 

EIO 

Requests for SoD 

2019 

60 

2 

- 

1 

6 

13 

2 

2020 

38 

8 

1 

6 

6 

14 

- 

As an anecdotal example in the same court there was a civil case where the claim and the 
written  evidence  comprised  twelve  cartoon  boxes  full  of  paper  and  those  had  to  be 
multiplied by the number of defendants (27) and sent to each one of them. Some of the 
defendants resided other EU countries and the expenses for sending the documents were 
especially high. 

Although  the  figures  above  concern  only  certain  Member  States  and  apply  only  with 
regard to exchanges on specific EU instruments, it is clear that the paper exchanges are 
still  prevalent  in  most  EU  Member  States.  Digitalisation  of  cross-border  cooperation 
would  speed  up  the  exchange  of  information  between  competent  authorities  and  would 
reduce costs and workload associated with this exchange.  

Cross-border communication process, costs and benefits 

The  section  below  outlines  some  examples  of  cross-border  processes  provided  by  the 
consulted  stakeholders  that  illustrate  the  time  and  activities  involved  in  cross-border 
exchanges.  The  analysis  of  information  collected  through  follow-up  interviews  and  e-
mail  exchanges  with  relevant  stakeholders  (first  consulted  through  the  online  survey), 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
suggests that the process of cross-border communication follows   a similar logic in most 
Member States.  

A prosecutor from the  Prosecution office in Italy, which is  the only  Italian competent 
authority  to  deal  with  the  European  Investigation  Orders  (EIO),  explained  that  she 
receives an average of one EIO per working day, all of which arrive in  paper format98. 
According  to  the  interviewee,  handling  the  EIO  is  a  very  time-  and  effort-consuming 
process. Processing of the EIO typically follows the steps below: 

  Scanning  the  received  paper  dossier  for  the  prosecutor’s  own  files  (up  to  15 

minutes per case); 

  Receiving  the  signature  of  the  deputy  prosecutor,  in  case  their  signature  is 

required (up to one additional day); 

  Making  a  physical  copy  of  the  received  dossier  for  the  judicial  police,  and 
sending  the  copy  to  the  police  (up  to  15  minutes  per  case);  the  exact  time  of 
processing of the dossier by the judicial police is unknown. 

  Once the documents are received back from the judicial police, the received files 
are scanned and added to the digitalised dossier (up to 40 minutes per case); 

  Finalised  paper  documents  are  sent  to  the  receiving  Member  State  by  post. The 
postal delivery takes between three and 15 days, depending on the destination. 

Based on this information, the postal delivery of the documents between the Prosecution 
office  and  the  sending/receiving  Member  State  currently  takes  six  to  30  days.  The 
processing  time  could  be  reduced  by  this  time  (for  postal  delivery),  if  the  document 
exchange was carried out through digital means. The prosecutor themselves would save 
approximately  one  hour  per  EIO  case  (so  22-23  hours  per  month).  As  regards  costs, 
digitalisation  would  save  4-5  euros  per  postal  package.  The  exchange  of  documents 
through digital means would also be more secure than by regular post, according to the 
consulted stakeholders. 

 According  to  data  collected  by  the  Commission  through  their  September  2020 
questionnaires to competent authorities and lawyers in Member States, Eurojust and EJN, 
most  Member  States  execute  an  EIO  and  transfer  the  evidence  to  the  issuing  Member 
State  within  31  to  60  days.  Some  Member  States,  however,  stated  to  receive  evidence 
from the executing State only within 91 to 120 days.  

An  interviewed  representative  of  the  Portuguese  EJN  Civil  Contact  Point  stated  that 
100  %  of  their  incoming  and  outgoing  cross-border  communication  exchanges  are 
carried  out  through  digital  means  (by  e-mail).  The  majority  of  the  communication 
exchanges  constitute  requests  for  information,  and  approximately  one  third  of  cross-
border  communication  are  requests  for  cooperation.  Cross-border  communication 
requests in the EJN Civil Contact Point in Portugal are dealt within the same time frame 
as  national  procedures.  If  the  receiving  Member  State  requests  so,  cross-border 
communication with them may be carried out in paper-based form (per registered mail) 
as an exception. The interviewed representative  of the EJN Civil  Contact  Point did  not 
have statistics about the differences in cost between communication sent and/or received 
digitally and that sent and/or received by postal mail.  

A  representative  of  a  bailiff  office  in  Luxembourg  explained  that  by  current 
Luxembourg legislation, all internal and cross-border communication on judicial matters 

98 Interview with the Prosecution office in Italy, carried out by DG JUST of the European Commission. 

126 

 
 
 
                                                           
is  carried  out  exclusively  on  paper-based  form,  with  some  exceptions. The  interviewee 
shared  that  they  carry  out  two  major  types  of  work  that  may  require  cross-border 
communication:  (1)  service  of  documents  and  (2)  enforcement  of  judgements. 
Communication  related  to  the  service  of  documents  is  typically  a  one-time  operation, 
while the enforcement of judgements may require several communication exchanges.  

Processing the incoming cross-border service of documents requests usually follows the 
steps below: 

  Receipt of a letter with documents to be served, accompanied by request details. On 
rare occasions, requests may come in digitally (for example, requests from Germany). 

  Opening a case and assigning a case number. 

  Sending  an  acknowledgement  of  receipt  to  the  transmitting  agency  in  the  sending 

Member State (always in a digital form, per e-mail). 

  Analysing  the  received  documents  (checking  whether  the  assigned  bailiff  is 
competent  to  serve  the  addressee;  checking,  whether  the  addressee’s  address  is 
correct). The analysis of the documents typically takes one to two days.  

