EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 20.11.2025

COM(2025) 802 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

DigitalJustice@2030

DigitalJustice@2030

The EU’s competitiveness will increasingly depend on the digitalisation of all sectors, which will drive investment. 1  Digitalisation and the deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) will be essential to the ability of public authorities to deliver high-quality public services, notably also in the field of justice. Europe’s Digital Decade is underway with the ambition that by 2030 the EU has all key public services available online. The ultimate aim will be to increase the efficiency of public services by making them digital by default, stimulating productivity. 2  

Businesses are more likely to invest in countries in which the justice systems are effective, where access to justice is guaranteed, the quality of justice is high, and transparency is ensured. The efficient delivery of justice also means that litigation costs are less for individuals and businesses. These resources can instead be used for investment and other more productive purposes. This is even more evident in cross-border cases where digital tools can considerably reduce administrative burden, minimise delays, and break down language barriers with AI-based applications, such as speech-to-text conversion and transcription, machine translation, leading to cost savings.

Digitalised justice systems are also expected to be more resilient in times of crisis. This was illustrated by the Covid-19 pandemic. The quality of justice may also increase as justice professionals can focus more on their core task of delivering justice. The digitalisation of justice systems has the potential to deliver faster and simpler access to justice, bringing it closer to people. 3  For instance, digital tools can provide swift access to courts through videoconferencing, regardless of the distance from a courtroom. Having online access to case files also increases transparency as individuals, businesses and legal representatives can follow judicial proceedings more easily. 4

The adoption of the Digitalisation Regulation 5 in 2023 marked a milestone in this respect. In 24 cross-border civil, commercial and criminal judicial procedures, the regulation mandates the use of digital communication. The Digitalisation Regulation also provides an EU legal framework for the use of videoconferencing to conduct remote hearings in civil and certain criminal law matters. 

The Commission must adopt a series of implementing acts between 2026 and 2029 to help Member States adapt their national IT systems and ensure interoperability as required by the Digitalisation Regulation. A European Electronic Access Point will be operational as of 2028 where users can lodge certain claims and request certificates and attestations. 6  A decentralised IT system should be operational for all procedures within the scope of the regulation by the beginning of 2031. A coordinated and sustained effort by the Commission and the Member States is necessary for the timely implementation of the Digitalisation Regulation as well as the other decentralised IT systems established recently under five other legal acts concerning justice. 7

Digitalisation can also contribute to the fight against crime in the EU. Prosecution offices at EU and national level can use digital tools to significantly speed up communication and cooperate more efficiently in the fight against cross-border crime. The EU’s Justice and Home Affairs agencies and bodies 8  in charge of investigating and prosecuting crimes or supporting national prosecution services can similarly benefit from digitalisation, by using tools to share information faster, and tools to support national competent authorities.

While harvesting the efficiency gains of digitalisation, potential risks also need to be mitigated. The use of digital tools in justice matters must fully respect the rule of law and fundamental rights, as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and relevant EU secondary legislation. 9  In addition, the AI Act 10  stipulates that only AI systems which do not harm fundamental rights may be used. At the same time, given the importance to ensure that all individuals 11  residing in the EU have effective access to justice on an equal basis, non-digital channels for accessing justice should remain available.

More digitalised justice systems may also be vulnerable to personal data breaches and cyber-attacks. While paper-based systems have other vulnerabilities such as limited sharing, difficulties to update, particular attention must be paid to data privacy and security. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 12  and the Law Enforcement Directive 13  are cornerstone pieces of EU legislation which aim to protect people against these risks, through risk management measures and incident reporting. The EU Cybersecurity Act 14  also raises the cybersecurity level of information and communication technology products in the EU, including for products used in the justice sector.

Funding the digital transition of national justice systems may imply a significant upfront investment, but the related costs will be amortised over time as efficiency gains will lead to savings. While EU funds cannot cover all upfront costs, they can provide targeted support for tailored investments under the current multiannual financial framework (MFF) and for investments and reforms according to national and regional partnership plans when the next MFF starts. 15  In addition, they can also create a leveraging effect on national budgets. 16  

Strengthening the digital skills of justice professionals will be essential to benefiting from digitalisation and harnessing advanced technologies as a driver of the EU’s competitiveness. 17  That is why DigitalJustice@2030 has been adopted together with the new European Judicial Training Strategy 18 (2025-2030), which focuses on digitalisation, creating the necessary supportive environment to turn it into reality.

Competitiveness is front and centre of this Commission’s mandate. 19  The EU must go faster and further to ensure competitiveness, prosperity and fairness. 20  This stance is supported by the Council which calls for decisive action to boost competitiveness. 21  DigitalJustice@2030 builds on these policy goals and translates the priorities set by the Council in its e-Justice Strategy 2024-2028, 22  and the Council conclusions on the use of AI in justice 23  into concrete actions. 

