European e-Justice Strategy 2024-2028
On 16 January 2025 the European e-Justice Strategy 2024–2028 has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union. It provides a framework designed to enhance the digitalization of justice systems across the EU and is a continuation of the Union’s ongoing efforts to modernize judicial systems.
Context
The Strategy builds on several EU legislative instruments. Among these, Regulation (EU) 2022/850 on the e-CODEX system, which establishes a computerized framework for the secure cross-border exchange of judicial data. This system enables judicial authorities to communicate through secure services, streamlining judicial cooperation. For more details on Regulation (EU) 2022/850, see the earlier posts by Elena Alina Ontanu and Marta Requejo Isidro on this blog, available here and here. Complementing this, the Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 on service of documents and Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 on taking of evidence require the use of interoperable IT systems based on e-CODEX for digital communication in civil and commercial matters starting in May 2025.
The ‘Digitalisation Package’, comprising Regulation (EU) 2023/2844 and Directive (EU) 2023/2843 on the digitalization of cross-border judicial cooperation and access to justice, is central to the EU’s e-Justice initiatives.
These instruments enable natural and legal persons and their representatives to communicate electronically via a European electronic access point. They also allow authorities to securely exchange data in civil and commercial matters with cross-border implications. Implementation of these instruments will require the establishment of national access points and compliance with electronic communication principles. Further insights into Regulation (EU) 2023/2844 are found in Marion Ho-Dac’s post on this blog.
Non-legislative initiatives, such as the consolidation of the e-CODEX system under eu-LISA management, support these legislative measures. Member States play a critical role in connecting to e-CODEX and enabling interaction between authorities, legal professionals and individuals through secure digital channels.
The shift to mandatory compliance with digitalization initiatives highlights the EU’s dedication to legal certainty and operational efficiency in justice systems.
Guiding Principles, Operational Goals, Follow-up Mechanisms
The Strategy is founded on principles that prioritize respect for fundamental rights, access to justice, people centricity, bridging the digital divide, digital empowerment of users and sustainability. Operationally, the Strategy promotes efficiency through principles like the once-only, digital by default approach, interoperability and cybersecurity, dynamic justice, data-driven justice and open source.
The strategic and operational objectives of the e-Justice Strategy’s are then referred to and briefly described. Its overarching goal is to facilitate the right to effective judicial protection, focusing on four key strategic objectives: improving access to digital justice, strengthening judicial cooperation, increasing efficiency and fostering innovation.
To improve access, the Strategy emphasizes inclusivity, ensuring digital justice is accessible to all, with tools like the e-Justice Portal and tailored training for users and professionals. Efforts will focus on bridging the digital divide and enhancing the functionality of online platforms to deliver added value.
In terms of cooperation, the strategy prioritizes interoperability between Member States’ systems, supported by the implementation of the ‘Digitalisation Package’. Real-time tools, such as video conferencing and AI-driven interpretation, will further streamline cross-border judicial processes.
Efficiency is another critical focus, with data-oriented approaches driving transparency and innovation. Technologies like automated case allocation and online dispute resolution will optimize resources, while selective digitization of face-to-face processes ensures flexibility.
Finally, the Strategy promotes innovation by integrating new technologies and promoting the exchange of experiences and best practices across Member States. This approach aims to enhance the justice system’s functionality while safeguarding fundamental rights.
The Strategy’s action plan is outlined. The e-Justice domain focuses on several key working areas: e-CODEX, e-Justice Portal, electronic access points, real time (RT) applications, law data and case law, AI and other innovative IT services in the justice domain and, finally, other working areas.
The strategic objectives are further broken down into operational objectives, for which specific actions to be taken and the actors involved are identified.
A follow-up mechanism ensures effective implementation through annual monitoring reports, stakeholder consultations and a mid-term review in 2026 to adjust the Strategy as needed.
Thank you for this insightful overview, Marco. The European e-Justice Strategy 2024–2028 highlights key opportunities but also raises important questions.
Regarding AI in justice, how will the balance be maintained between efficiency and safeguarding fundamental rights, particularly in areas like automated case allocation and AI-driven interpretation? Ensuring non-discriminatory outcomes is critical.
On accessibility and the digital divide, the strategy aims for inclusivity, but how will disparities in infrastructure and digital skills across Member States be addressed? Judicial training, a key area of my research, will be essential.
Finally, data security is a major concern with cross-border judicial data exchanges. Will the monitoring mechanisms be sufficient to address potential risks and ensure compliance with privacy standards?
I’m curious to see how these issues evolve. What do you think about it?
Thank you very much Paola for your multiple and thought-provoking reflections. This conversation is truly valuable, as the challenge is no longer a matter of the future. It is a pressing reality with significant implications. And given its impact on fundamental rights, the topic is equally crucial.
Regarding AI in the justice sector, particularly in the areas you highlighted, the legal landscape is multi-layered. The principles are clearly stated — for example, in the European Ethical Charter on the Use of AI in Judicial Systems by the CEPEJ and the explicit prohibition of discrimination in Article 17 of the Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law. However, as you rightly point out, the key issue is how these principles are concretely applied day by day in specific activities.
This is where Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act) plays a crucial role.
Its Recital 61 recognizes that AI systems, particularly in justice and democratic processes, should be classified as high-risk due to their potential impact on democracy, rights and fair trials. These systems, especially those assisting judicial authorities or alternative dispute resolution bodies, must not replace human decision-making.
According to its Recital 96, deployers of high-risk AI, including public bodies and private entities offering public services (like justice), must conduct a fundamental rights impact assessment before use. The assessment should identify potential risks to individuals’ rights, propose mitigation measures and involve relevant stakeholders. The deployer must notify authorities after completing the assessment, with a standardized template to ease compliance.
The next step will be to assess whether the AI Act’s safeguards for high-risk AI systems in the justice sector are sufficient to protect the fundamental rights at stake. Notably, Article 74(8) of the AI Act mandates that EU Member States ensure market surveillance and control over these high-risk AI systems in the justice field.
In relation to your second point, the e-Justice strategy for 2024-2029 does emphasize inclusivity, but the question of how to bridge the digital divide, both in terms of infrastructure and digital skills, remains crucial. I noticed that the European Commission is trying to tackle this from multiple angles.
On the infrastructure side, there’s a clear push to strengthen digital capacities across Member States. The Digital Europe Programme (Regulation (EU) 2021/694) is one of the key tools here, funding projects that enhance cloud infrastructure, artificial intelligence and cybersecurity, including within the justice sector. At the same time, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (Regulation (EU) 2021/241) is helping individual Member States invest in their own judicial digitalization projects. But of course, implementation will vary, and some countries will move faster than others.
When it comes to accessibility, if I do not wrong, the strategy seems following the principle of ‘digital by default, but not digital only’, ensuring that those who struggle with digital tools — whether due to lack of skills or inadequate infrastructure — still deal with justice-related matters through alternative means.
And I completely agree with you: judicial training is and will be essential. The strategy strongly emphasizes the need to equip judges and legal professionals with the necessary digital skills, and there’s already EU funding in place for this through the Justice Programme 2021-2027 (Regulation (EU) 2021/693). Plus, the broader Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027 supports training initiatives that could help address gaps in digital training within the legal sector. Further support would be appreciated.
Congrats on your work in this area!
Finally, you’re absolutely right that data security in cross-border judicial exchanges is a critical issue. The strategy’s monitoring mechanisms must not only ensure compliance with data protection standards but also adapt to the evolving risks of AI-driven processes. A key area to explore is certainly the intersection between AI and GDPR.
That said, how effectively these measures will be implemented depends a lot, Commission work aside, on national efforts. It will be interesting to see whether all Member States manage to keep pace with these changes or whether the digital problems persist despite the EU’s efforts.
Thanks a lot! Excited to see how this evolves and to follow future developments.
Best,
Marco