  Delivering the documents to the addressee (by national law, the documents must be 
served  to  the  addressee  on  paper).  The  addressee  typically  receives  the  documents 
three working days after they arrive to the bailiff’s office.  

 

Issuing  a  certificate  of  proof  of  delivery  and  sending  it  to  the  transmitting  agency 
(always in a digital form, per e-mail). 

  Sending  the  documents  back  to  the  transmitting  agency  –  five  days  after  the 

documents first arrived to the bailiff’s office.  

  Closing the file.  

Processing the outgoing cross-border service of documents requests usually follows the 
steps below: 

•  Preparing the paper documents; 
• 
• 

Identifying the competent receiving agency in the receiving Member State; 
If necessary, preliminarily getting in touch with the receiving agency by phone or 
per e-mail; 

•  Translating of documents in the language of the receiving Member State; 
•  Sending  the  documents  to  the  receiving  Member  State  (estimated  receipt  date: 

five-six days after the case is originated by the bailiff’s office). 

According to the interviewee, there are advantages and disadvantages of digitalisation of 
cross-border  communication  in  judicial  matters.  On  the  one  hand,  digitalisation  will 
speed up the delivery of the documents, and will thus reduce substantially the processing 
time for each case. On the other hand, it is time-consuming for the bailiffs to scan multi-
page sets of paper documents to convert them to the digital form. Nonetheless, this time 
for  scanning  documents  would  be  avoided  if  both  the  sending  and  receiving  Member 
State were to exchange documents electronically. 

In  relation  to  the  establishment  and  finalisation  of  the  e-CODEX  platform  in  the 
European  Union,  the  interviewee  assessed  the  expected  national-level  investment  to 
equal 300 000 to 500 000 euros. He estimated the expected company-level investment to 

127 

 
 
 
equal  10 000  to  20 000  euros.  The  interviewee  believes  that  the  investment  in  the  e-
CODEX platform would pay off in approximately 10 years.  

An  interviewee  from  the  Network  of  Dutch  Bailiffs  said  that  in  the  Netherlands,  as 
well as in Luxembourg, all cross-border communication on judicial matters is carried out 
in  paper-based  format.  According  to  the  interviewee,  the  requests  for  services  from 
abroad arrive to the Royal Chamber of Bailiffs of the Netherlands. The Royal Chamber 
receives  and  processes  approximately  40  requests  for  services  per  week;  it  then 
distributes the requests among the bailiffs. All requests are processed within 1.5 days a 
week by a dedicated administrator.  

The  consulted  stakeholders  also  shared  some  general  considerations  with  regard  to 
digitalisation of cross-border judicial cooperation: 

  Some  Member  States  (e.g.  Netherlands,  Spain)  have  a  national  justice  system 
which is already digitalised and, thus, no major investments would be needed from 
them  to  digitalise  cross-border  justice.  The  investments  would  mainly  pertain  to 
the costs to make the national system ‘interoperable’.  

  All stakeholders agree that the process will be much faster if all Member States are 
connected to the same digital system. Efforts required by Member States would be 
paid off on the long term. 

  While  less  time/resources  would  be  needed  if  the  documents  are  exchanged 
electronically, more work would fall on specific categories such as lawyers/judges, 
thus,  highly  qualified  staff  (costly)  compared  to  administrative  staff  currently 
involved in handling paper exchanges; 
Investment in training on ICT skills would be needed for all judicial/legal 
categories should digitalisation be mandatory; 
  Translation costs should also be taken into account. 

 

128 

 
 
 
 
Table 11 – Quantitative data from the MS 

–  Instrument 

–  Forms  and 
pages  per 
form 

–  No 

of 

–  Notes  

–  No 

of 

pages 
per 
instrum
ent 

cases 

–  Time 

for 
communic
ation 

–  Costs 

–  Other 

– 

– 

– 

–  SK  –  no 
electronic 
communic
ation; 

–  Civil law instruments 

–  1.Council 
Regulation 
(EC) 
44/2001 

No 

–  Annex 

5 
(1),  Annex 
6 (1) 

–  2 

–  No  longer 
force, 
of 
of 

in 
Date 
end 
validity: 
09/01/201
5; 
Repealed 
by 
32012R12
15  which 
has 
Annex  1 
(4), 
Annex 
2(3), for a 
total  of  7 
pages  for 
the 
instrumen
t. 

–  2.Council 
Directive 
2003/8/EC 

1. 

–  N/A 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

–  SK  –  no 
electronic 
communic

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
–  3. 

Council 

Regulation 
(EC) 
2201/2003 

No 

–  8 

–  Annex 

1 
(2),  Annex 
2 
(2),Annex 
3 
(2),Annex 
4 (2) 

–  In 

force: 
This 
act 
has  been 
changed. 
Current 
consolidat
ed 
version: 
01/03/200
5      Total 
pages  for 
the 
consolidat
ed version 
does NOT 
change. 

–  DE 

– 

between 
2017-2020 
– 
2135 
various 
cases; 

–  CZ  –  for 
2019 
and 
2020  –  3 
cases; 

–  BG  –  95 
exchanges 
by 
the 
Central 
authority; 

–  HR 

– 

a 

doesn’t 
have 
separate 
index 
for 
some 
of 
civil 
the 
law cases – 
for  2018-
2021  –  67 
cross-
border 
civil 
cases 

law 

130 

ation; 

–  BE  –  all 
requests 
received 
via post; 

–  SK  –  no 
electronic 
communic
ation; 

–  BG 

– 

Central 
authority 
communic
ates 
mostly  on 
paper; 
rarely  – by 
e-mail 

– 

–  DE 

- 
Length  of 
incoming 
Hague 
court 
return 
proceedin
gs 
involving 
another 
EU  MS  – 
the 
from 
applicatio
n  made  to 
court  until 
a  decision 
issued 
is 
at 
first 
instance: 
2016  –  60 
days, 
2017  –  55 
days, 
2018  –  59 
days,  until 
a 
final 
decision is 
issued: 
2016  –  93 
days, 
2017  –  82 
days, 
2018  –  93 
days. 