DigitalJustice@2030 builds on the discussions with Member States and key stakeholders in the High-Level Fora on Justice for Growth and on the Future of EU Criminal Justice, highlighting initiatives on digitalisation which were widely supported 24  and that are intended to increase the uptake of digital technologies, including AI, in justice systems by 2030.

1.Mapping progress of national digitalisation of justice and exchange of best practices

The 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard 25 shows that Member States are progressing unevenly in the digitalisation of their national justice systems. The reasons for these differences vary between Member States but include availability of human and financial resources as well as diverging political priorities.

While the EU Justice Scoreboard provides some data on the level of digitalisation of national justice systems in the Member States, there is no overview of national initiatives or tools. Member States need the same or similar IT tools and data standards to digitalise practices that are common to all national justice systems. Member States interested in using solutions that are effective in other Member States may face difficulties in accessing the information.

To tackle this issue, the Commission, together with the Council, started to map relevant national initiatives and tools. The data provides an initial overview of digitalisation in justice systems in the EU. A more permanent mechanism, ‘a living repository’, will be developed on that basis for the collection of information and for exchanging best practices. The repository will be hosted on the e-Justice Portal. 26 Using the Portal’s structure and layout would allow Member States to easily make updates when needed, while the familiarity of the Portal is intended to minimise administrative burden.

The aim is for Member States to identify good solutions in use that could lead to their wider implementation and foster cross-border interoperability. The Commission, in collaboration with the Council will organise exchanges of best practices among Member States. There are many examples of good digital practices in the EU that improve the quality of justice, and provide better access, and more transparency for those subject to, and working within, the justice systems. For example, in Estonia, all public services are available online. Their justice system has numerous digital tools but at the heart of the system is the e-File. This e-File provides data to courts’ information systems and is interoperable with law enforcement information systems. All communication between parties in civil cases can be processed electronically, including creating and sending summons, minutes of hearings, and decisions - and all parties can electronically follow proceedings. Estonia has estimated that use of these digital tools has cut the average length of civil court proceedings from 156 days to 99 days. 27  

The data collected will also form the basis for the proposed IT toolbox (see action 3) and help when setting investment and reform milestones and targets for possible funding measures under the proposed next MFF. 28

2.IT toolbox for justice

The work to map the digital tools currently available in the Member States has revealed that Member States have identical or similar needs and want to develop similar solutions. Several Member States have already deployed AI tools successfully and these solutions could benefit others. For example, advanced AI speech recognition tools are used to convert speech to text and transcribe hearings in several Member State, leading to clear time savings. Other Member States are using automated annotation and content description of judgments and other judicial decisions, while some Member States have started to use large language models to analyse judgments and draft legal documents. However, for the majority of Member States, the use of AI tools is only planned. The Council therefore invited the Commission to support Member States in collecting and sharing information on the use of AI tools in national justice systems in order to create and operate a shared ‘Justice AI toolbox’. 29

While full EU-wide harmonisation of digital justice solutions in national systems may stand in the way of healthy innovation, the current level of fragmentation and lack of standardisation is a weakness in terms of costs and efficiency. For example, it is not necessary or efficient for Member States to implement 27 different software systems to carry out legal research in courts.

The aim of the toolbox is to achieve cost savings and to lower barriers to implementation by providing Member States with a set of IT tools. The toolbox is a natural extension of the mapping, the purpose being not only to share IT solutions but also aiming to help Member States digitalise their justice systems in practice. By using tools that have already been developed and tested by other countries, Member States can avoid starting from scratch in creating a new tool, which saves both time and money. Implementing successful tools in several Member States could help reuse common standards and aid interoperability.

The Commission will create this toolbox to help Member States accelerate their level of digitalisation and generate cost savings. The toolbox will include AI tools as well as any other relevant IT tools for use in justice systems. It will be hosted on the Interoperable Europe Portal 30  established by the Interoperable Europe Act 31  to facilitate the sharing of tools, data standards and guidance. It will be up to every Member State to decide which tools they would like to share and to what extent. 

3.AI in justice systems

Effective use of AI in justice systems is part of the goal to place the EU at the forefront of the AI revolution, as set out in the AI Continent Action Plan. 32 The Apply AI Strategy 33  focuses on harnessing the transformative potential of AI, accelerating the uptake of AI across all sectors to improve competitiveness and economic growth as well as to reduce administrative burden. For the purposes of promoting and accelerating the use of AI in justice, the Apply AI Strategy relies on concrete actions in this DigitalJustice@2030 strategy. 

