COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the documents 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) 393 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the documents 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) 392 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet  

Impact assessment – Digitalisation of cross-border judicial cooperation 

A. Need for action 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  

The two problems are a lack of digital tools fully supporting: 

i. 

ii. 

cooperation between legal systems in different EU countries (cross-border judicial cooperation) 
and  
the ability of people/organisations to use legal systems in other EU countries when they need 
to (lack of digital tools facilitating access to justice in cross-border cases.) 

Presently, communication in cross-border cases takes place mainly on paper. Where a digital channel for 
communication  exists,  it  is  used  on  a  voluntary  basis  only;  electronic  signatures  and  seals  are  not 
recognised  across  the  board,  due  to  a  lack  of  agreed  types  (i.e.  simple,  advanced  or  qualified  electronic 
signatures or seals). 

This situation affects the courts/competent authorities and the individuals/legal entities involved in cross-
border  cases,  as it leads  to  delays,  higher costs  and increased administrative burden for processing their 
cases.  

It is also at odds with  the general move towards digitalisation in modern life, especially in the private and 
commercial sectors, which was further accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

What should be achieved? 

The  general  objective  of  the  initiative  is  to  improve  access  to  justice  and  the  efficiency  of  cross-border 
judicial cooperation by establishing a digital communication channel enabling the effective use of digital 
tools in cross-border judicial cooperation proceedings.   

What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)?  

Cross-border matters transcend the reach of national legal systems, as national legal actions cannot reach 
past  national  borders. The objective of the initiative, therefore, cannot  be accomplished in  a sufficiently 
harmonised manner by the Member States on their own and can only be achieved at Union level. 

B. Solutions 

What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If not, 
why? 

There are 2 main options – a non-legislative option and a legislative option, with a number of suboptions. 

Non-legislative option 

The  Commission  would  adopt  a  Recommendation  encouraging  Member  States  to  enable  the  use  of 
digital tools in the context of cross-border judicial cooperation procedures. The Commission  would also 
continue developing the existing IT systems, without providing a legal basis for their use in cross-border 
cases. 

1 

 
 
Legislative option  

The  Commission  would  adopt  a  Regulation  on  the  use  of  digital  tools  in  the  context  of  judicial 
cooperation and access to justice, including on the validity and acceptance of electronic signatures/seals, 
and the use of videoconferencing for remote hearings in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal cases. 
Provisions  would  be  introduced,  ensuring  acceptance  and  the  legal  validity  of  digital  documents,  and 
outlining the data protection requirements inherent to cross-border communication. 

Suboptions 

The identified suboptions in the legislative option are:  

–  voluntary or mandatory use of the digital channel for communication between the courts/competent 
authorities of the Member States and the Justice and Home Affairs agencies and EU bodies, where 
relevant; 

–  voluntary or mandatory acceptance of electronic communication from individuals and legal entities 

in cross-border cases;  

–  non-regulation or regulation of the trust services. 

Preferred option  

The legislative option with the following features – mandatory use of the digital communication channel; 
mandatory  acceptance of electronic communication from  individuals and legal  entities and regulation  of 
the trust services. 

What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option?  

The majority of the consulted Member States and NGOs support the legislative option with a mandatory 
use of the digital channel between the courts/competent authorities and with JHA agencies and EU bodies, 
as  well  as  mandatory  electronic  communication  with  individuals/legal  entities  in  the  context  of  cross-
border proceedings. The use of videoconferencing for cross-border cases is also supported. 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?                                     

With its potential to substantially cut the cost of participating in cross-border cases and the duration of the 
proceedings  due  to  the  accelerated  communication,  the  initiative  would  directly  benefit  individuals  and 
legal entities (including small/medium companies) concerned by the various EU law instruments. 

The  electronic  communication  between  courts/competent  authorities  and  with  individuals/legal  entities 
will help automating the processing of the cases and will eliminate the need to scan, print and manually 
register documents.  

Total estimated yearly savings  

  This would benefit the administration by reducing administrative burden. The average overall 
yearly saving at EU level are estimated at 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.  

  For iThe the individuals and legal entities will be saving EUR 4 098 600 in postage costs and EUR 

388 800 in paper costs.  

  Duration of cases – sending fewer documents by 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.  

2 

 
 
  Case time for The individuals and legal entities will be gaining 2 700 000 days in average posting 

time.  

  Labour saved – 874 man-years will be gained in processing effort at court/competent authority 

level.  

  Paper – 181 448 100 A4 standard 80g printing paper pages will be saved out of which 31 833 000 

by individuals and legal entities. 

Positive  economic  impacts  would  arise  for  certain  categories  of  business:  providers  of  IT  consulting 
services;  manufacturers  of  videoconference  and  other  distance  communication  equipment;  internet  and 
telecommunication  service  providers;  cloud  storage  service  providers;  and  archiving  service  providers. 
The revenue of these businesses is expected to increase.  

With no printing and postage costs, paperless communication has a smaller carbon footprint (e.g. 50% to 
90% less per unit for the equivalent standard mail). The use of videoconference will eliminate the need for 
the participants to cross-border proceedings to travel  - videoconference produces only  7% of the  carbon 
emissions associated with physical meetings.  

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of the main options)?                                    

The total one-off cost for extending the eEDES and Service of documents/Taking of evidence IT systems 
to the full scope of the preferred (legislative) option would be EUR 18 700 000 over 5 years.  

This will result in a yearly investment of EUR 3 740 000.  

The yearly recurrent (maintenance and support) costs that are associated with operating the IT system at 
EU-27 level is estimated at EUR 8 100 000 which corresponds to 3 man-years/MS x EUR 100 000.  

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  

Shortening  the  time  and  reducing  the  costs  of  the  proceedings  would  produce  tangible  benefits  for  EU 
businesses,  including  small/medium  enterprises  (SMEs).  These  companies  would  also  benefit  from 
increased legal certainty and a greater ability to enforce their rights when operating in other EU countries. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  

No. Running the IT system provided by the European Commission will require recurrent costs of less than 
EUR 300,000/Year/Member State. 

Will there be other significant impacts?  

The initiative will have a positive impact on fundamental rights and on the digital single market, as it will 
shorten the duration of legal proceedings and generally increase the use of digital tools. 

Proportionality?  

The preferred option would not require the adoption of measures which would burden the Member States 
beyond what is necessary for the achievement of the initiative’s objectives.  

National  governments  Member  States  would  only  have  to  implement  measures,  which  ensure  the 
establishment and the functioning of the digital tools for communication in cross-border cases.  

D. Follow up 

3 

 
 
When will the policy be reviewed?  

A full evaluation will be conducted every 5 years, to assess the impacts and technological developments.  

4