 
 
 
–  4.  Regulation 
No 

(EC) 
805/2004 

–  15 

–  Annex 

1 
(3),Annex 
2 
(2),Annex 
3 
(2),Annex 
4,(2)Anne
x 
5(4),Anne
x 6(2) 

–  LT 

– 

– 

– 

between 
2016 
and 
2020 – 498 
cases 
(increasing 
each  year); 
till 
July 
2021 – 133 
cases; 

–  DE 

– 

between 
and 
2017 
2019 
– 
1794 cases 

–  CZ  –  for 
2018-2020 
– 
576 
certificates 
requested 

–  In 

force: 
This 
act 
has  been 
changed. 
Current 
consolidat
ed 
version: 
04/12/200
8      Total 
pages  for 
the 
consolidat
ed version 
CHANGE
S  and  are 
as 
follows: 
Annex  1 
(2), 
Annex  2 
(2), 
Annex  3 
(2), 
Annex  4 
(1), 
Annex  5 
(3), 
Annex  6 
(1). 

–  5.  Regulation 

(EC) 
1896/2006 
(EPO) 

–  20 

–  Annex 

1 
(7),Annex 
2 
(2),Annex 
3(2),Anne
x 

–  In 

force: 
This 
act 
has  been 
changed. 
Current 
consolidat

131 

–  SE  –  200-
300  cases 
per year; 

–  LT 

– 

between 

– 

– 

–  BE  –  files 
are  sent  to 
other  MS 
by  e-mail, 
followed 
by a phone 
call 
to 
confirm 
the receipt; 
Files 
received 
from  other 
MS  –  on 
paper. 

–  SK  –  no 
electronic 
communic
ation; 

–  BE  –  all 
communic
ation 
is 
mainly  via 
post; 
rarely  –an 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4(2),Anne
x 
5(3)Annex 
6(2),Anne
x 7(2) 

ed 
version: 
14/07/201
7     Total 
pages  for 
the 
consolidat
ed version 
does NOT 
change. 

132 

and 
2016 
2020 – 112 
cases; 
till 
July  2021 
– 51 

–  DE  –  for 
2018-3.706  
cases; for  

–  2019- 3577 
cases; 
for 
2020-cases 
3697; 

–  CZ  –  for 
2018-2020 
443 
– 
requests; 

–  FR  –  for 
2016-202 – 
2611 cases. 

–  AT  –  for 
2015 
- 
2241  cases 
of  which 
309 
objections 
(14 %); for 
2016 
- 
3328  cases 
of  which 
444 
objections 
(13 %); for 

agreement 
for  e-mail 
exchange. 

–  SK  –  no 
electronic 
communic
ation; 

–  DE  -  As 
soon  as  an 
application 
is 
submitted 
electronica
lly 
not 
only  as  a 
pdf  but  in 
a 
structured 
data 
format, 
this  could 
result  in  a 
considerab
le 
reduction 
in 
workload: 
the 
data 
entry  work 
would  be 
completely 
eliminated 
because 
the 
application 

 
 
- 
2017 
2420  cases 
of  which 
289 
objections 
(12 %); for 
2018 
- 
3807 cases 
of  which 
413 
objections 
(11 %); for 
2019 
- 
5251 cases 
of  which 
899 
objections 
(17 %); for 
2020 
- 
5167  cases 
of  which 
871 
objections 
(17 %). 

– 

133 

is 

for 

data 
read 
directly 
into  the  IT 
application 
for 
the 
European 
order 
payment 
procedure. 
In 
this 
case, 
further 
communic
ation 
would  take 
place 
electronica
lly  (as  far 
as 
legally 
permissibl
e),  so  that 
no  postal 
charges 
would 
incur.  Up 
now, 
to 
this 
form 
of 
application 
only 
has 
been 
submitted 
via 
e-
Codex  by 
Austrian 

 
 
 
–  6.  Regulation 
No 

(EC) 
861/2007 
(small claims) 

–  13 

–  Annex 

1 
(7),Annex 
2 
(2),Annex 
3(2),Anne
x 4(2) 

– 

– 

lawyers. 

–  BE  –  all 
communic
is 
ation 
mainly  via 
post; 
rarely  –an 
agreement 
for  e-mail 
exchange. 

–  SK  –  no 
electronic 
communic
ation; 

–  SE  –  30 
cases  per 
year; 

–  LT 

– 

between 
2018-2020 
–  7  cases; 
till 
July 
2021  –  2 
cases;  

–  DE  –  for 
2017-2019 
– 
2200 
initiated 
cases 
(increasing 
each year); 

–  CZ  –  for 
2018-2020 
– 
485 
cases; 

–  FR  –  for 
2016-2020 
– 
1280 
cases 

–  HR  –  for 
2018-2021 
–  559  new 
cases. 

–  In 

force: 
This 
act 
has  been 
changed. 
Current 
consolidat
ed 
version: 
14/07/201
7     Total 
pages  for 
the 
consolidat
ed version 
CHANGE
S  and  is 
as 
follows: 
Annex  1 
(10), 
Annex  2 
(2), 
Annex  3 
(3), 
Annex  4 
(2),  for  a 
total of 17 
pages  for 
the 
instrumen
t. 