AI has enormous potential in the field of justice and could lead to significant efficiency gains. For example, in Germany, the AI assistant OLGA helps judges process appeals in mass proceedings 34  following the Dieselgate case. 35  OLGA examines first-instance judgments and extracts parameters such as vehicle and engine type, exhaust standard and reasons for recall. Based on these parameters, the tool automatically groups together similar cases and fills in individual templates designed by the judges. The use of OLGA has enabled the intelligent scheduling of cases with for example the same plaintiff representatives, allowing the court to hold very effective meeting days. 36 This tool has also relieved judges of highly repetitive tasks allowing them to concentrate on their core work instead. However, most importantly, the system does not interfere with the decision-making as judges always take the decisions on each case after checking the facts. The Ministry of Justice and Migration of Baden-Württemberg reports 37  that use of OLGA has made handling cases easier and significantly reduced the time to process them. In fact, without OLGA, it would take many years to process the cases with the current staffing. As the judge responsible for the OLGA project at the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart concluded: ‘the manual processing of mass proceedings is now a thing of the past’. 38

However, the use of AI in justice systems also comes with risks to fundamental rights and these risks need to be mitigated. AI tools should only support, and never replace, the judges in their decision-making. 39  The AI Act 40  categorises certain uses of AI as high-risk. As a matter of principle, AI systems intended to be used by a judicial authority to assist them in researching and interpreting facts and the law and in applying the law to a concrete set of facts are considered high-risk. Consequently, strict requirements apply. AI systems intended for administrative activities that do not affect the actual decision-making in individual cases, such as pseudonymisation of judicial decisions, documents or data, are not considered high-risk. They are nevertheless subject to transparency requirements. 

To support the safe implementation of AI in justice systems, the Council invited the Commission to explore the potential of AI in the field of justice and assist Member States in implementing the AI Act. 41  The Commission is committed to accompanying Member States in their AI implementation journey. The first step was to adopt the guidance on prohibited AI practices in February 2025. 42  The next step will be to finalise the general guidance on high-risk AI systems under the AI Act planned for publication in February 2026. The use of high-risk AI tools in justice systems is crucial and will help shape these guidelines. DigitalJustice@2030 also proposes to check whether Member States need additional support to use AI tools effectively in justice systems and whether a coordinated approach at EU level is warranted.

Member States are keen to use AI systems in justice to improve efficiency and reduce backlogs. 43  Several measures supporting the use of AI in justice systems are outlined in DigitalJustice@2030. The IT toolbox is designed to facilitate and accelerate the uptake of AI tools (action 3). EU funding is available for projects related to the use of AI in justice systems (action 11 and 12), and AI uptake will be monitored through the mapping of IT tools (action 1). The Commission plans to further support national authorities by discussing and helping them with their decisions about whether, and for what purpose, they should use AI tools, as well as how to do this in a way that increases efficiency as planned - possibly with dedicated guidelines. 44  

At EU level, Justice and Home Affairs agencies and bodies consider using AI in their operational work and may be testing new AI tools. The Commission will monitor these developments.

4.European Legal Data Space

Individuals and professionals in many domains have a wealth of information at their fingertips. This is not the case for legal documents and data, which are often not available online, meaning that there is less accessibility and transparency in this domain. Currently, online legal data can be accessed in various ways, facilitated and supported by the EU. The European Legal Data Space aims to bring all this data together and in one place:

·EUR-Lex for access to the authentic EU legislation in 24 languages, EU case-law, national transposition measures as well as to some national case-law with search and analysis functions.

·N-Lex for access to Member States’ national law databases.

·the e-Justice Portal for information on justice systems and on access to justice in the EU, as well as for access to EU and national case-law.

·several Member States operate their own platforms.

There are many benefits to having easy access to up-to-date applicable legislation and case-law not only at EU level, but also in all Member States. Imagine a Polish judge who needs to apply Italian law when deciding on a dispute between a Polish company and an Italian one. The contract between the two companies includes a choice-of-law (governing law) clause specifying that Italian law applies. 45  Since the Polish business has brought the case before a Polish court, 46  the Polish judge will decide on the dispute based on Italian law and will need access to all related Italian legislation and case-law. If these are not available online, it is even more difficult for justice professionals in cross-border cases to find, understand, interpret and apply foreign law to a pending case. 47 This can lead to significant delays, with a negative effect on delivering justice and undermining economic growth and competitiveness. It is difficult enough for justice professionals to apply foreign laws on which they have not been trained, without also having to struggle to find the necessary documents.

In addition to helping justice professionals in cross-border cases, greater transparency also helps to increase public confidence and trust in the justice system. Access to information on the law, case-law and the judicial interpretation of legal provisions is important to exercise the right of access to justice. 48  

That is why, on the basis of the 2020 European data strategy, 49  a European Legal Data Space was put in place to harness the value of data to produce broader benefits for the EU economy and society. The aim is to provide easily accessible, reusable, and searchable data for legislation and case-law across the EU. The European Legal Data Space does not only provide data to help justice professionals in their work. It will also progressively provide access to judicial data, suitable for training AI systems, thus supporting legal tech companies in developing innovative AI tools adapted to the justice domain. Part of the key to well-functioning AI tools, is the quality of the training data. This is where the European Legal Data Space can help innovation, i.e. by opening up access to downloadable, high-quality, high-volume and relevant legal content. The carefully curated data for EU legal documents available in EUR-Lex is at the core of this work.

