Source: http://ejlt.org/article/view/590/826
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 17:30:36+00:00

Document:
The EU is in a post-crisis period and is trying to improve its economic performance. Digital Single Market (DSM) is a European policy to create digital solutions to promote the Union's competitiveness in a globalized world. With regard to DSM strategy, e-Government and e-Justice are two closely connected areas. Since the EU is implementing administrative interoperability solutions, this can be used as a reference point for the path electronic justice is taking. European e-Justice must follow e-Government methods (based on interoperability solutions) so that effective judicial protection can be enhanced. Both concepts were aimed so Internal Market and protection of fundamental freedoms could be closely promoted. However, these can only be achieved when individuals and companies, facing litigation, have the proper means to be able to take part in proceedings, without extraordinary expenses or procedural insecurity. The European e-Justice Portal is the critical avenue to accomplish those goals but its impact on litigation on a day-to-day basis (before the CJEU and national courts) must be re-thought so digital solutions can efficiently bring people closer to justice. This paper offers a new perspective on administrative interoperability in order to understand if judicial interoperability is the way to deepen e-Justice goals.
The political strategy concerning the implementation of a DSM was adopted on the 6thMay 2015  and it appears as one of the main political objectives  that must be pursued, being 'the new reality on a political level'.  Until January 2017, the Commission was responsible for delivering specific initiatives and now legislative measures are being discussed by the European Parliament and the Council, following the ordinary legislative procedure.
The European Union is developing the DSM under its shared competences, specifically under Article 4 (2) (a) TFEU, since it appears as a matter to be deepened under the 'umbrella' of the Internal Market. As it relates to shared competences, the European Union for a long time relied on the diligence of Member States to establish a true competitive space for the digital era. However, it became clear it would be better if this matter started to be dealt in a transnational level to soften gaps that were appearing between national legislations and actions.
As set in its strategy, '[DSM] is one in which the free movement [...] is ensured and where citizens, individuals and businesses can seamlessly access and exercise online activities under conditions of fair competition, and a high level of consumer and personal data protection [...]'.  As the European Commission have foreseen it, DSM brings strong economic engagement since it is able to ensure Europe to keep its position as a world leader on digital economy by being capable of helping European companies to globally grow, paying particular attention to small and medium-sized enterprises, so they can meet productivity gains by resorting ICT mechanisms, promoting growth along the way. The European Commission also stresses that it is important to enhance citizens' access to information and cultural goods, by promoting an open government and settling equality and non-discrimination, engaging citizens in more active democratic participation. It can even promote improvement of public services, information exchange and national and cross-border cooperation.
This comes from the notion digital technology and ICT components have fundamentally altered the way the world works - impacting not only the economy but also the everyday lives of individuals. Digital means became a general reality affecting all economic and social sectors since they are not limited by borders. And it has a tail end that cannot be forgotten: '[t]his digital economy has the potential to create growth and employment by providing opportunities for investment and innovation, which leads to expanding markets and more choice in goods and services at lower prices'.  However, the European Commission had to understand where the European Union was in terms of - its developments, its worldwide impact and its economical, social and cultural expectations - when it came to ICT implementation. Taking into consideration the time lapse between 2001 and 2011, the European Commission understood that ICT accounted for 30% of GDP growth in the Union but, establishing a fully functioning DSM and meeting all the efforts set in the Digital Agenda for Europe, there would be an additional increment of 3.1% of its GDP   Furthermore, a complete fulfilment of the DSM's objectives would help consolidate the European Union's leading role as a cultural goods and services' producer and enabler.
In fact, the European Union is trying 'to rejuvenate itself into a digital Europe, where digital technologies, media and content are embraced and exploited by the whole population' since 'ICT has the potential to quickly realise a virtuous cycle that transforms efficiency into growth'.  The European Commission promoted a Stakeholder's Forum subjected to the acronym Digital4EU. It took place in Brussels (on 25thFebruary 2016) and it was 'centred around the progress made in creating a [...] DSM in Europe'.  In this Forum's first session, it was discussed how to deliver the DSM, mainly relying on the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) results and on how to put these results in action. The DESI is 'a composite index that summarises relevant indicators on Europe's digital performance and tracks the evolution of EU Member States in digital competitiveness'.  This index seeks to measure how Member States progress on creating and maintaining a digital economy and society and, '[a]s such, it bring together a set of relevant indicators on Europe's current digital policy mix'.  DESI is composed of five primal policy dimensions: 1) connectivity; 2) digital skills; 3) use of internet; 4) integration of digital technology; and 5) digital public services  , which are all intertwined since 'developments in the digital economy cannot be achieved through isolated improvements in particular areas but through concerted improvement in all areas'.  Therefore, stakeholders and policy makers believe 'DESI could be used to help Member States in their digital policies'  since DSM brings innovative approaches both at EU level and at Member States' level and it was developed with the belief that improvements achieved by a Member State will impact positively and will be beneficial to other Member States and the DSM - this is an example of what we call organic interdependence. However, they also perceived another level of interdependence: since one of DESI dimensions is more rudimentary, others will suffer even if they attained excellent results.
