- “This, by the way, is true both for the national and the EU level. Yes, there has been steady progress on digital ready procedures, but further progress remains possible and necessary in the use of digital technology by courts and prosecution, online access to ongoing or closed cases, and online access to court judgments. The chair. Honourable members. Building on the recently adopted legislation on the various policy documents and the ongoing work on the digitalisation of justice at national and union level, the European Commission wants to set out a common framework for further action before the end of the next year. It will take the form of a strategy on the use of digital technologies, including AI tools. You're all aware that the new commission just started a few days ago, more precisely on Sunday, so we are clearly at an early stage of our reflections. However, I believe that the following seven building blocks should feed into the strategy. First, a mapping on the digitalization of national justice systems. This may sound very simple and unambitious, but I am convinced that sharing information about what tools are being used or developed in the Member States will help to learn from each other, to exchange best practices, and to trigger ideas for further progress. I would say this is also at the heart of today's discussion, with the title Lessons Learned from National Perspectives.”
EU policy on criminal justice · Digitalization of public governance & administration
- “Many thanks, dear chair. Honourable members of the European Parliament, honourable members of the national parliaments. I'm very grateful for your invitation to today's meeting. And Commissioner McGrath asked me to express his regret that he can't be with you personally today. But he looks forward to engaging with you on this matter on other occasions very soon. Digitalisation is radically changing most areas of our life, of our societies, our economies and of our political culture. Of course, it has also reached the area of justice and started to transform it. It has the potential to make our justice systems more efficient and more accessible. It can also enhance the quality of justice, because it allows and can allow justice professionals to focus on their core task, namely delivering justice for the citizens of Europe. And we should not forget that digitalization of justice is also an investment into growth, into the competitiveness of our unique single market. Businesses benefit when there is strong confidence in the justice systems. At the same time, of course, digitalization of justice also brings new risks. Let me give you just two examples. Automated legal analysis can be missing key pieces of legislation or important rulings, or can be biased if based on incorrect data sets. And where AI tools are used in the preparation or even formulation of judicial decisions without proper control and revision by the judge, the responsibility of the human actor can be undermined. So they're both major opportunities as well as risks that we have to pay attention to. Our vision is therefore that of a justice system in which digital tools support the human actors, improve the quality of the decisions, make the system more efficient, facilitate access to justice, while at the same time all relevant risks are well identified and contained.”
Artificial Intelligence · EU policy on criminal justice · Digitalization of public governance & administration
- “Honourable members. Turning this vision into reality is a demanding endeavor. The good news is that we do not have to start from scratch, and the chair referred already to a number of initiatives that have been taken in this House and at EU level. One example is the legislative package on the digitalisation of justice that was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council at the end of last year. It promotes electronic communication between courts and with the parties. It provides a legal basis for video conferencing in the area of 24 cross-border judicial cooperation procedures in civil, commercial and criminal matters. The European Commission is determined to ensure that all implementing acts will be adopted and rolled out in the next years and in time, making this very important instrument work in practice. In addition, the union adopted a number of horizontal legislative frameworks, such as the Artificial Intelligence Act, that will steer the use of digital tools in the years ahead, including in the justice area. Nonetheless, even if we have done a lot already, we are convinced in the European Commission that more needs to be done. The 2024 edition of the EU Justice Scoreboard shows that member states use digital solutions in their justice systems, but to a very different degree. The Commission has also been following the developments of digitalisation in the annual Rule of Law report, and both exercises show that we are far away from tapping the full potential of digital technologies and technologies by courts and prosecution service.”
EU Supervision of the Rule of Law · Digitalization of public governance & administration
- “What works well? What doesn't work well? Where is who is standing where? What can we learn from each other? Second, we are considering to create an IT toolbox for justice. It could contain tools that judicial authorities throughout the member states would be allowed to use. The idea behind that is very basic. Why should authorities in all the member states develop or buy separately a tool which, for example, translates judicial documents from one language into the other, or which converts spoken words such as witness statements into text? Those tools we need in all the Member States and by many authorities. Why not pooling those resources? And why should we not share a tool that one member state has developed to register incoming mail, or that analyzes documents, in particular voluminous documents such as in mass claims? Some member states, and perhaps today's discussion will go on to this. Some Member States have already taken decisive steps to make sure that our justice systems still can handle the massive inflow of documents in this kind of mass claim situation again. Do we really have to duplicate the tools and develop them separately in all the member states? And if one tool is missing, shouldn't one member state or the Commission develop such a tool in the collective interest and then make it available for all in the toolbox? A common IT toolbox, in our view, could deliver cost savings for member states, accelerate the level of digitalization throughout the union, and also facilitate interoperability of tools which, in the longer run, and also in the context of cross-border judicial cooperation, will be critically important.”