Common standards are crucial to making the European Legal Data Space work, and ensuring the interoperability of legal and judicial data, in particular the European Legislation Identifier (ELI) 50  and the European Case Law Identifier (ECLI). 51  Access to legislation and case-law requires having all relevant documents correctly identified, machine-readable and searchable online. Ensuring that ELI and ECLI are adopted as quickly as possible by all Member States is therefore key. 52  The ELI standard is now used by 19 Member States, with seven having adopted ELI since 2024. ECLI has been partially implemented in 21 Member States, in most cases by a limited number of courts only. 17 of the Member States that have adopted the ECLI standard are connected to the ECLI search engine on the European e-Justice Portal. 

While the work on N-Lex and the e-Justice Portal and on the associated law and case-law search engines continues, the actions in DigitalJustice@2030 should ultimately result in having easily accessible, reusable, and searchable judicial data for all justice professionals, individuals and legal tech companies. The Commission is committed to full implementation of ELI and ECLI, supporting Member States in various ways. EU funding under the Technical Support Instrument and further technical assistance under the future MFF could be used for implementing ELI and ECLI.

In the Data Union Strategy, 53  the Commission announced that it will propose to expand the list of high-value datasets in 2026 54 to cover also legal data, with improved quality and accessibility. High-value datasets must be made freely available in machine-readable formats and via a standardised application programming interface. Where relevant, high-value datasets should be available as bulk download. Extending the list of high‑value datasets will make more data available to SMEs, startups and AI developers by lowering data‑access barriers.

5.Videoconferencing

The COVID-19 pandemic forced large parts of the workforce (including the judiciary) to adapt to the new situation: the use of videoconferencing became a viable solution in many cases to ensure continuity of justice. Even though by 2020, videoconferencing was already regulated and used in some cases of EU cross-border cooperation in civil and criminal matters 55 , the legal basis was lacking for many other cross-border procedures. The Digitalisation Regulation partially closed this gap and now provides a legal basis for conducting hearings through videoconferencing for cross-border judicial proceedings in civil and commercial matters, as well as for judicial cooperation procedures in criminal matters.

Under EU law, witnesses, experts, suspects and accused persons, as well as victims of crime can be heard through videoconferencing to gather evidence if present in another Member State. 56  For victims of crime, the Commission also proposes to include a provision in the Victims’ Rights Directive on the use of videoconferencing in order to facilitate remote participation in criminal proceedings of victims who are resident abroad. This proposal is still under negotiation. There are currently no EU-wide rules governing the remote participation of a suspect or accused person in court hearings in criminal proceedings from another Member State for purposes other than gathering of evidence. This situation often leads to significant travel costs for a suspect or accused person, and can pose practical challenges, in particular for vulnerable individuals. It may also result in trials being conducted in absentia or require the use of very intrusive coercive measures such as a European Arrest Warrant to ensure the suspect or accused person attends the trial.

These considerations were acknowledged in the latest evaluation on the implementation of the European Investigation Order, 57  which invites the Commission to find a solution at EU level to permit the participation of accused persons in trials via videoconference from another Member State. The Commission seeks to address this gap to enable remote participation in criminal court hearings of a suspect or accused person from another Member State by videoconference. When it comes to victims of crime, the Commission will assess how remote participation should also be addressed, taking into account the outcome of the negotiations on the revision of the Victims’ Rights Directive.

There are certain practical challenges to be tackled to ensure that remote hearings via videoconference go smoothly. For instance, Member States often use different videoconferencing platforms, which is not an issue in itself but may become an obstacle when conducting a remote cross-border hearing, as different software and hardware solutions are not always interoperable. This is important when a videoconference is organised between two judicial authorities in different Member States, for example, for the taking of evidence in civil matters 58  and during hearings in criminal matters.