134 

 
 
 
 
–  AT  –  for 
2009-  183 
cases; 
for 
2010 – 177 
for 
cases; 
2011 – 218 
cases; 
for 
2012 – 222 
cases; 
for 
2013 – 258 
cases; 
for 
2014 – 270 
cases; 
for 
2015 – 233 
cases; 
for 
2016 – 215 
cases; 
for 
2017 – 255 
cases; 
for 
2018 – 287 
cases; 
for 
2019 – 306 
for 
cases; 
2020 – 402 
cases. 

– 

– 

– 

– 

–  7.  Directive 
2008/52/EC 

–  N/A 

– 

– 

–  8. 

Council 

Regulation 
(EC) 

No 

–  56 

–  Annex 

1 
(9),  2  (9),  
3 
(7),  4 
(7),  5  (5), 

–  In 

force: 
act 
This 
has  been 
changed. 

135 

–  SE 

- 
iSupport,  2 
per 
000 

–  PT  -  On 
average- 
each  letter 
10 
takes 

–  PT 

- 

•
E
ach  letter 
by 
sent 

–  SK  –  no 
electronic 
communic
ation; 

–  BE  –  all 
requests 
received 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4/2009 

(7),  7 
6 
(10), 8 (1), 
9(1) 

post has a 
cost 
between € 
5,25  and 
8,80, 
€ 
dependin
g  on  the 
volume 

via post; 

–  SK  –  no 
electronic 
communic
ation; 

–  BG 

– 

communic
ation 
mostly  on 
paper; 
rarely  via 
e-mail 

Current 
consolidat
ed 
version: 
31/12/201
8      Total 
number of 
pages 
in 
the 
consolidat
ed version 
CHANGE
S  and 
it 
has 
Annex  1 
(8), 
Annex  2 
(8), 
Annex  3 
(7), 
Annex  4 
(7), 
Annex  5 
(5), 
Annex  6 
(7), 
Annex  7 
(11), 
Annex  8 
(1), 
Annex 
9(1)  ,  for 
a  total  of 
55. 

136 

year; 

–  PT  –  40 
cases  per 
month; 

–  DE 

– 

for 
– 
for 
– 
for 
– 
(see 

requests 
under 
art.56 
2018 
8805; 
2019 
9302; 
2020 
9284 
statistics 
sent by DE 
– 
elaborated 
under  each 
Art.)* 

–  CZ  –  for 
2020  –  6 
cases; 

–  FR  -  1530 
active 
cases,  with 
two 
messages  a 
year 
on 
average 
(=3060 
messages 
needed 

minutes  to 
be 
processed, 
which 
implies,  at 
least, 
6 
hours  per 
month 
dealing 
with 
letters  that 
sent 
are 
by 
post. 
To this- to 
the 
add 
time 
for 
processing 
received 
correspon
dence  by 
post  from 
the  initial 
requests 
that 
are 
sent to PT. 
With 
the 
digitalizati
on process 
we 
can 
estimate  5 
10 
to 
minutes, 
depending 
on 
the 
volume  of 
the case. 

 
 
every 
year); 

–  BG  –  for 
and 
2020 
2021 – 297 
communic
ations 
the CA 

by 

– 

–  CZ  –  for 
and 
2019 
2020  –  8 
cases 

–  CZ  –  for 
2019 
and 
2020  –  98 
certificates 

– 

– 

– 

– 

–  9.  Regulation 
No 

(EU) 
650/2012 
Succession) 

–  N/A 

– 

– 

–  10.  Regulation 
No 

(EU) 
1215/2012 

–  Annex 

1(4),Anne
x 2 (3) 

–  7 

–  In 

force: 
This 
act 
has  been 
changed. 
Current 
consolidat
ed 
version: 
26/02/201
5      Total 
number of 
pages 
does NOT 
change. 

–  11.  Regulation 
No 

(EU) 
606/2013

–  N/A 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

137 

– 

–  BE  –  all 
communic
ation 
is 
mainly  via 
post; 
rarely  –an 
agreement 
for  e-mail 
exchange. 

–  SK  –  no 
electronic 
communic
ation; 

–  SK  –  no 
electronic 
communic

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
–  12.  Regulation 
No 

(EU) 
655/2014 
(EAPO) 

–  N/A 

– 

– 

–  13.  Regulation 
(EU) 2015/848 

–  N/A 

–  14. 

Council 

–  N/A 

Regulation 
(EC) 
2016/1103 

No 

–  15. 

Council 

–  N/A 

Regulation 
(EU) 
2016/1104 

–  16.  Regulation 

(EU) 
2016/1191 

–  Annex 
1(8), 
2 
(9),3  (9),4 
5 
(10), 
6 
(14), 
7 
(12), 

– 

– 

– 

–  117 

– 

– 

– 

– 

–  BE  –  3 
cases  since 
into 
entry 
force 

–  DE  –  for 
and 
2018 
2019 – 758 
cases; 

–  BG  –  for 
2020  –  4 
requests  to 
CA 

– 

– 

– 

– 

138 

–  DE  –  time 
the 

for 
various 
requests  – 
between 
52 
119 days 

and 

–  NL 

-  € 
84.64  ex 
VAT  (for 
execution
) 

ation; 

–  BE-All 
cases 
received 
via post; 

–  SK  –  no 
electronic 
communic
ation; 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

–  SK  –  no 
electronic 
communic
ation; 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8 

(10), 
(13),9 
(11),10 
(10),11 
(11) 

–  17.  Directive 

–  N/A 

– 

(EU) 
2019/1023 

–  18. 

Council 

–  Annex 

–  58 

– 

– 

Regulation 
(EU) 
2019/1111 

1(6), 2 (4), 
3  (11),  4 
(7),  5  (8), 
6 
(7),  7 
(2),  8  (3), 
9 (10) 

–  Criminal law instruments 

–  1.  Regulation 

(EU) 
2018/1805  on 
the 
mutual 
recognition  of 
freezing orders 
and 
confiscation 
orders 

–  2.  Directive 
2011/99/EU 
on 
European 
protection 

the 

–  Annex 

1 
(7),  Annex 
2 (7). 