However, the DSM and Digital Agenda for Europe also bet on promoting access to justice, which can be easier if one relies on digital components and electronic solutions. For that matter, it was a definitive goal to enable digital services to better answer justice demands. Under this strategy, a European e-Justice Portal was created to act 'as a future electronic one-stop-shop in the area of justice'.  In fact, the complete development of access to justice in a European level relies on digital and electronic solutions. It is, therefore, important to understand how administrative interoperability is being implemented so far and, then, to address how access to justice has been promoted to understand if judicial interoperability would be the best approach to surpass difficulties that were felt, and expectations that are being envisaged, in these key matters to the DSM. We will try to unravel if it would have been better, from a practical point of view, to firstly deepen judicial interoperability, as an e-Justice method, and only then apply its results to other public authorities, i.e., deliver administrative interoperability.
As highlighted earlier, the DSM aims to establish electronic solutions and technological approaches concerning public services' relations with individuals and companies. For that matter, following this political mission, interoperability was set in motion, especially in relation to the public sector. In fact, as stakeholders stated at the Digital4EU 2016 Forum, ICT solutions should also be thought of, so that they could have a full impact on public services ('digital should be first for all public services').  More recently, Tallinn's Ministerial Declaration on e-Government also interconnects e-Government and e-Justice and underlines a set of juridical principles explaining ICT solutions in those paradigms  based on interoperable solutions. For this reason, and deepening interoperability solutions, the European Union implemented the ISA2Programme through Decision (EU) No. 2015/2044.  Under Article 2 (1) of Decision (EU) No. 2015/2044, interoperability means:'the ability of disparate and diverse organizations to interact towards mutually beneficial and agreed common goals, involving the sharing of information and knowledge between organizations, through the business processes they support, by means of the exchange of data between their respective ICT systems'. Therefore, it demands the creation and reconversion, in all Member States, of digital platforms and databases so these are subsequently interconnected and linked to a central ICT infrastructure. This ensures that all national and European authorities can benefit from common networks relating to different fields of action. This is the adopted method in order to facilitate access to data and services in a protected environment, characterized as being interoperable, promoting fair competition and data protection across the European Union. However, interoperability relates to the use of several technical proceedings that can and will become obsolete over time. In fact, "[i]nformation systems and networking infrastructures [...] need to [...] become scalable so they can adjust to emerging or changing needs, which might be of technical nature, or, organizational and social, or both".  Technicians must be aware of the need to implement those structures that will demand fewer changes in the future or that should ask for less onerous updates to maintain a functioning interoperable system. However, in the second recital of the ISA2Programme, it is recalled that the digital agenda can be effective for so long as interoperability is ensured.
3) 'once-only' principle: this principle implies that Public Administrations must assure citizens and companies that they will supply their data and information just once in the latter's relationship with the competent Public Administration. Afterwards, the necessary components will be settled so the re-use of data can happen, fully complying with data protection demands. The once-only principle 'strives to enable users to inform the public sector of different changes in their lives once only'.  It implies, taking interoperability into consideration, wide expectations, and fields of action will demand public administrations not to ask citizens and companies, more than once, not only for essential data (such as the domicile, a copy of the identification document, etc.), but also for further information already presented by them in other occasions, even if that data was not supplied to the public entity that is now dealing with the new request.
Considering the principles which are being developed under e-Government, it is possible to appreciate that this phenomenon relates to citizens and companies' meaningful expectations of digitally accessible public services. However, the European Union is still struggling on how to engage national administrations on fulfilling these aims and, despite 2017 being the year where administrative interoperability mechanisms should be launched in full there are still some issues Member States are struggling with, which must be addressed. In fact, if national interoperability is difficult to set, cross-border interoperability is even more difficult. Taking into consideration the Portuguese experience, we can derive two cases where it was already declared 'Portuguese infringement'. These are mainly stressed and used in order to understand the difficulties and empirical resistance Portuguese Public Administration presented when facing interoperable solutions. However, they do not undermine the method - the interoperability; they only show relevant resistance that must be taken into account in order to understand if this method should have been applied to other relevant matters such as e-Justice referral.
In Commission v. Portugal,  infringement was found since Portugal was not able to set a national electronic database of road transports' operators allowing electronic interconnection between national databases. This omission prevented setting, in the estimated deadline, these interoperable solutions and undermined administrative cooperation, simplification and, furthermore, prevented the once-only principle from applying. In fact, Portugal did not comply with Article 16 (1) and (5) of Regulation (CE) No. 1071/2009  which demanded a single electronic registry to be created nationally in order to interconnect it to the other Member States' registries and a centralized European one. Under the pre-litigation phase, Portugal always stated that all necessary actions were being held in order to fulfil its obligations. However, during the proceedings in the CJEU, it turned out that this did not happen. When the reasoned opinion was issued that it did not comply with EU law, the State did not refute it. In fact, it advanced 'several constraints of an internal and external nature to explain delay existence on fulfilling those obligations'.  Portugal also acknowledged that the three national authorities that had to intervene on setting up a national electronic registry had not come to an understanding and there continued to be several independent registries related to each one of those entities. Furthermore, these difficulties Portugal presented related to the fact it was just emerging from an economic crisis could not be used as an eligible excuse for not fulfilling its European obligations (Recital 24). Therefore, the CJEU declared that 'by not creating a national electronic registry of road transport operators' and 'not interconnecting it with national electronic registries of other Member States', the Portuguese Republic did not comply with its obligations steaming from Article 16 (1) (5) of Regulation No. 1071/2009.