While there are already solutions available to this problem of interoperability, such as add-ons, plug-ins and third-party applications, these solutions often make the connection unstable and raise concerns about data protection and privacy. There is currently no pan-EU videoconferencing solution for cross-border proceedings in justice matters. Each Member State either uses off-the-shelf products or tools they have developed themselves. This may be appropriate enough for domestic hearings but, for cross-border hearings, a lack of interoperability makes conducting remote hearings difficult if not impossible. Therefore, it would be necessary to look for a solution to address interoperability challenges. That is why the Commission will analyse different options for overcoming barriers to interoperability. 59

In addition, the Commission will support Member States by providing a set of voluntary common technical requirements for videoconferencing. These requirements will cover, for instance, how to conduct videoconference, and further develop videoconferencing software already in use. These requirements would be adapted for use in the justice domain and would provide a solid basis, for ensuring good audio and visual quality in real-time for secure and confidential videoconference during judicial proceedings. Member States could use these requirements when running procurement or further development procedures, for example, and save on the cost of putting together such requirements for themselves. These voluntary technical requirements are intended to facilitate interoperability. They will be accessible via the Interoperable Europe Portal.

6.Funding

Digitalising national justice systems is an investment that aims to achieve more efficient justice. This investment will be gradually offset and ultimately save resources. For instance, rolling out videoconferencing in court rooms in Czechia has been a success. In 2024, there were on average 12 300 hearings conducted via videoconferencing. The roll-out of equipment and related software in courtrooms has cost approximately EUR 8 million, with support through EU funding under the Recovery and Resilience Facility. 60 Videoconferencing now saves the Czech judicial authorities more than EUR 2.2 million annually in transport and security escort costs, witness compensation and travel reimbursements for witnesses – and these savings will continue. 61

Investment in digitalisation will also contribute to increased productivity. Ultimately, such investment aims to increase the efficiency of national justice systems, which will have a positive impact on economic growth. Some parts of this DigitalJustice@2030 strategy, e.g. encouraging the re-use of IT tools, will generate savings for national budgets, while improving interoperability between national justice systems.

In the light of these considerations, the Council invited the Commission to promote adequate funding for the development and use of AI in justice. 62 The Council’s e-Justice Strategy for 2024-2028 63  stresses that Member States should be able to seek funding through the various financial instruments included in the MFF. Therefore, access to financing should be facilitated at EU level.

The EU already supports Member States in their efforts to make their judicial systems more efficient through several funding instruments, which pursue different objectives:

·The Justice Programme supports the development of cross-border digitalisation projects but has a limited budget. It currently has a special focus on helping Member States implement the Digitalisation Regulation. 64

·The Recovery and Resilience Facility supports reforms and investments undertaken by Member States to make their economies and societies more sustainable, resilient and better prepared for the challenges and opportunities of the green and digital transitions. Several measures contained in the Recovery and Resilience Plans aim to advance the digitalisation of Member States’ justice systems. Around half of the Member States 65 included such reforms and investments in their recovery and resilience plans. Projects include for instance videoconferencing, introducing digital audio-recordings of proceedings, improvement in case management, digitalising civil and criminal proceedings. 

·The Digital Europe Programme supports the Commission’s work on the digitalisation of EU cross-border judicial cooperation, particularly in the context of the Digitalisation Regulation. It also supports uptake of ELI in the Member States. It is used to offer expert consultancy and workshops as well as to support the adherence of Member States to the ELI based search on N-Lex.

·The Technical Support Instrument supports Member States by providing tailor-made technical expertise. It can be used to support projects related to the digitalisation of national justice systems, such as publication of case-law, further uptake of ECLI, automated processing using AI, and videoconferencing. However, one important limitation is that it cannot be used to fund actual IT development work, nor the purchase of software and hardware. 66 Projects under the Technical Support Instrument should provide clear EU added value, allowing for the re-use of results achieved in other Member States. 

Under the next MFF,  67 the aim is to make the EU budget simpler and more flexible. This would allow funding to be adjusted to changing priorities and new technological developments. The Commission has proposed an ambitious, policy-based budget for the period 2028 to 2034. Faced with insufficient and uneven progress on the EU’s digital transformation, 68  the budget would provide support for the digitalisation of justice systems at national and EU level based on two pillars:

I. Digitalised justice systems are more efficient and resilient, so Member States could use their National and Regional Partnership Plans 69  to fund digitalisation of national justice systems. Funds could also be used to achieve the targets set in the Digital Decade policy programme, which aims to make all key public services available online by 2030. 70  Compared with current financing instruments, the National and Regional Partnership Plans would reduce the administrative burden on national and regional judicial authorities. 71  National targets to digitalise national justice systems could be based on the data collection in action 1.

II.The proposal for a new Justice programme aims to contribute to the development of an efficient, inclusive and resilient European area of justice, and would support the digitalisation of justice at EU level. 72  Its increased focus on digitalisation under its general and specific objectives 73  aims to ensure a more strategic and consistent approach to all the issues and challenges related to digitalisation of justice systems. It has a proposed significant increase in budget. The proposed programme will continue to support the maintenance of existing IT tools or platforms and the setting up of new ones needed for judicial cooperation instruments, 74 including helping Member States roll out implementing acts under the Digitalisation Regulation.

