Digital transformation in court administration and judicial proceedings: A comparative analysis across EU member states

This article considers digital technologies' transformation of court administration and judicial proceedings across European Union member states, concentrating on recent technological and legislative developments. Regulation (EU) 2023/2844 and Directive (EU) 2023/2843 are key to this shift as they require parties to identify electronically within cross-border civil, commercial, and criminal proceedings, to use videoconferencing, and to communicate securely. These actions rely on the e-CODEX system permitting secure electronic document exchange as they match EU plans for digital resilience plus interoperability. From fully operational e-justice platforms toward partial pandemic-accelerated solutions including Estonia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Italy, and others, the study identifies varying levels of integration through a comparative analysis of selected member states. While digitalization makes things more efficient, transparent, as well as accessible for justice, infrastructure, legal interpretation, with procedural rules still create disparities that obstruct uniform implementation. The eIDAS Regulation runs into some difficulties in terms of harmonizing electronic identification. Digitally mediated proceedings also battle to admit electronic evidence with integrity and safeguard fundamental rights. The study does also consider the impact of COVID-19 upon accelerating remote hearings, and this in turn highlights both efficiency gains as well as concerns regarding procedural fairness. Best practices include the integrated digital case management, the secure authentication systems, and the user-oriented e-justice portals. Challenges such as IT systems, data incompatibility, also digital exclusion provide for a sharp difference. To ensure EU digital justice reforms are resilient inclusive as well as respectful of the right to a fair trial while advancing interoperability plus access to justice across the internal market, the analysis concludes sustained investment coordinated training of legal professionals also reinforced regulatory oversight are important.