One of the major objectives of Directive No. 2006/126/CE was to give Member States the power to refuse issuing driving licences when the applicant was already holding one. Article 7 (5) (d) of Directive No. 2006/126/CE created an instrumental obligation to Member States to understand they could refuse issuing a driving licence by resorting to RESPER network 'once it is operational'. A transposition obligation concerning making Article 7 (5) (d) operational emanated from Article 16, which demanded Member States to adopt and publish, not later than 19thJanuary 2011, all necessary measures to comply with, namely, Article 7 (5) (a) and that they should apply those provisions as from 19thJanuary 2013.
In the pre-litigation phase, Portugal, firstly, submitted that its national services of driving licences' issuing would be connected to RESPER on March 2015. However, after the Commission had issued its reasoned opinion, Portugal replied by stating it would make the necessary connection not later than March 2016, unfortunately forgetting the reasoned opinion which was issued on 27thFebruary 2015, giving this Member State a two months' deadline to comply. In the litigation phase, Portugal acknowledged that the connection was not yet made, blaming economic difficulties associated to a restructuring on its public administration's configuration as a reason for the delay. The CJEU based its decision by understanding that Portugal, in April 2016 (i.e., after the deadline determined in the reasoned opinion) had not yet made the required connection 'thereby preventing not only it [Portugal] but also other Member States from ensuring that a person requesting the issue of a driving license did not already hold such a license in another Member State'.  Furthermore, Portugal advanced reasons predicted on economic distress and an internal Public Administration reorganization as a means of justifying its infringement. The CJEU was peremptory in its view this reasoning was not a substantial cause for its delay, since the Court's settled jurisprudence refuses internal reasons to be put forward as a means of justifying a Member States' non compliance with EU law (Recital 15). Therefore, Portugal did not fulfil its obligations steaming from Article 7 (5) (d) (and Article 16, concerning transposition's obligations) since it did not make the connection to RESPER (Recital 17).
Member States 'have long aspired to being open, flexible and collaborative in their relations with citizens and businesses'  - and interoperability solutions are the key. However, it is important to understand if this path could have also been followed firstly on justice matters, namely by a formal proclamation of judicial interoperability and, given lesser resistance in this field, enlarging it to e-Government reality.
The e-Justice paradigm - can it be the visible feature of judicial interoperability?
The European Commission understood, when it set the Digital Agenda for Europe, that 'several steps towards reducing the barriers standing in the way of the Digital Single Market [were] unfolding', drawing '[c]itizens do not appear to be aware of the benefits that [...] projects in the fields of e-Justice [...] can bring'.  The Commission also said that, '[t]o underpin the digital transition in public services and to ensure they are available to all Europeans regardless of their place of residence'. Thus, it is important to make 'digital services in key areas of public interest'  available, by promoting ICT solutions in sensitive areas such as Justice.
Taking into consideration e-Curia's registration procedure, it must be said that it is quite impressive that an electronic registration still relies on demanding the physical presentation of documents, personally or by post. It seems, however, that even with this flaw, this system could be mirrored to give to both parties and judicial agents an electronic vehicle that could potentiate their procedural communication in those proceedings dealing with EU Law that have to be decided by national courts. Since the e-Justice Portal is one of the major aspects of e-Justice accomplishments, an online platform such as e-Curia could be hosted on this Portal, especially because it is already a well-known website where citizens, companies and judicial operators search for cross border information.
In this matter, and aiming to set up interoperability across Europe in justice matters, we can also find e-CODEX efforts - which have reached greater recognition. In fact, it developed 'technical solutions' through which 'Member States [were] jointly developing interoperable building blocks and implementing them in real life settings through piloting work'.  It was able to deliver particular and efficient efforts in order to underline best practices and ICT usage between Member States' courts. An e-CODEX pilot between Poland and Germany was set up in order to process electronically European Payment Order Procedure between those two Member States.  As stated, 'the recovery of outstanding debts in cross-border cases between Poland and Germany is getting much easier. Polish citizens and businesses can submit a claim to the German Court effortlessly by electronic means' since '[t]he e-CODEX project provides a safe and reliable solution for handling a European Order for Payment procedure electronically'.  Therefore, all communications - since the claims' submission to the courts' decisions - are electronically performed and this solution is also running in Austria, Estonia, Greece and Italy.  As it appears to have been a successful project, e-CODEX is now being addressed by the European institutions as a means to deepen e-Justice and further integration on justice fields. Therefore, the Council of the European Union has set up an Experts' group on e-CODEX in order to assess its usefulness on e-Justice and e-Law realities.  This working group aims to evaluate how to provide European and national information in the field of justice through the e-Justice portal. Therefore, the e-Justice formation deals with e-Justice portal and underlines strategies in order to maintain its status of a one-stop shop. It is possible e-CODEX can be a means to enhance e-Justice portal effectiveness as a one-stop shop since it creates proper 'bridges' between national systems and it can be set in the e-Justice portal through which legal operators, citizens and businesses are able to access e-CODEX potentials on cross-border justice.
Furthermore, e-CODEX does not replace itself with national digital platforms and registries - it is a true interoperable system to 'enable the seamless electronic communication between national systems'  - and, for the same reason, does not provide, yet, a true platform, such as e-Curia, in order to run the proceedings. Therefore, it is able support a technical and organizational interoperability but it falls short if we are trying to devise a true European platform to run European proceedings. In the future, we believe it will also adopt this platform but it is important, firstly, to ensure interoperability between national systems without creating great financial hurdles to Member States.
The e-Justice Agenda also addresses the adoption of the necessary means for judicial authorities to communicate among them, and particularly to take evidence in cross border litigations. In addition, an electronic tool to facilitate their communications has to be adopted and videoconference has a significant role in this. Still under e-CODEX efforts, the Commission published an Inception Impact Assessment concerning the topic 'Cross-border e-Justice in Europe (e-CODEX)', in order to be implemented in the first quarter of 2018. As noted, '[t]he judicial sector has been lagging behind in terms of digitalising cross border cooperation and judicial procedures' and it seems important to understand if deepening e-CODEX should be, in the future, pursued by the European Institutions - 'eu-LISA (or another EU Agency) for the maintenance and further development of the system (latest conclusions in the JHA Council in December 2016)'.  Data protection issues is also a concern as the Commission accurately stated '[the chosen entity] would not operate e-CODEX or receive, store or manipulate any of the information exchanged through the system - only the e-CODEX participants, i.e. essentially the Member States and in certain cases the Commission via the e-Justice Portal - would do this'.  Therefore, e-CODEX would create 'a common mechanism' - run under European institutions' intervention and supervision and closely promoted through e-Justice portal - 'for standardised secure exchange of cross-border information in judicial proceedings between Member States' aiding 'online communication between judicial authorities'.  Taking into consideration this effort, it appears to us that e-CODEX will continue to provide and to deepen further electronic communication between Member States' courts and judicial operators in order to strengthen effective judicial protection as expressed under Article 47 of the CFREU.
But we also mentioned the importance of videoconferencing on the matter. Taking into consideration the e-Justice Multiannual Action Plan' objectives, the Council adopted some recommendations  concerning the importance of videoconference to fulfil e-Justice goals. This institution acknowledged that '[v]ideoconferencing is a useful tool which has great potential not only at national level but also in particular in cross border situations involving different Member States' since, especially in transnational proceedings, 'smooth communication between the judicial authorities of the Member States is crucial'  and '[v]ideoconferencing technology can be used in all types of judicial proceedings [...] and it provides courts [...] with greater flexibility to take testimony [...], to hear experts' opinions and to take suspects' and defendants' statements'.  Nowadays, the e-Justice Portal provides information - to judicial operators and citizens - on how to use videoconference and, particularly, 'information on national facilities'  so that Member States' courts are able to understand which available technological facilities are provided by each Member State. By doing so, many connection problems ceased to exist but there is still a need to implement, in equal shares, these interaction mechanisms in all Member States. Furthermore, not all Member States have useful information available about them and this section of the e-Justice Portal was last updated on 20thOctober 2015 when one of the future aims the Council expressed, concerning the e-Justice portal, was to consolidate 'information on all courts with videoconferencing facilities in the Member States'.  However, so far, such consolidation has not yet happened.
Therefore, we must recall Council's wording when it stated that 'future work in this area should be expanded to further facilitate the organising and running of cross-border videoconferences in all Member States by promoting the use of IT tools to support and organise videoconferencing and by enhancing interoperability for videoconferencing'.  On technical aspects, the Council concluded it would be important to '[i]mprove interoperability between Member States by carrying out systematic practical tests between pairs of Member States to document working parameters'  or, at least, as a minimum, to establish 'some technical standards in order to improve the quality of videoconferencing sessions'.  It is our belief that to achieve a true electronic justice system, interoperable mechanisms must be set relying on a well-known judicial platform of European configuration. In that platform, besides including e-CODEX links and facilities and, in the future, creating a setting as e-Curia to deal with cases where EU law also dictates how the proceedings are to run, it would also be associated with a videoconference programme so that long distance electronic communications can be accommodated without worrying about technical diversity between nationally installed systems.
Under the DSM guidelines, interoperability started to come to light as a method merely designed to serve an administrative approach, as the paradigm to provide answers on how to pursue the political calling of making the European Union a user-friendly environment, especially when it comes to individuals and companies' relations with public authorities. For that matter, e-Government can be perceived as the outer shell of administrative interoperability since, both at national and European level it is the case that digital components can potentiate the way governments relate to people. There is also a call to input greater transparency to governmental activity and it is believed to be the way to achieve this goal.
However, it is our argument that whilst interoperability is the method to adopt it would have been more feasible to firstly adopt it in other fields such as e-Justice since we infer, from the case law analysed (focused on Portuguese infringements which were also perceived in other Member States), National Public Administrations still struggle with understanding themselves as European functional Administrations. However, judicial operators and especially national judges and other judicial operators already understand how digital technologies could enhance their work when facing cross border litigations. The path would have been better treaded if judicial interoperability had come first.