7.Further digitalisation of cross-border proceedings in civil and commercial matters

Even after the full implementation of the Digitalisation Regulation , it will still not be possible to carry out cross-border judicial procedures entirely by digital means, e.g. a court case from start to finish. The Digitalisation Regulation does not provide for the digitalisation of communications for all procedural steps in all cross-border judicial procedures, or for initiating all types of court proceedings. For example, where the international jurisdiction of the court has been established, 75 the parties to the proceedings may communicate electronically with that court in certain cases, 76 but they will not be able to request a remote hearing or present written evidence through the European Electronic Access Point. It will also not be possible for a business to digitally recover a contested debt from another business in court if the value of the claim exceeds EUR 5 000, as the European Electronic Access Point cannot not be used for that purpose and existing national IT systems may not give access to non-residents.

Making digital tools available to individuals and companies to submit claims or to monitor and proceed with judicial proceedings until the judgment has been delivered would make justice more efficient. It would also save time and money for businesses and individuals in cross-border civil and commercial law judicial proceedings.

The tool for the full digitalisation of cross-border judicial procedures could be an extension of the European Electronic Access Point to all civil and commercial matters with cross-border implications. The European Electronic Access Point will be operational as of 2028 and could be turned into a single access point where individuals and businesses could launch, and participate in, cross-border civil procedures. The work to prepare the comprehensive Commission evaluation of the Digitalisation Regulation 77 will be an opportunity to assess the functioning of the European Electronic Access Point and the progress made with the digitalisation of justice systems within Member States as well as to identify possible gaps and weaknesses. 

Over the next years, in preparation for the evaluation, the Commission intends to carry out a study analysing the effects of the further digitalisation of cross-border proceedings in civil and commercial matters. This analysis could feed into the evaluation as well as into a joint reflection on the future of civil and commercial judicial proceedings together with Member States, the European Parliament and justice community stakeholders.

The Digital Identity Wallet created under the European Digital Identity Framework 78  should facilitate online access to judicial proceedings. They will provide every EU citizen or resident with an electronic identity, enabling them to securely identify themselves and to sign electronic documents using a qualified electronic signature. In addition, the European Digital Identity Wallets should be used for exchanging electronic documents. Building on the European Digital Identity Framework, these European Business Wallets will create a digital identity for economic operators and public authorities allowing their identification and authentication, the receipt and storage of official notifications, and the sharing of verified credentials.

8.Conclusion

The actions in DigitalJustice@2030 aim at creating the conditions for stepping up digital justice in the EU by 2030. It is also important to think beyond 2030 because the next MFF aims to set the trajectory for the funding opportunities needed to digitalise national justice systems. In the mid- to long-term, the actions and funds should support Member States by providing them with the tools and infrastructure to digitalise their national justice systems, enabling them to reap the benefits of more efficient justice systems, including the benefit of driving economic growth.

These actions will be carried out in continuous dialogue and vital cooperation with the Member States, and, where necessary, with other stakeholders in relevant forums. This cooperation will be key. DigitalJustice@2030 focuses almost exclusively on non-legislative actions, which can only be successful if there is sustained cooperation between the Member States and the Commission. The success of this strategy relies on voluntary, active and continuous participation by Member States.

With wide-scale digitalisation, it will no longer matter where users live as all Member States will have a digital justice system and access to justice via digital tools will be universal. Every Member State should aim to have a single entry point that links all courts. This should allow for anybody to get in touch with the courts, participate in hearings and launch and advance judicial procedures from anywhere, at any time, thus reducing costs of justice.

As a result of DigitalJustice@2030, Member States will be able to learn and benefit from the experience gained by other countries developing and using digital tools and infrastructure. Instead of every Member State individually developing IT tools for use in its justice system, it will be able to select tools that have already proven valuable, in carrying out tasks that are common to all justice systems.

The use of AI tools in justice systems should be promoted to achieve efficiency gains, helping reduce backlog of cases in courts and ease the strained budgets of national justice systems.

By 2030, there should be easy online access for all justice professionals to all legislation and case-law. Legal tech companies should also have easy access to enough judicial data, which is crucial for developing and training AI tools adapted for use in justice systems.

Monitoring the success of the DigitalJustice@2030 will be done mainly through the annual EU Justice Scoreboard, which has a dedicated chapter on digitalisation of national justice systems.

(1)

  Draghi Report ‘The future of European competitiveness – Part B: In-depth analysis and recommendations’, p. 67.

(2)

  COM(2021)118 final - 2030 Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital Decade, p. 10.

(3)

 Council e-Justice Strategy 2024-2028 ( C/2025/437 ), 4th para.

(4)

 Supported by findings in the report ‘Digitalising justice: a fundamental rights-based approach’ by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.

(5)

  Regulation (EU) 2023/2844 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.

(6)

Such as attestations for marriage and registered partnerships, or certificates for protection measures in civil matters.

