Advertisement

E-Justice in Europe: From National Experiences to EU Cross-Border Service Provision

  • Marco Velicogna
Chapter

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to shed some light on the Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) development and implementation in the justice domain (the so-called e-Justice), and to glance at the key elements of this emerging phenomenon, building on the European Union experience at national and Community level. Although ICTs are increasingly at the core of the functioning of the justice service provision in modern democracies, their implementation and deployment, and the complex intertwining between law, technology and organizations, which characterize e-Justice experiences, remains poorly understood. The analysis of concrete e-Justice cases allows clarification of some of the practical implications of different experiences, providing useful indications of the elements which have made feasible the development of effective e-Justice systems.

References

  1. Bauer, P., & Graf, C. (2003). Judicial electronic data interchange in Austria. In M. Fabri & F. Contini (Eds.), Judicial electronic data interchange in Europe (pp. 103–123). Bologna: Lo Scarabeo.Google Scholar
  2. Borsari, G., et al. (2011). D7.1 Governance and guidelines definition. e-CODEX Deliverable.Google Scholar
  3. Borsari, G., et al. (2012). D7.3 High level architecture definition. e-CODEX Deliverable.Google Scholar
  4. Carboni, N. (2014). From quality to access to justice: Improving the functioning of European judicial systems. Journal of Civil & Legal Sciences, 3(131).Google Scholar
  5. Carnevali, D. (2009). e-Justice and policies on risk management. In A. Cerrillo & P. Fabra (Eds.), e-Justice. Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 20–37). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CEPEJ. (2010). European judicial systems – Edition 2010 (2008 data): Efficiency and quality of justice. CEPEJ Studies No. 12.Google Scholar
  7. CEPEJ. (2012). Report evaluating European judicial systems – 2012 edition (2010 data). CEPEJ Studies No. 18.Google Scholar
  8. CEPEJ. (2014). Report evaluating European judicial systems – 2014 edition (2012 data). CEPEJ Studies No. 20.Google Scholar
  9. CEPEJ. (2016). Thematic report: Use of information technology in European courts. CEPEJ Studies No. 24.Google Scholar
  10. e-CODEX. (2015). e-CODEX achievements, use cases and technical building blocks. e-CODEX Deliverable.Google Scholar
  11. Contini, F., & Cordella, A. (2016). Law and technology in civil judicial procedures. In Brownsword et al. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the law and regulation of technology(pp. 246–268). Oxford:Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  12. Contini, F., & Fabri, M. (Eds.). (2003). Judicial electronic data interchange in Europe: Applications, policies and trends. Bologna: Scarabeo.Google Scholar
  13. Contini, F., & Lanzara, G. F. (Eds.). (2009). ICT and innovation in the public sector: European studies in the making of e-government. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Contini, F., & Lanzara, G. F. (Eds.). (2014). The circulation of agency in e-Justice: Interoperability and infrastructures for European transborder judicial proceedings. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Contini, F., & Mohr, R. (2007). Reconciling independence and accountability in judicial systems. Utrecht Law Review, 3, 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cordella, A. (2007). E-government: Towards the e-bureaucratic form? Journal of Information Technology, 22(3), 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. van Dijk, J., Kalidien, S., & Choenni, S. (2016). Smart monitoring of the criminal justice system. Government Information Quarterly.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission. (2014). Delivering the European advantage? How European governments can and should benefit from innovative public services. eGovernment Benchmark Final Background Report, May 2014.Google Scholar
  19. Fabri, M. (Ed.). (2007). Information and communication technology for the public prosecutor’s office. Bologna: Clueb.Google Scholar
  20. Fabri, M. (2009). The Italian style of e-Justice in a comparative perspective. In A. Cerrillo & P. Fabra (Eds.), e-Justice. Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 1–19). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  21. Fabri, M., & Contini, F. (Eds.). (2001). Justice and technology in Europe: How ICT is changing the judicial business. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  22. Francesconi, E., et al. (2011). D6.3 concept for implementation of WP6. e-CODEX Deliverable.Google Scholar
  23. Fraser, K. (2004). Money claim online. cit. in Velicogna, M. 2011. Electronic access to justice: From theory to practice and back. Droit et cultures, 61.Google Scholar
  24. Hommik, L., & Klar, A. (2016). D4.11 WP4 Final Report. e-CODEX Deliverable.Google Scholar
  25. Hvillum, D. B., et al. (2016). D3.8 WP3 final report. e-CODEX Deliverable.Google Scholar