There are also concerns about creating access to justice that is also propitiated by ICT solutions in the European Union. In this field, an equal labelling was created: the idea of the European e-Justice which nowadays refers to the use of electronic technologies in the field of justice. Here, the main focus was on creating an online one-stop shop - the e-Justice Portal - where individuals, companies and judicial operators can find useful information relating to those proceedings that must run before national courts but where EU law has a primal and indispensable role. In relation to EU procedural mechanisms, the European Union has been implementing further changes by creating European procedures that, despite running before national courts, have a cross-border nature and rely, almost entirely, on European procedural solutions. European legislators, seeing that national solutions were diverse (with different deadlines, disparate competent authorities and various material requirements), set a legislative pack which created new European procedures that, from their initial written application to the final decision, run under European legislation. The three most effective examples are the European Order for Payment Procedure, Small Claims Procedure and, most recently, the Account Preservation Order. These mechanisms are characterised for their simplicity but, especially, by their need to deliver prompt and non expensive results - otherwise, applicants' expectations on recovering their credits would be undermined, making them resort to national solutions. Under e-CODEX efforts, both European Order for Payment Procedure and Small Claims Procedure are able to run from beginning to end, by electronic means before several Member States engaged on e-CODEX pilots. Furthermore, the European institutions already perceive its potential tail end as a means to establish true interoperable relations among justice matters, especially those with cross-border impact. In addition, there are other aspects that need further functionality because they also have cross-border impact, i.e., instruments relating to the taking of evidence  , to the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents  and to the competence and enforcement of judgments.  Major alterations are being considered in order to revise the first two instruments in a way proper digital path can be reached also on instrumental mechanisms.  However, without electronic integration, they will continue to have a marginal effect. Furthermore, in this context, information provided in the e-Justice Portal is not enough. While information is made available sometimes it is not updated for a long time and often some Member States do not provide full information or do not provide any information at all.
Regarding the other aspects underlined by the e-Justice Action Plan - the creation of proper means to provide electronic contact between judicial operators in cross-border scenarios and videoconferencing - there is a common understanding of its importance on cross-border litigation and solutions are being pondered. One is focusing on e-CODEX being managed by European institutions (or organs) since it delivered interoperable solutions that can be enforced and applied to all Member States without undermining their digital efforts, as e-CODEX has the ability to interconnect existing platforms (national ones) in a consistent scheme with cross-border configuration. On videoconferencing matters, there are still several limitations concerning compatibility issues between Member States' hardware and software that even e-Justice Portal's information are not able to overcome, demanding greater expenses on cross-border litigations. However, upon the revision of Regulations on taking of evidence and documents' service, we are able to perceive further sensibility to grant greater effectiveness to videoconference and especially to boost electronic services.
In this context, it is our belief that the e-Justice Portal should be developed and equipped with further technological features to include e-CODEX link to make this project's efforts more visible and to draw other Member States' attention to its potential. In addition, even if in the future, a platform resembling e-Curia should be allocated in the e-Justice portal, where judicial operators and citizens / companies could register and login to interact with European courts (especially national courts when they are applying EU law), to be served with procedural documents and where they could upload initial application forms / pleadings / documents to their proceedings. As we already stressed, e-CODEX efforts should be enhanced to other Member States in order to test its full usefulness, especially on credits claims' procedures since in these areas the European Union already has gone far by setting, through European Regulations, how procedures would run from beginning to end. e-CODEX has already established some functioning pilots where interoperable interactions were possible from one State to the other.
Furthermore, in the same e-Justice Portal, a videoconference digital facility, that could overcome technical differences between national videoconferencing and other difficulties that may occur, should also be created. However, an inclination to enhance the effectiveness of videoconferencing is evident in the recent efforts to revise the Regulation.
Taking this as our pragmatic referral, we can scientifically understand why the DSM also presupposes deepening European e-Justice. Bearing in mind that administrative interoperability is at the service of e-Government's settlement, we understand it would be useful to talk about judicial interoperability as a means to deepen and develop the e-Justice arena. There are already some aspects well understood as interoperability inputs to e-Justice, especially those demanding Member States to adopt interoperable solutions on videoconferencing to have compatible ICT services. However, the interoperability concept accommodates three dogmatic dimensions: technical, semantic and organizational dimensions. Therefore, of those interoperable solutions presented under e-Justice demands, it is already possible to understand, under e-CODEX, a technical dimension is being openly pursued. Also videoconferencing has the power to deepen this reality.
Still, there are other, even if timid, manifestations of semantic interoperability being pursued, despite not being underlined as such: semantic interoperability demands that common legal (and, as such, judicial) expressions can be understood in the same manner by all the affected parties. Concerning justice fields, those affected parties can be judicial operators (judges, judicial prosecutors, court officials, lawyers) but also the parties in litigation. For that matter, the European Union is already committed, in the field of law, to promote semantic interoperability in, for instance, debt recovery, insolvency proceedings, family matters, criminal proceedings, data protection, some fiscal areas, public procurement, environmental fields, contract law, etc., since these areas openly rely on forms' usage. It would be easier to address those linguistic approaches as part of creating a judicial interoperable atmosphere across the European Union. It would be easier to highlight the DSM goals since people would understand that all those changes were made also meeting that political calling. Hence, they would feel more engaged to pursue it.
Judicial organizational interoperability should also be addressed in a way that would not compromise the innovative judicial arrangement that characterizes the European Union. Recent approaches on e-CODEX future perspectives allow us to understand some organizational interoperability that can and will be accommodated. However, it is still in an embryonic stage and it must be developed as soon as possible. The Court of Justice of the European Union accommodates all courts that can be perceived as European organic courts, but also national courts are European courts when they apply EU law (=European functional courts) since the European judicial organization integrates both of them. Therefore, this interoperability feature cannot aim to transform that judicial setting, which still meets some difficulties, especially when national courts struggle with the preliminary ruling process. Organisational interoperability would only facilitate these judicial relations by settling ICT mechanisms that could expedite judicial dialogue between courts.
If this reality is already being discussed under e-Justice delivered cross-borders, there are still some drawbacks regarding preliminary references since they are still being sent by the national courts to the Court of Justice by post despite the fact that a dematerialization is being implemented. In fact, there is the possibility to send by email or fax a copy of the reference's decision when there is a request for an urgent preliminary ruling procedure to allow hastier proceedings. However, the original documents must be sent immediately, by post and registered mail, to the Court of Justice's Registry. In fact, despite preliminary rulings are now being dealt in a quicker way,  it is a fact that they are still taking a long time. By setting an interoperable mechanism of submitting preliminary references, for instance, it would import greater time gains and allow the Court of Justice to more rapidly communicate with national courts, promoting a widening of effective judicial protection. Therefore, alongside with efforts to put national courts communicating between them by electronic tools, it would also be important to address preliminary references issue since it also deals with interoperable interactions between courts and surpassing Member States' borders.
For all that has been said, it is easy to understand that e-Justice demands an interoperability background where its matters can be substantiated. In fact, as administrative interoperability is a means to an end - the full proclamation of an e-Government paradigm - also a judicial interoperability would set the scientific and empirical approach to an e-Justice framework. Without bearing this scientific densification, both stakeholders and policy makers feel less engaged on judicial improvement since they are not able to devise the path that leads to the front yard of e-Justice. To avoid persistently building a house from the roof, it is our belief judicial interoperability should be expressively referred to as the premise that leads to e-Justice improvements and further judicial integration under the DSM.
- Tallinn Declaration on eGovernment at the ministerial meeting during Estonian Presidency of the Council , 6October 2017, EU2017.EE, https://www.eu2017.ee/sites/default/files/2017-10/Tallinn_eGov_declaration.pdf [access: 10.2.2018].
 Professor at the Law School of the University of Minho; Jean Monnet Chair; Academic Coordinator of the Jean Monnet Project "EU Digital Single Market as a constitutional calling: interoperability as the way forward"
 Professor at the Law School of the University of Minho; Expert at the DG Justice and Consumers (European Commission) on judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters (namely, the recast of Regulations 1206/2001 and 1393/2007); Scientific Coordinator of the Research Component of the Jean Monnet Project "EU Digital Single Market as a constitutional calling: interoperability as the way forward".
 For further developments, 'European Commission's webpage concerning «Digital Single Market»', last modified 10 July 2017, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/digital-single-market . [access: 2 August 2017].
 See European Commission, Commission staff working document 'A digital single market strategy for Europe - analysis and evidence' , Brussels, 6 May 2015, SWD(2015) 100 final, 3. In fact, not only the European Commission, but also the European Parliament and the Council have highlighted DSM as one of their main political priorities.
 See Joana Covelo de Abreu, 'Digital Single Market under EU political and constitutional calling: European electronic agenda's impact on interoperability solutions', UNIO - EU Law Journal , Vol. 3, No. 1 (2017), 124, http://www.unio.cedu.direito.uminho.pt/Uploads/UNIO%203/UNIO%203%20EN/Joana%20Covelo%20de%20Abreu%20(1).pdf [access: 2 August 2017].
 See European Commission, 'A digital single market strategy for Europe - analysis and evidence' , 3.
 See European Commission, 'A digital single market strategy for Europe - analysis and evidence' , 4.
 See, for further developments, European Commission, 'A digital single market strategy for Europe - analysis and evidence' , 4-5.
 There are authors that understand DSM's success could be enhanced if Regulatory Framework concerning electronic communications was renewed. See, for further development, Andrew Tarrant and Luca Di Mauro, 'Increasing the benefits from the Digital Single Market', European networks Law and Regulation Quarterly (ENRL) , No. 2 (2016), 98-109.
 See European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 'Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market - Opportunities and Challenges for Europe' , Brussels, 25 May 2016, COM(2016) 288 final, 2.
 See European Commission, 'Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market - Opportunities and Challenges for Europe' ,2-3.
 See European Commission, 'Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market - Opportunities and Challenges for Europe' , 3.
 For further developments, 'European Commission - Digital Single Market', https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/ [access: 3 August 2017].
 See Joana Covelo de Abreu, 'Digital Single Market, 125.
 See European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 'The Digital Agenda for Europe - Driving European growth digitally' , Brussels, 18 December 2012, COM(2012) 784 final, 13.
 For further developments, 'European Commission - Digital Single Market: Event Reports', last modified 31 March 2016, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/digital4eu-2016-report . [access: 3 August 2017].
 See, on the matter, 'European Commission - Digital Single Market: Reports and Studies', last modified 3 March 2017, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/digital-economy-and-society-index-desi-2017 [access: 3 August 2017].
 See European Commission - Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, DESI 2017- Digital Economy and Society Index 'Methodological note' , Brussels, 2 March 2017, 5.
 See European Commission - Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, 6.
 See European Commission - Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, 7.
 See European Commission, Digital4EU Stakeholder forum 2016 Report , Brussels, 25 February 2016, 11, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/digital4eu [access: 3 August 2017].
 See European Commission, Digital4EU Stakeholder forum 2016 Report , 12.
 See European Commission, Digital4EU Stakeholder forum 2016 Report , 14.
 See European Commission, 'A digital single market strategy for Europe - analysis and evidence' , 77.
 For further developments, 'European e-Justice Portal', https://e-justice.europa.eu/home.do?action=home [access: 3 August 2017].
 See, for further development, Tallinn Declaration on eGovernment at the ministerial meeting during Estonian Presidency of the Council , 6October 2017, EU2017.EE, https://www.eu2017.ee/sites/default/files/2017-10/Tallinn_eGov_declaration.pdf [access: 10.2.2018].
 See Decision (EU) 2015/2240, of the European Parliament and of the Council, 25th November 2015, establishing a programme on interoperability solutions and common frameworks for European public administrations, businesses and citizens (ISA2programme) as a means for modernizing the public sector.
 See Yannis Charalabidis, Interoperability in Digital Public Services and Administration: Bringing E-Government and E-Business (New York: Hershey, 2011), xxii.
 See Carlos E. Jiménez-Gómez and Mila Gascó-Hernández, Achieving open justice through citizen participation and transparency (New York: Hershey, 2017), 160.
 See Carlos E. Jiménez-Gómez and Mila Gascó-Hernández, 160.
 See Decision (EU) No. 2015/2240, Recital 18.
 See Decision (EU) No. 2015/2240, Recital 27.
 See Council, Council's Conclusions on the modernisation of public administrations (24 and 25 October 2013) , Brussels, 25 October 2013, EUCO 169/13, 4, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/139197.pdf [access: 4 August 2017].
 See Decision (EU) No. 2015/2240, Recital 30.
 See Decision (EU) No. 2015/2240, Recital 31.
 See Decision (EU) No. 2015/2240, Recital 36.
 See European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 'EU e-Government Action Plan 2016-2020 - Accelerating the digital transformation of government' , Brussels, 19thApril 2016 COM(2016) 179 final.
 See European Commission, 'EU e-Government Action Plan 2016-2020 - Accelerating the digital transformation of government' , 1.
 See European Commission, 'EU e-Government Action Plan 2016-2020 - Accelerating the digital transformation of government' , 2.
 See Council, Council's Conclusions on the modernisation of public administrations , 3.
 See Mitja Dečman, 'The role of government portals: an evaluation of the new Slovenian government portal', in ECEG 2016 - Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on e-Government , ed. Mitja Dečman et al. (Reading: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited, 2016), 46.
 See ECJ's judgment Commission v. Portugal , 5 October 2016, case C-583/15,ECLI:EU:C:2016:741.
 See Regulation (EC) No. 1071/2009, of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 21 October 2009, establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with the pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC.
 See ECJ's judgment Commission v. Portugal , 5 October 2016, Recital 16.
 See ECJ's judgment Commission v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg , 1 December 2016, case C-152/16,ECLI:EU:C:2016:919, Recital 22.
 See ECJ's judgment European Commission v. Republic of Poland , 5 October 2016, case C-23/16,ECLI:EU:C:2016:742.
 See ECJ's judgment Commission v. Portugal , 22 March 2017, case C-665/15,ECLI:EU:C:2017:231.
 See Directive (EC) No. 2006/126/EC, of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 20 December 2006, on driving licences (Recast).
 See 'RESPER - Réseau permis de conduire under IDABC programme', http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/3989/5926.html [access: 7 August 2017].
 See ECJ's judgement Commission v. Portugal , 22 March 2017, Recital 14 (free translation).
 See ECJ's (Action brought) European Commission v. Republic of Finland , 26 January 2016, case C-42/16, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=2006%252F126%252FCE&docid=175442&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=323142 [access 7 August 2017].
 See, concerning Global Administrative Law approach on the matter, Joana Covelo de Abreu,'Digital Single Market. In fact, in this publication, it is possible to understand both Administrative and Constitutional approach on e-Government matters and, particularly, the articulation between primary and second public interests.
 See European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 'The Digital Agenda for Europe - Driving European growth digitally' , Brussels, 18 December 2012, SWD(2012) 446 final, 12.
 See European Commission, 'The Digital Agenda for Europe - Driving European growth digitally' , 7.
 See European Commission, 'EU e-Government Action Plan 2016-2020 - Accelerating the digital transformation of government' , 7.
 See European Commission, 'EU e-Government Action Plan 2016-2020 - Accelerating the digital transformation of government' , 8.
 See Council, Multiannual European e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 , Brussels, 14 June 2014, 2014/C 182/02, Recital 1.
 See Council, Multiannual European e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 , recital 4.
 See Council, Multiannual European e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 , recital 15.
 See Council, Multiannual European e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 , recital 16.
 See Council, Multiannual European e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 , recital 18.
 See, for further development, Michael Bogdan, 'The new EU rules on electronic insolvency registers' , Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 11 (2017), 175-182.
 For further information, 'European e-Justice Portal - insolvency registers', last modified 30 November 2016, https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_insolvency_registers-110-en.do [access: 7 August 2017].
 See Council, Multiannual European e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 , recital 21.
 See, on the matter, George Pangalous, Ioannis Salmatzidis and Ionis Pagkalos, 'Electronic cross-border access to legal means and procedures in Europe - the Greek eCodex pilot', European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems 2015 , June 1st- 2nd, Athens, Greece (2015), https://www.e-codex.eu/sites/default/files/articlesAndPublications/emcis_2015_international_conference.pdf [access: 30 March 2018]. In this work, the authors stress the importance of interoperable mechanisms in order to 'cross-border collaboration of courts and authorities [can be] easier and more efficient'.