–  14 

– 

–  Annex 

1 
(4),  Annex 
2 (2) 

–  6 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

139 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
order 

–  3. 

Council 

–  N/A 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Framework 
Decision 
2009/948/JHA 
on  prevention 
and  settlement 
of  conflicts  of 
exercise 
of 
jurisdiction  in 
criminal 
proceedings 

–  4. 

Council 

Framework 
Decision 
2009/829/JHA 
on 
the 
application  of 
principle 
the 
mutual 
of 
recognition  to 
decisions 
on 
supervision 
measures as an 
to 
alternative 
provisional 
detention 

–  5. 

Council 

Framework 
Decision 
2008/947/JHA 
the 
on 
application  of 
principle 
the 

–  Annex 

1 
(6),  Annex 
2 (3) 

–  Annex 

1 
(6),  Annex 
2 (2) 

–  9 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

–  8 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
mutual 
of 
recognition  to 
judgments  and 
probation 
decisions 

–  6. 

Council 

Framework 
Decision 
2008/909/JHA 
on 
the 
application  of 
the 
principle 
mutual 
of 
recognition  to 
judgments 
in 
criminal 
matters 
imposing 
custodial 
sentences 
measures 
involving 
deprivation  of 
liberty 

or 

–  7. 

Council 

Framework 
Decision 
2006/783/JHA 
on 
the 
application  of 
principle 
the 
of 
mutual 
recognition  to 

–  Annex 

1 
(6),  Annex 
2 (1) 

–  7 

–  Annex 
(11) 

–  11 

–  In 

force: 
This 
act 
has  been 
changed. 
Current 
consolidat
ed 
version: 
28/03/200
9        Total 
pages  for 
the 
consolidat
ed version 
does NOT 
change. 
(also  see 
notes 
for 
instrumen
t  n.19  of 
this list) 

–  No  longer 
force, 
of 
of 

in 
Date 
end 
validity: 
18/12/202
0; 
Replaced 
by 

141 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
confiscation 
orders 

–  8. 

Council 

–  Annex (5) 

–  5 

Framework 
Decision 
2003/577/JHA 
on 
the 
of 
execution 
orders freezing 
property 
or 
evidence 

32018R18
05,  which 
has       
Annex  1 
(7), 
Annex  2 
(7).  Total 
pages  for 
the 
new 
instrumen
t 
is  14.  
(also  see 
notes 
for 
instrumen
t  n.19  of 
this list) 

–  No  longer 
force, 
of 
of 

in 
Date 
end 
validity: 
18/12/202
0; 
Replaced 
by 
32018R18
05,  which 
has     
Annex  1 
(7), 
Annex  2 
(7).  Total 
pages  for 
the 
new 
instrumen

142 

– 

– 

– 

– 

 
 
 
 
 
 
– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

–  9. 

Council 

–  N/A 

Directive 
2004/80/EC on 
compensation 
to 
victims 

crime 

–  10.  Directive 
2012/29/EU 
on 
rights 

victim’s 

–  N/A 

–  11. 

Council 

–  Annex  (5-

6) 

Framework 
Decision 
2002/584/JHA 
June 
of  13 
2002  on 
the 
European 
arrest warrant 

– 

– 

–  5  or  6 
(depend
ing 
if 
we 
count 
the 
initial 
page 
with  the 
title  of 
the form 
only) 

t is 14. 

– 

– 

–  In 

force: 
This 
act 
has  been 
changed. 
Current 
consolidat
ed 
version: 
28/03/200
9.      Total 
number of 
pages  for 
new 
the 
version 
does NOT 
change. 
(also  see 
instrumen
t  n.19  of 
this list) 

– 

– 

–  SE  –  200 
per year; 

–  FR  –  for 
2017-2020 
6348  EAW 
through 
police 
cooperatio
n; 
EAW 
received 
and  

6641 

–  HR  –  for 
2018-2021 
314 
– 
EAW. 

– 

– 

–  In 

2018, 

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
27 

the 
Member 
States 
issued 
17471 
EAWs.  In 
2019 
the 
MS  issued 
20226 
EAWs. 

– 

–  SE  –  EIO 
and  MLA 
1  300  per 
year 
from 
the 
Prosecutio
n 
Authority 
of  which 
the  EIOs 
are 
about 
90%.  

–  SI  – 

in 
2019  -  135 
EIO  were 
issued  and 
114  EIO 
were 
received.  

–  SE  -  500 
from  The 
County 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

–  12 

–  Annex  A 
(8),  Annex 
B 
(2), 
Annex  C 
(2) 

–  12.  Directive 
2014/41/EU  of 
the  European 
Parliament and 
of  the  Council 
of 
3  April 
2014 regarding 
the  European 
Investigation 
Order 

–  In 

force: 
This 
act 
has  been 
changed. 
Current 
consolidat
ed 
version: 
01/05/201
4        Total 
pages  for 
the 
consolidat
ed version 
does NOT 
change. 

–  13  Convention 
established  by 
the  Council  in 

–  N/A 

– 

– 

144 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
accordance 
with Article 34 
of  the  Treaty 
on  European 
on 
Union, 
Mutual 
Assistance 
Criminal 
Matters 
the 
between 
Member States 
of 
the 
European 
Union 

in 

– 

Administra
tive Board; 

–  FR  –  for 
2017-2020 
– 
6817 
MLA 
received; 
3111 sent; 

–  HR  –  for 
2018-2021 
– 
379 
MLA. 