  26. Kallinikos, J. (2009). Institutional complexities and functional simplification. The case of money claims online. In F. Contini & G. F. Lanzara (Eds.), ICT and innovation in the public sector (pp. 66–87). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koch, S., & Bernoider, E. (2009). Aligning ICT and legal frameworks in a Austria’s e-bureaucracy: From mainframe to the Internet. In F. Contini & G. F. Lanzara (Eds.), ICT and innovation in the public sector (pp. 147–173). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kramer, X. E. (2015). A European perspective on E-justice and new procedural models: Transforming the face of cross-border civil litigation and adjudication in the EU. Available at SSRN 2696978.Google Scholar
  29. Lourenço, R. P., Fernando, P., & Gomes, C. (2017). From e-Justice to open judiciary: An analysis of the Portuguese experience. In C. E. Jiménez-Gómez & M. Gascó-Hernández (Eds.), Achieving open justice through citizen participation and transparency. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  30. Lupo, G. (2011). The case of money claim online in England and Wales. Research Report IRSIG-CNR, Bologna.Google Scholar
  31. Lupo, G. (2014a). The case of money claim online and possession claim online in England and Wales. In F. Contini & G. F. Lanzara (Eds.), Building interoperability in European proceedings online. Bologna: Clueb.Google Scholar
  32. Lupo, G. (2014b). Law, technology and system architectures: Critical design factors for money claim and possession claim online in England and Wales. In F. Contini & G. F. Lanzara (Eds.), The circulation of agency in e-Justice (pp. 83–107). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lupo, G., & Velicogna, M. (2017). Making EU justice smart? Looking into the implementation of new technologies to improve the efficiency of cross border justice services delivery. In M. P. R. Bolívar (Ed.), Smart technologies for smart governments. Transparency, efficiency and organizational issues (pp. 95–121). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Ontanu, A. (2016). How can the best practices of legal practitioners with judicial cooperation be operationalised to improve mutual trust?. From Common Rules to Best Practices in European Civil Procedure Conference, 25–26 February, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  35. Oskamp, A., Lodder, A., & Apistola, M. (Eds.). (2004). IT Support of the Judiciary. The Hague: Asser Press.Google Scholar
  36. Reiling, D. (2009). Technology for justice: How information technology can support judicial reform. Leiden: Leiden University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Steigenga, E., & Velicogna, M. (2016). Envisioning the next step in e-Justice: In search of the key to provide easy access to cross border justice for all users. From common rules to best practices in European Civil Procedure Conference, 25 and 26 February 2016, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  38. Velicogna, M. (2007). Justice systems and ICT, what can be learned from Europe? Utrecht Law Review, 3(1), 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Velicogna, M. (2008). Use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in European judicial systems – CEPEJ Studies No. 7.Google Scholar
  40. Velicogna, M. (2010). ICTs in the justice sector. In R. Coman & C. Dallara (Eds.), Handbook of judicial politics (pp. 195–236). Romania, Iasi: Institutul European.Google Scholar
  41. Velicogna, M. (2011). Electronic access to justice: From theory to practice and back. Droit et cultures, 61, 71–117.Google Scholar
  42. Velicogna, M. (2014). The making of Pan-European infrastructure: From the Schengen information system to the European arrest warrant. In F. Contini & G. F. Lanzara (Eds.), The circulation of agency in e-Justice: Interoperability and infrastructures for European transborder judicial proceedings. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Velicogna, M. (2015). e-CODEX and the Italian piloting experience. IRSIG-CNR Working Paper V. 1.0 Available at SSRN 2726515.Google Scholar
  44. Velicogna, M., & Lupo, G. (2016). From drafting common rules to implementing electronic European civil procedures: The rise of e-CODEX. From common rules to best practices in European Civil Procedure conference, 25 and 26 February 2016, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  45. Velicogna, M., & Steigenga E. (2016). Can complexity theory help understanding tomorrow e-justice?. Conference on Complex Systems, Law and Complexity session, 20 September 2016, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  46. Velicogna, M., Errera, A., & Derlange, S. (2011). e-Justice in France: The e-Barreau experience. Utrecht Law Review, 7(1), 163–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Velicogna, M., Errera, A., & Derlange, S. (2013). Building e-Justice in continental Europe: The TéléRecours experience in France. Utrecht Law Review, 9(1), 38–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Velicogna, M., et al. (2014). D7.4 architectural hands on material. e-CODEX Deliverables.Google Scholar
  49. Velicogna, M., et al. (2016). D7.6 architectural hands on material (Update of D7.4). e-CODEX Deliverable.Google Scholar
  50. Xanthoulis, N. (2010). Introducing the concept of ‘E-justice’ in Europe: How adding an ‘E’ becomes a modern challenge for Greece and the EU. Effectius Communication.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Velicogna
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Institute on Judicial Systems of the National Research Council of Italy (IRSIG-CNR)BolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations