The Role of E-Government in Modernizing the Justice System:European Experience and Perspectives

For a person waiting to recover unpaid wages, resolve a family dispute or protect a business, the justice system begins with practical questions. Where should I apply? Which document is missing? Has the court received my claim? What happens next?

These questions may sound administrative. Their consequences are deeply legal. A right becomes difficult to exercise when the route to enforcing it is expensive, confusing or inaccessible. Time spent finding a file, travelling to a registry or waiting for basic information can turn a formal guarantee into an exhausting personal struggle.

E-government offers a way to reduce that distance. In the justice system, its value lies in connecting people, information and institutions through reliable digital services. Electronic filing, secure identification, case tracking and remote participation can make the machinery of justice easier to navigate. Whether they improve justice itself depends on the rules and professional practices built around them.

Europe offers useful experience because it contains different legal traditions, institutional capacities and approaches to reform. Its examples invite careful comparison. A successful service abroad can reveal a sound principle without providing a ready-made blueprint for another country.

A digital service must follow the whole case

Uploading a document is only the beginning of a judicial process. The document must reach the right registry, acquire a reliable time stamp, remain accessible to authorised participants and become part of a case that can be followed through to its outcome. If court staff still have to print, re-enter and manually transfer the same information, much of the promised benefit disappears behind the screen.

This is why modernisation should start with the person’s journey through the institution. A claimant needs confirmation of receipt, understandable notices and a clear account of the next procedural step. A lawyer needs dependable access to the file. A judge needs an organised record. A registry needs a system that reduces repetitive work while preserving responsibility for every action.

There is also an institutional boundary to respect. Courts can share secure infrastructure and identification services with the wider public sector while retaining control over judicial information and decision-making. A government’s ability to administer technology must never become an ability to influence the outcome of a case.

Estonia: making the case visible

Estonia’s public e-File portal illustrates the practical meaning of a digital entrance to justice. According to the country’s Centre of Registers and Information Systems, users can participate electronically in several types of proceedings, submit documents and monitor relevant deadlines and progress. Access relies on recognised electronic identification methods, including ID-card, Mobile-ID and Smart-ID.^[1]

The significance of this model is the relationship between access and visibility. A person should be able to find out what has happened to a submission without making repeated journeys or relying on an informal contact. For a parent seeking maintenance or a business pursuing a debt, dependable information can reduce uncertainty even when the underlying dispute remains difficult.

My reading of this example is that digital justice works best when it gives people a coherent account of their case. Other countries should examine how identification, procedural notices and access permissions fit together before copying the appearance of a portal.

Italy: modernising a living legal tradition

Italy brings a different perspective: digital tools must operate inside an extensive and established procedural system. The Ministry of Justice’s digital services portal groups practical guidance around electronic filing, consultation, electronic communications and payments. Its materials also explain the tools required for legal professionals and the relationship between a user’s role and the information that can be consulted.^[2]

These services, associated with Italy’s development of the Processo Civile Telematico, show how much of judicial modernisation happens in ordinary professional work. The ability to submit an act, consult the appropriate record and receive an official communication changes the daily relationship between courts and those who use them.

The lesson I draw is organisational. Technology must be accompanied by clear procedures, training and support for the people expected to use it. A new system should reduce avoidable effort for registry staff as well as lawyers. Its success should be assessed through the quality and reliability of the service that follows, rather than the announcement of its launch.

When justice crosses a border

A domestic portal cannot, by itself, solve the difficulties of a cross-border dispute. A person may live in one country, hold evidence in another and need a decision recognised elsewhere. Institutions must be able to exchange information securely while working within different procedural systems.

The European Union has made this a distinct reform priority. In December 2023, the Council adopted legislation to advance digital communication in cross-border judicial cooperation. The framework addresses communication between authorities and court users, remote participation, electronic signatures and seals, and electronic payment of fees. The Council also links this work to e-CODEX, the infrastructure for secure cross-border exchanges, and to the European e-Justice Strategy 2024–2028.^[3]

These measures describe a legal and technical programme, whose practical delivery requires national implementation and coordination. They should not be read as proof that every European judicial procedure is already available through a single seamless service.

The wider lesson is that systems must be able to work together. A document’s secure movement matters only if the receiving institution can identify it, use it and give it the appropriate procedural treatment. That requires agreement on responsibilities and legal effects as much as compatibility between computers.

A hearing must remain a hearing

Remote participation can save a long journey and make attendance possible where distance would otherwise create a serious obstacle. But appearing on a screen does not automatically mean taking part effectively. A participant must be able to follow the proceedings, understand the evidence and communicate when it matters.

The Council of Europe’s European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, known as CEPEJ, examines these questions in its 2025 guide to remote hearings. Its discussion of fair-trial safeguards addresses the ability to see and hear the proceedings and the protection of effective, confidential communication with defence counsel.^[4]

A court therefore needs an answer to practical failures before they occur. What happens if the connection breaks during testimony? How can a participant ask for a private consultation? How will interpretation function? The appropriate format should follow the needs of the case and the safeguards required by law. Administrative convenience alone is an inadequate standard.

The people a digital reform must include

A digital service can make justice more accessible for one person while creating a new obstacle for another. Limited connectivity, disability, language barriers or unfamiliarity with electronic identification may prevent someone from completing a task that looks simple to its designers.

My view is that assisted access should be part of the service from the beginning. Clear language, accessible design, help from trained staff and workable alternatives should form one coherent system. A person who cannot use the preferred channel still needs a meaningful route to the court.

Privacy belongs in the same discussion. Judicial files may contain information about children, health, family relationships and commercial affairs. Access should follow a person’s role and the lawful purpose of the request. The public’s interest in understanding judicial decisions must be reconciled with the protection of information that should remain confidential.

Reliability is equally fundamental. Courts need continuity arrangements, secure backups and transparent procedures for service interruptions. A missed deadline caused by a system failure is a procedural problem, even if its immediate cause is technical.