–  SI  – 

in 
2019 – 221 
MLA  were 
issued  and 
173  MLA 
were 
received. 

–  14. 

Protocol 
established  by 
the  Council  in 
accordance 
with Article 34 
of  the  Treaty 
on  European 
to  the 
Union 
Convention  on 
Mutual 
Assistance 
Criminal 
Matters 
between 

the 

in 

–  N/A 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

145 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member States 
of 
the 
European 
Union 

– 

–  15. 

Convention 
drawn  up  on 
the  basis  of 
Article  K.3  of 
the  Treaty  on 
European 
Union, relating 
to  extradition 
between 
the 
Member States 
of 
the 
European 
Union 

– 

–  16. 

Convention 
drawn  up  on 
the  basis  of 
Article  K.3  of 
the  Treaty  on 
European 
Union, 
simplified 
extradition 
procedure 
between 
the 
Member States 

on 

–  N/A 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

–  N/A 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the 

of 
European 
Union 

– 

–  17. 

Council 

–  N/A 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Framework 
Decision 
2002/465/JHA 
of  13 
June 
2002  on  joint 
investigation 
teams 

– 

–  18. 

Council 

–  Annex (8) 

–  8 

Framework 
Decision 
2005/214/JHA 
of 24 February 
2005  on 
the 
application  of 
principle 
the 
of 
mutual 
recognition  to 
financial 
penalties 

– 

–  In 

force: 
This 
act 
has  been 
changed. 
Current 
consolidat
ed 
version: 
28/03/200
9      
Total 
pages  for 
the 
consolida
ted 
version 
does 
NOT 
change. 
(also  see 

147 

– 

– 

– 

–  SE  –  200-
per 

300 
year; 

– 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
– 

– 

– 

– 

–  19. 

Council 

–  N/A 

– 

Framework 
Decision 
2009/299/JHA 
of 26 February 
2009 
amending 
Framework 
Decisions 
2002/584/JHA
, 
2005/214/JHA
, 
2006/783/JHA
, 
2008/909/JHA 
and 
2008/947/JHA
, 
thereby 
enhancing  the 
procedural 
of 
rights 
and 
persons 
the 
fostering 
application  of 
principle 
the 
of 
mutual 
recognition  to 
decisions 
rendered in the 

for 
notes 
instrumen
t  n.19  of 
this list) 

– 

forms 

–  The forms 
not 
are 
given 
in 
full  in  the 
amendme
nt.  Any 
reference 
to 
here 
refers 
other 
insturmen
ts 
(n. 
5,6,7,11,1
8  of  this 
list) 

to 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
absence  of  the 
person 
concerned 
the trial 

at 

–  20.  Proposal 
a 

on 

for 
Regulation 
(EU) 
European 
Production and 
Preservation 
Orders 
electronic 
evidence 
criminal 
matters 

for 

in 

–  12 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

–  Annex 

1 
(5),  Annex 
(4), 
2 
3 
Annex 
(3) 

– 

– 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 12 – Cost/benefit analysis paper vs digital 

per transaction 
baseline  
fully digital 
Savings (Baseline-Fully Digital) 

baseline  
baseline at 4/5 
baseline difference 
implementation Year 1 digital at 1/5 
Savings (4/5 paper, 1/5 Digital 

No of 
Instruments 

No of 
transactions 

Cost of 
transaction 
(EUR) 

Total cost of 
transaction 
(EUR) 

Avg Posting 
Time (days) 

Avg paper 
processing 
time (days) 

Avg page #  

Avg paper 
cost #  

38.00 

1 
3 078 000 
3 078 000 

10 55 
2 96 

3 078 000 
2 462 400 

10 5 
10 55 

615 600 

2.96 

32 472 900 
9 100 000 
23 372 900 

32 472 900 
25 978 320 
6 494 580 
1 822 176 
4 672 404 

5.00 
15,390,000 
0 
15 389 999 

15 390 000 
12 312 000 
3 078 000 
0 
3 078 000 

0.06 
192 375 
0 
192 375 

192 375 
153 900 
38 475 
0 
38 475 

19 65 
181 448 100 
0 
181 448 100 

181 448 100 
145 158 480 
36 289 620 
0 
36 289 620 

0.24 
2 216 160 
0 
2 216 160 

2 216 160 
1 772 928 
443 232 
0 
443 232 

civil and commercial justice - Individuals 
and legal entities  
baseline - Individuals and legal entities 
fully digital - Individuals and legal entities 
Savings (Baseline-Fully Digital) 

20.00 

1 
540,000 
540,000 

10,5 
2,96 

5,697,000 
1,598,400 
4,098,600 

5.00  n/a 
2,700,000  n/a 
1  n/a 
2,699,999  n/a 

19.65 
31 833 000 
0 
31 833 000 

0.24 
388 800 
0 
388 800 

2. 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
Table 13 –Investment and running costs for the e-Evidence Digital Exchange System and Service of Documents/Taking of Evidence 
IT system(s) 

eEDES99  SoD/ToE100 

20 instruments 
with forms 

20 
instruments 
with free field 

Technical 
support in 
the MS 

Year 1  1 000 000 
Year 2  1 000 000 
Year 3  1 000 000 
Year 4  1 000 000 
Year 5  1 000 000 
Year 6  1 000 000 

1 000 000 
1 000 000 
1 000 000 
100 000 
100 000 
100 000 

2 000 000 
2 000 000 
2 000 000 
2 000 000 
2 000 000 
1 000 000 

100 000 
100 000 
100 000 
100 000 
100 000 
50 000 

5 400 000 
5 400 000 
8 100 000 
8 100 000 
8 100 000 
8 100 000 

Installation 
costs, 
including 
hardware 

2 700 000 
2 700 000 
0 
0 
0 
0 

*this amount includes the modification to the e-Justice portal to support direct applications from citizens and businesses to judicial authorities in cross-
border proceedings.   