 See Regulation (EU) No. 2015/2421, of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 16 December 2015, amending Regulation (EC) No. 861/2007, establishing a European Small Claims Procedure and Regulation (EC) No. 1896/2006, creating a European order for payment procedure.
 See Regulation (EC) No. 1896/2006, of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 12 December 2006, creating a European order for payment procedure.
 See Regulation (EC) No. 861/2007, of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 11 July 2007, establishing a European small claims procedure.
 See Regulation (EU) No. 655/2014, of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 15 May 2014, establishing a European account preservation order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters.
 See, for further development, Joana Covelo de Abreu, 'O Regulamento n.º 655/2014 que estabelece um procedimento de decisão europeia de arresto de contas: direitos à ação e de defesa em tensão reflexiva no contexto de uma integração judiciária em matéria civil - uma precoce antevisão', in UNIO - e-book, Vol. I, Workshops CEDU 2016 [online], Coord. Alessandra Silveira (Braga: Centro de Estudos em Direito da União Europeia, 2017), 253-276, http://www.unio.cedu.direito.uminho.pt/Uploads/E-book%20-%20Vol.%201%20-%202016.pdf [access: 19 June 2017].
 See Joana Covelo de Abreu, 'O impacto do Regulamento n.º 2015/2421 no funcionamento das ações de pequeno montante - compreensões quanto à justiça eletrónica europeia', in Estudos em Homenagem ao Professor Doutor António Cândido de Oliveira , Com. Org.Isabel Fonseca et. al. (Coimbra: Almedina, 2017), pp. 511-531.
 See Court of Justice of the European Union, E-Curia: Conditions of use applicable to parties' representatives , Recital 1, https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-10/en08602.pdf [access: 7 August 2017].
 See Court of Justice of the European Union, E-Curia: Conditions of use , Recital 6.
 See Court of Justice of the European Union, E-Curia: Conditions of use , Recital 7.
 As mentioned in e-Curia registration menu, the registration form must be accompanied by a 'copy of a document establishing [the] professional status (proof that [the person is] entitled to represent an institution or a Member State or that [the person is] entitled to plead before a court of a Member State or of a State which is party to the agreement on the European Economic Area'. For further knowledge, 'E-Curia - Request for an account giving access to e-Curia', https://curia.europa.eu/e-Curia/access-request-step1.faces [access: 7 August 2017].
 See Court of Justice of the European Union, E-Curia: Conditions of use , Recitals 11-29.
 See Council, Multiannual European e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 , Recital 26.
 See Council, Multiannual European e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 , recitals 28 and 30.
 See e-CODEX, e-CODEX, Facts & figures , https://www.e-codex.eu/sites/default/files/marketingMaterials/e-codex_general_digital.pdf [access: 2 January 2018].
 See e-CODEX, New e-CODEX pilot is live! Simplified recovery of outstanding debts between Poland and Germany , Press Release, 1 October 2015, https://www.e-codex.eu/sites/default/files/articlesAndPublications/15101_epo_pl-ger.pdf [access: 27 February 2018].
 See e-CODEX, New e-CODEX pilot , 1.
 It also deals, in some pilot countries, with Small Claims Procedures. See, on the matter and for further development, Commission, Inception Impact Assessment Cross-border e-Justice in Europe (e-CODEX) , Ares (2017)3600084, 17thJuly 2017, 1.
 See Council of the European Union, Communication , Brussels, 25 January 2018, CM 1222/1/18 rev 1, http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/CM-1222-2018-REV-1/en/pdf [access: 20 March 2018].
 Commission, Inception Impact Assessment , 1.
 Commission, Inception Impact Assessment , 2.
 See Council, Council Recommendations 'Promoting the use of and sharing of best practices on cross-border videoconferencing in the area of justice in the Member States and at EU level' , Brussels, 31 July 2015, 2015/C 250/01, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:2015:250:FULL&from=PT [access: 7 August 2017].
 See Council, Council Recommendations , Recital 6.
 See Council, Council Recommendations , Recital 7.
 For further research, 'E-Justice Portal - Information on national facilities', https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_information_on_national_facilities-319-en.do [access: 7 August 2017].
 See Council, Council Recommendations , Recital 17.
 See Council, Council Recommendations , Recital 13.
 See Council, Council Recommendations , Recital 22 (b) (f).
 See Council, Council Recommendations , Recital 22 (b) (g).
 See Regulation (EC) No. 1206/2001, of the Council, on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters.
 See Regulation (EC) No. 1393/2007, of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 13 November 2007, on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 1348/2000.
 See Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 12 December 2012, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters.
 See Commission, Expert Group on Modernisation of judicial cooperation in Civil and Commercial Matters (Revision of Regulation (EC) 1393/2007 on service of documents and Regulation (EC) 1206/2001 on taking of evidence) , Brussels, 18 December 2017, http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupMeetingDoc&docid=8910 [access: 30.3.2018].
 See Court of Justice of the European Union, 2016 Annual Report - 'The year in review' , 15, 27 and 28, https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2017-04/ragp-2016_final_en_web.pdf [access: 15 May 2017].

References: CJEU 
 v. 
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.