(7)

  Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents) (recast),  Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (taking of evidence) (recast),  Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 on European Production Orders and European Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal proceedings and for the execution of custodial sentences following criminal proceedings,  Regulation (EU) 2024/3011 on the transfer of proceedings in criminal matters and  Regulation (EU) 2023/2131 as regards digital communication channels in terrorism cases.

(8)

Europol, the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO).

(9)

 Such as Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information in criminal proceedings.

(10)

  Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (AI Act).

(11)

This includes persons with limited digital literacy, persons with disabilities that make it difficult to navigate digital tools and environments unassisted and persons who, for instance for reasons of economic deprivation, have no access to appropriate digital infrastructure.

(12)

  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation).

(13)

  Directive (EU) 2016/680 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data.

(14)

  Regulation (EU) 2019/881 on ENISA (the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity) and on information and communications technology cybersecurity certification (Cybersecurity Act).

(15)

  COM(2025)570 - Commission Communication on a dynamic EU Budget for the priorities of the future - The Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034, p. 3., and COM(2025)565  Proposal for a Regulation establishing the European Fund for economic, social and territorial cohesion, agriculture and rural, fisheries and maritime, prosperity and security for the period 2028-2034, recital 20 and Article 3(1)(e)(ii).

(16)

  COM(2025) 570 final – SWD(2025) 570 final/2 – Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Communication on a dynamic EU Budget for the priorities of the future - The Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034, p. 39.

(17)

Draghi Report ‘The future of European competitiveness – In-depth analysis and recommendations’, p. 67.

(18)

COM(2025)801 – European Judicial Training Strategy 2025-2030 – creating a supportive environment for DigitalJustice@2030.

(19)

  COM(2025) 30 final – A Competitiveness Compass for the EU, p.2.

(20)

  ‘Europe’s Choice’ – Political Guidelines for the next European Commission 2024-2029, p. 6.

(21)

  Council of the EU (838/24)  Budapest Declaration on the New European Competitiveness Deal, p.1. 

(22)

Council e-Justice Strategy 2024-2028 ( C/2025/437 ).

(23)

Council Conclusions from December 2024 on the use of Artificial Intelligence in the field of justice ( 16593/24 ), paragraph 25.

(24)

 These  two high-level fora  brought together Member States, the European Parliament, representatives of academia, practitioners, and civil society in four plenary meetings each between March 2025 and November 2025. 

(25)

 The 2025 EU justice Scoreboard COM(2025) 375 final , section 2.2.3. Digitalisation.

(26)

  e-Justice: Estonian digital court-making .

(27)

  Factsheet e-Estonia: e-Justice.  

(28)

  COM(2025) 565 final – Proposal for a Regulation establishing the European Fund for economic, social and territorial cohesion, agriculture and rural, fisheries and maritime, prosperity and security for the period 2028-2034.

(29)

Council Conclusions from December 2024 on the use of Artificial Intelligence in the field of justice ( 16593/24 ), paragraph 25.

(30)

  Interoperable Europe Portal .

(31)

Regulation (EU) 2024/903 laying down measures for a high level of public sector interoperability across the Union (Interoperable Europe Act).

(32)

  COM(2025) 165 final – AI Continent Action Plan, p. 1.

(33)

COM(2025)723 final – Apply AI Strategy, p. 1 and p. 12.

(34)

‘Mass proceedings’ are understood as multiple judicial actions brought by individual claimants concerning the same or similar practice. IT tools may be relevant also in other judicial actions addressing mass harm such as representative actions under the Representative Action Directive (EU) 2020/1828.

(35)

‘Dieselgate’ is the name of a scandal uncovered in 2015 concerning cars which had been sold with a specific software in the diesel engines that could detect when the car was being tested, changing the performance accordingly to improve results. It led to thousands of lawsuits and appeals.

(36)

 Spoenle, J. OLGA – der KI-Assistent für Dieselverfahren .

(37)

Landtag von Baden-Württemberg, Drucksache 17/5658 , p. 4.

(38)

 Landtag von Baden-Württemberg, Drucksache 17/5658 , p. 4.

(39)

 Recital 61 of the AI Act .

(40)

  Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (AI Act).

(41)

Council Conclusions from December 2024 on the use of Artificial Intelligence in the field of justice ( 16593/24 ), paragraph 21.

(42)

  C(2025)5052 final  - Commission Guidelines on prohibited artificial intelligence practices established by Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act).

(43)

From the discussions in the expert meeting under the Polish presidency of the Council of the European Union in Warsaw ‘New Challenges of AI Development and e-Communication in the Field of Justice’ (19-20 May 2025).

(44)

Conclusions of the European Commission and the Polish Presidency in the official Chronicle of the expert meeting under the Polish presidency of the Council of the European Union in Warsaw - New Challenges of AI Development and e-Communication in the Field of Justice (19-20 May 2025), p. 39.