Table 14 - Average time for processing a cross-border request (EIO, EPO etc) from Member State A to Member State B including 
time for posting the documentation101 

–  Average time for processing a cross-border request (EIO, EPO etc.) from Member State A to Member State B 

99 DG Just IT Portfolio report Ares(2021)2343643 
100 The legislative financial statement for the Service of Documents/Taking of Evidence Regulations 
101 The study from the contractor 

151 

 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                           
including time for posting the documentation  

–  Communications 

channel 

–  MS A 
processin
g time 

–  Average time 
required for 
sending the 
documentatio
n* 

–  MS B 
processin
g time 

–  TOTAL 

–  Paper-based 

–  0.75 hrs 

–  48 hrs102 

–  0.75 hrs 

–  49.5 hrs 

Table 15 – Average costs for posting a first-class letter in the EU-27 

Cost international letter in  
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Finland 
France 
Italy 
Estonia 
Average Cost 

EUR 

8.87 
5.62 
22.35 
7.5 
8.5 
10.5 
10.55 

Table 16 - Yearly benefits of digitalisation of the European Payment Order procedure103 

102 Average time for EU-27 first class letter https://postandparcel.info/103425/news/post/50-first-class-letter-mail-within-europe-was-delivered-within-two-days-of-posting-in-2018/ 
103 The e-Codex Impact Assessment 

152 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
153 

 
 
 
Table 17 – participation in e-Codex Pilots by end of 2020 

Legislative instruments 
European Order for Payment (EPO) 

Member States4 
Active: AT, DE, EL, IT, MT, PL 

European Small Claims (ESC) 
Transmission of Mutual Legal Assistance in 
Criminal Matter (MLA) and/or European 
Investigation Order (EIO) 

Active: AT, CZ, DE, MT, PL (work finished), 
Active DE, NL, AT 

Mutual Recognition of Financial Penalties (FP)  Active: FR, NL (pilot) 

Service of documents via EJS/EUBF platform 
1393 regulation  

Active: FR, BE, LU  

154 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 8: What are the problems and their causes? 

Lack of digital tools fully supporting cross-border judicial cooperation 

According  to  the  findings  of  the  legal  mapping  conducted  as  part  of  the  Study  on  the 
Digitalisation of cross-border judicial cooperation, in most Member States (e.g. Belgium, 
Germany,  Czechia,  Spain,  Malta,  Lithuania,  Slovakia),  paper-based  communications 
constitute the majority of cross-border communications. Besides, in some Member States 
(e.g.  Czechia)  it  is  common  practice  that  paper  documents  are  sent  first,  whereas  the 
subsequent  communication  takes  place  for  example  by  email.  Digital  means  are,  thus, 
used  as  a  second  option  giving  priority  to  the  transmission  via  paper  documents.  For 
example,  for  Czechia  the  estimate  is  90%  paper-based  versus  10%  of  digital 
communication. 

A  pilot  project  between  Austria  and  Germany  aimed  at  introducing  an  electronic 
communication  channel  based  on  e-CODEX  between  the  respective  national  courts  for 
the purposes of the European Payment Order procedure, has illustrated in a clear manner 
the  disadvantages  of  paper-based  communication.  The  conclusions  of  the  concerned 
project were as follows: 

proceedings were made faster and safer, with messages being sent by e-mail in a 

• 
secure and reliable manner; 

the transmission process  was retraced, which made it easier to  resolve technical 

• 
failures to deliver a message;  

the use of timestamps allowed the determination of the exact time a recipient has 

• 
received a message; 

• 
the  data  transmitted  was  only  structured  data  which  allowed  for  its  automatic 
processing in the receiving system instead of re-entering it manually. This shortened the 
time  of  the  proceedings  and  was  less  error-prone  as  there  was  no  manual  intermediary 
step;  

some  costs  savings  were  realised  in  terms  of  postal  fees  (an  electronic  message 
• 
costs  EUR  0.07  to  send,  while  postal  fees  amount  to  EUR  3-5  for  a  piece  of 
recommended registered letter). 

the permanent availability of the electronic channel enhanced the work of judicial 

• 
employees on night shifts or on weekend duties.  

• 
the  alignment  and  the  optimisation  of  the  internal  workflows  to  a  digital-first 
approach  relieved  the  administrative  burden  since  there  was  much  less  need  to 
expensively digitalise paper messages afterwards. 

Lack of digital tools facilitating access to justice 

As  per  Eurostat  data  for  2019,  3,3%  of  EU  citizens  live  in  a  Member  State  other  than 
their Member State of origin. For these individuals and legal entities, the safeguarding of 
basic rights is very often additionally burdened with language differences, unfamiliarity 
with  foreign  legal  systems,  and  geographical  distance.  Businesses  may  encounter  these 

156 

 
difficulties in to the context of cross-border cases, such as in the scope of the European 
Payment Order procedure and, for individuals such difficulties also occur in family law 
cases, succession procedures, legal aid and others. 

As  illustrated  by  the  study  supporting  this  impact  assessment,  the  availability  of 
electronic means for submitting and following a claim online, varies significantly across 
Member  States.  The  ability  to  use  electronic  means,  e.g.  for  submitting  claims, 
monitoring and advancing a judicial proceeding online, is a key element of the quality of 
justice  systems,  as  it  allows  access  to  justice  and  reduces  delays  and  costs.  This  may 
particularly  affect  those  vulnerable  categories  of  individuals,  which  for  various  reasons 
such  as  disabilities  or  residing  in  remote  areas  or  others  may  not  have  easy  access  to 
judicial authorities.  

Different level of digitalisation and the voluntary use of the existing digital channels: 

• 

• 

eight Member States participate in the European Order for Payment pilot;  

eight Member States take part in the Small Claims pilot; 

three  Member  States  and  the  European  Chamber  of  Judicial  Officers/  Bailiffs 

• 
(CEHJ) are interconnected under the European Account Preservation Order pilot;  

• 
the  procedure  for  Mutual  Legal  Assistance  under  the  Convention  on  Mutual 
Assistance in  Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union has 
been piloted by seven Member States; 

• 

the Mutual Recognition of Financial Penalties pilot connects two Member States; 

• 
the  e-Evidence  Digital  Exchange  System  (eEDES),  developed  by  the  European 
Commission enables the digital exchange of European Investigation Orders between the 
national competent authorities based on e-CODEX. Five Member States were connected 
by 2020 and 11 Member States are planning to complete their connection in 2021. 

The fragmented approach to developing IT solutions and lack of interoperability between 
existing national systems can have negative consequences such as:  

• 

low or no trust in terms of authentication and signature; 

lack  of  semantic  interoperability  between  forms  and  data  elaborated  in  one 

• 
system by another system; 

no guarantee for the authenticity and integrity of the documents and the reliability 

• 
of the communication; 

mutual  misunderstanding  regarding  the  execution  of  procedures  because  of 

• 
diverging rules and traditions between the countries; 

• 
incoming  requests  need  to  be  manually  entered  into  the  national  case 
management  system.  This  process  not  only  takes  time,  but  also  involves a  high  risk  of 
human error, which could have serious consequences for the treatment of the request. 

156 

 
 
 
In  addition  to  the  absence  of  interoperability  at  EU  level,  there  is  a  lack  of 
interoperability between the judicial authorities within an individual country according to 
the consulted stakeholders.   

The  need  for  more  interoperability  was  also  emphasised  by  the  stakeholders  who 
attended the EU level focus group. They considered interoperability a key factor allowing 
respect  for  the  legal  differences  between  national  systems.  The  interoperability,  safety 
and  security  of  digital  communication  channels  is  also  a  priority  for  many  national 
stakeholders,  consulted  during  the  legal  mapping  conducted  for  this  study.  Many  think 
that  it  is  necessary  to  harmonise  the  certificates  of  secure  devices,  to  ensure  their 
performance, traceability, security level, etc. 

Recognition  of  electronic  signatures/seals  and  legal  validity/acceptance  of  electronic 
documents 

In the absence of commonly agreed assurance levels of electronic signatures/seals, those 
used by the issuing Member State may not be recognised by the receiving Member State 
in  judicial  proceedings.  Although  electronic  identification  frameworks  are  currently  in 
place, few Member States have the infrastructures or experience to facilitate qualified e-
signatures within the judiciary. 

Data  from  25  Member  States  in  the  context  of  the  Public  Documents  Regulation  show 
that  only  13  Member  States  have  legal  coverage  to  recognise  and  admit  public 
documents  signed  electronically  and  issued  by  another  Member  State.  Out  of  12 
countries  (one  did  not  provide  information),  eight  require  the  use  of  e-IDAS  qualified 
electronic  signatures.  In  two  Member  States,  both  qualified  and  advanced  electronic 
signatures  are  legally  admissible.  One  Member  State  requires  the  use  of  advanced 
electronic signatures whereas another one recognises electronic signatures not regulated 
by the e-IDAS Regulation. 

the  validity  and  admissibility  of  documents  and  evidence 

In  the  case  of  cross-border  transmissions  using  e-CODEX,  the  participating  Member 
States  established  a  “Circle  of  Trust  Agreement”  to  overcome  this  impediment  and 
ensure 
transmitted 
electronically. In order to join the Circle of Trust, a document sent by the joining system 
must have the following characteristics: the document is uniquely linked to the user; the 
system is  capable of identifying the user; the document is  created using means that the 
user can maintain under their control and any subsequent change of the data is detectable. 
Despite  the  existence  of  this  agreement,  the  latter  only  concerns  direct  users  of  e-
CODEX and is  not  binding on them nor does  it  bind  all participants in a judicial case. 
Therefore,  it  provides  insufficient  guarantees  in  the  context  of  EU-wide  judicial 
cooperation.  

Non-resilience of judicial systems to force majeure circumstances 

The main impacts on civil and criminal proceedings, due to national restricting pandemic 
measures include:   

• 

complete or partial suspension of the work of courts and other judicial authorities; 

delayed or suspended activities of the competent and central authorities leading to 

• 
practical issues, for instance delays in enforcing a decision in a cross-border context; 

157 

 
 
 
• 

• 

temporary inability to obtain legal aid; 

difficulty to access information normally provided by the competent authorities; 

temporary adjustments in terms of communication with the public (by email, by 

• 
phone or by postal mail); 

In  addition,  the  expiry  of  deadlines,  due  mainly  to  the  restrictions  on  societal  life  and 
movement, have deprived individuals/legal entities or courts from the possibility to take 
procedural steps, such as appealing against a decision, the possibility to consult a lawyer, 
delays  in  the  submission  of  legal  documents  to  the  courts  due  to  delays  in  the  postal 
services, etc. This already brought insecurity as to the application of judicial cooperation 
instruments and the Court of Justice of the European Union has already been seized with 
a preliminary referral regarding the interpretation of the rules applicable in the European 
order  for  payment  procedure  and  the  case  is  pending  with  the  Court.  Similar 
consequences would arise in case of other force majeure events, such as terrorist attacks 
and natural disasters which have serious negative impact on the everyday life of citizens 
and the functioning of the state institutions. 

158