Interoperability requirements for digital platforms · EU policy on criminal justice · Digitalization of public governance & administration
- “Fourth, it is important to reflect together about the necessary funding for the digitalization of national justice systems. The costs will be significant and the risk of certain projects that fail are also significant. Through common action, such as the IT toolbox, we can reduce certain costs. However, the main infrastructure will still be expensive. The experience with EU financial support in this area. I have to say, has been rather mixed. Some member states really relied on EU funding. Other didn't at all. So it's a very mixed picture. But therefore we want to discuss with member states whether and how EU funding could support national efforts. Fifth, we need to create a supportive environment in the justice community. If judges, prosecutors, notaries or lawyers do not know or do not trust available IT tools, their uptake will remain limited. We are discussing with those communities and it's very clear that there are lots of questions and concerns valid, and knowledge also needs to be built up. But this is something which we clearly need to address because at the end, again, it's the human actors that will use the tools. The EU's judicial training policy will aim at improving the knowledge, how to correctly use the tools and therefore indirectly also build understanding and buy in. Sixth, we intend to build a common European legal data space to enable justice professionals to search through relevant EU and national law and jurisprudence. It could also support EU legal tech companies to train AI and develop AI tools for use in justice.”
EU policy on criminal justice · Digitalization of public governance & administration
- “Finally, we should explore if there is merit in a further digitalization of cross-border court proceedings in civil and commercial matters from their launch to the judgment. This does not necessarily mean more legislation. We hear, for example, that the use of video conferencing could be facilitated by voluntary technical requirements for public procurement of such tools, which are adapted to the needs of justice. At the same time, we should also reflect whether there is an interest to allow digital participation in cross-border procedures even further beyond existing legislation. We should have an open debate about it. If there is no need for it, we don't have to do it. But we should have this reflection. Of course, one important element in this reflection process needs to be and will be that procedural rights and safeguards, as well as accessibility of justice must not be weakened. The chair. Honourable members, I very much welcome that you put the topic of e-justice on the agenda of today's Interparliamentary Committee meeting. The ongoing digitalisation of our justice systems is a reality which we see happening and accelerating on a daily basis. We want to reap its benefits, but at the same time defend the trust in the integrity and quality of our justice systems. This is a matter of common concern for the national and the union level, for the national as well as the European Parliament, and hence a great topic for this committee. Thank you very much for your attention and I wish you a very interesting discussion.”
Electronic identity · Digitalization of public governance & administration
- “Third, we want to promote the safe and legal use of artificial intelligence in justice. With the AI act, we have rules to ensure that justice authorities and professionals use trustworthy AI tools in their daily work to process high volumes of documents, automate tasks in managing proceedings or nmis, anonymize judicial decisions, just to mention a few examples. As justice community, we need to engage in the preparation of the use of the development of the guidelines that are foreseen by 2026, and that will also cover the use in the justice area. We have started intensive discussions with member states on those AI tools, and we see that many member states move forward in the development and the deploying of such tools. But it's also very interesting to see that member states at the moment don't yet have a clear feeling how those tools they are developing or using should be classified in the categories of the AI act, meaning is it a high risk? Is it a medium risk? Is it a low risk tool? And that of course will have implications then also on the precautions that will have to be taken. It is very important that we as a justice. Community bring our expertise, our knowledge, how those tools will be used into the development of the guidelines. Because those guidelines, even if developed under the digital policy work stream, will have a massive impact on the way how we can and will use AI in justice.”
Artificial Intelligence · EU policy on criminal justice
- “Sure, I'm here. Thanks a lot, Chair. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. First, I would like to thank the Parliament and the rapporteur in particular for taking forward this work on their own legislative initiative. The overall ambition of the Commission is to make sure that it's easy to set up companies in the Union, to grow and to make sure that the value added of promising ideas and innovations are turned into marketable products and into economic success in the Union. In order to get there, we want to follow an ambitious but pragmatic approach. We have not yet decided on all the elements, but what is clear is that the proposal on the company law regime will be part of a broader package of measures because this initiative would not be successful if it's just possible to set up a company, but it must be sure that those bright researchers that are setting up those companies, they have access to venture capital, they find it easy to operate in the single market, not only as a company but also in the context of related other areas, digitization, interaction with public administration, but also handling of tax matters, etc. Of course, this is not about eroding social environmental values. What that means concretely, for example, in terms of scope, will we cover only innovative or broader companies? We will still have to see. We are going to start the open public consultation later this month. There are merits to go for a broad scope of the companies covered, but we want to hear precisely from industry, from startup experts, from this community, what they really need. It's clear that the setting up of the company, the setting up of subsidiaries should be easy, should be fully digital, should be as fast as possible, low capital requirements. Do we need a single stop shop? Do we have to look into the language regimes? All those are elements that we will put forward in the public consultation. And also the link to related policy areas. For example, the stock option plan for the first employees was referred to. That is something that we are hearing very often from those startup companies. Is that something that we need to build in? If so, we will look into that. The digital interaction with, again, public administration, is that something that is essential, that is hindering those companies to grow in the single market? Something we will consult on and then see at the end. Of course, there are risks, and some of you have referred to the past experience. We have to be very sensitive to those past experiences. And then, let's say, last point in terms of process. Yes, March next year is ambitious, but we very much appreciate that the parliament is also scheduling the work on the initiative report, that we can very carefully listen to the outcome of your deliberations, and then very happy to build that into the commission proposal next year. Thanks a lot.”
EU Single Market harmonisation · Intellectual property rights (IPR)