(45)

 In line with Article 3,  Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) 

(46)

 The jurisdiction of the Polish court would be determined in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels Ia Regulation).

(47)

 If the information cannot be found, the judge will be forced to make an official request for information under Article 4 of the European Convention on Information on Foreign Law (1968, CETS 062), which takes considerably more time than if the legislation and case-law were available online.

(48)

 CEPEJ Guidelines for the online publication of judicial decisions ( CEPEJ (2024)9 ) 18 Nov 2024, p. 4.

(49)

A European strategy for data ( COM/2020/66 ), section 5.D.

(50)

 What is ELI ?

(51)

What is ECLI ?

(52)

The 2020 Commission Communication ( COM/2020/710 final ) – “Digitalisation of justice in the EU. A toolbox of opportunities” underlined already the importance of the availability of judicial data (Section 3.4.).

(53)

COM(2025)835 – Commission Communication on the Data Union Strategy - Unlocking data for AI, p. 10.

(54)

 Article 13 and 14 under the Open Data Directive ( Directive (EU) 2019/1024  on open data and the re-use of public sector information (recast)).

(55)

In particular, Directive 2014/41/EU regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, Article 10 of the Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters between the EU Member States ( 42000A0712(01) ), Directive 2012/29/EU on the rights of victims of crime, and Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters.

(56)

 In accordance with Directive 2014/41/EU of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, the EU Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters ( 42000A0712(01) ) and Directive 2012/29/EU on the rights of victims of crime.

(57)

Final report on the tenth round of mutual evaluations on the implementation of the European Investigation Order (EIO), 15834/1/24 , Brussels, 10 December 2024.

(58)

Under Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (taking of evidence) (recast).

(59)

IT development and procurement strategy choices will be subject to pre-approval by the European Commission Information Technology and Cybersecurity Board.

(60)

Regulation (EU) 2021/241 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility.

(61)

Contribution of Mr Přemysl Sezemský, Director of the e-Justice Department at the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic Official Chronicle of the expert meeting under the Polish presidency of the Council of the European Union in Warsaw - New Challenges of AI Development and e-Communication in the Field of Justice (19-20 May 2025), p. 15-16.

(62)

Council Conclusions from December 2024 on the use of Artificial Intelligence in the field of justice ( 16593/24 ), para 22.

(63)

 Council e-Justice Strategy 2024-2028 ( C/2025/437 ) para 24.

(64)

The 2023-2025 Work Programme of the Justice programme, p. 23, as well as the future 2026-2027 Work Programme of the Justice programme.

(65)

BE, BG, CY, CZ, EL, ES, HR, HU, IT, MT, NL, PT, RO, SI, SK.

(66)

As highlighted in the Conclusions of the European Commission and the Polish Presidency in the official Chronicle of the expert meeting under the Polish presidency of the Council of the European Union in Warsaw - New Challenges of AI Development and e-Communication in the Field of Justice (19-20 May 2025), p. 39.

(67)

  COM(2025) 570 final – Commission Communication on a dynamic EU Budget for the priorities of the future – The Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034, p. 2.

(68)

  COM(2025) 565 final – Proposal for a Regulation establishing the European Fund for economic, social and territorial cohesion, agriculture and rural, fisheries and maritime, prosperity and security for the period 2028-2034, recital 7.

(69)

  COM(2025) 565 final – Proposal for a Regulation establishing the European Fund for economic, social and territorial cohesion, agriculture and rural, fisheries and maritime, prosperity and security for the period 2028-2034, recital 20, and Article 3.1(e)(ii) and (iii).

(70)

  COM(2025) 565 final – Proposal for a Regulation establishing the European Fund for economic, social and territorial cohesion, agriculture and rural, fisheries and maritime, prosperity and security for the period 2028-2034, Article 3.1(a)(iv).

(71)

  COM(2025) 570 final – Commission Communication on a dynamic EU Budget for the priorities of the future – The Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034, p. 24.

(72)

  COM(2025) 570 final – Commission Communication on a dynamic EU Budget for the priorities of the future – The Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034, p. 18.

(73)

  COM(2025)463 final – Proposal for a Regulation establishing the Justice programme for the period 2028-2034, Explanatory memorandum, p. 10, Recitals 2 and 18, Article 3.

(74)

  COM(2025)463 final – Proposal for a Regulation establishing the Justice programme for the period 2028-2034, Explanatory memorandum, Recital 10.

(75)

In accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast).

(76)

 For example, in proceedings for recognition, a declaration of enforceability or refusal of recognition or to electronically request certificates according to Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 .

(77)

To be published by 2033.

(78)

  Regulation (EU) 2024/1183 as regards establishing the European Digital Identity Framework.