e-justice developments in Europe from CEPEJ data and in-depth case studies

Transcription

1 e-justice developments in Europe from CEPEJ data and in-depth case studies Marco Velicogna IRSIG-CNR CEPEJ-GT-EVAL 26th meeting Strasbourg, November 2014

2

3 Some IRSIG projects on ICT! European Seminar on Court Technology: Grotius Project ! Judicial Electronic Data Interchange: Grotius Project ! ICT for Public Prosecutors Offices: AGIS programme JLS/ 2005/AGIS/175! Building Interoperability for European Civil Proceedings Online: EU Civil Justice Programme JLS/2009/JCIV/AG/ 0035! e-codex: EU co-funded project under the ICT PSP, present, e-sens: EU co-funded project under the ICT PSP, 2013 present,

4 Some publications on ICT The Circulation of Agency in e-justice, F. Contini and G.F. Lanzara (eds), Springer, ICT and Innovation in the Public Sector, F. Contini and G.F. Lanzara (eds), Palgrave Macmillan, Justice and Technology in Europe: How ICT is Changing the Judicial Business M. Fabri and F. Contini, Kluwer titleinfo.htm?prodid= x&name=justiceand-technology-in-europe:-how-ict-is-changingthe-judicial-business

5 e-justice developments in Europe from CEPEJ data and in-depth case studies Looking at past and present measurements and trends of ICT to understand how the CEPEJ questionnaire section of ICT should evolve

6 A look at the past ICT in the courts in 2004

7 How we envisioned ICT Evolution in the justice sector ( ) The ICT Evolution Governance Management info systems Administr. Clerks staff Judges Paper dockets Paper folders Case tracking Support tools Case management systems Full business CMS 4 5 Paperless Justice Users Court Counter Internet Website E-Services

8 Figure 5.8 Level of computerization of courts: (Q62, Q63, Q64) Figure 5.8 Level of computerisation of courts for the three areas of application (Q62, Q63, Q64) Not a member of CoE Data not supplied ISL IT Score (cf previous table) From 0 to 35 points (low IT score) From 35 to 50 points (medium IT score) From 50 to 60 points (good IT score) From 60 to 72 points (excellent IT score) FIN NOR UK:SCO SWE EST PRT ESP IRL UK:NIR UK:ENG&WAL FRA AN D NLD BEL LUX CHE MCO LVA DNK LTU POL DEU CZE SVK LIE AU T HUN SVN ROU HRV SMR BIH SRB MNE BGR ITA MKD MDA UKR RUS GEO AR M AZ E Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Georgia Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta AL B TUR GRC MLT CYP ISR 04/08/2014 The three areas of application: direct assistance to judges and court clerks, administration and management and communication between courts and the parties

9 Table 5.7 Computer facilities used within the courts for three areas of use (Q62, Q63, Q64) Table 5.7 Computer facilities used within the courts for three areas of use (Q62, Q63, Q64) States/entities Direct assistance to judges and court clerks Word processing Electronic database of jurisprudence Electronic files Internet connection Total Case registration system Administration and management Court management information system Financial information system Videoconferencing Total Electronic web forms Communication between courts and the parties Website Follow-up of cases online Electronic registers Electronic processing of small claims Electronic processing of undisputed debt recovery Electronic submission of claims Videoconferencing Other electronic communication facilities Total IT Score Evolution /09/2014 Albania Andorra Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Georgia Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Republic of Moldova Monaco Montenegro Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russian Federation Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland The FYROMacedonia Turkey Ukraine UK-England and Wales UK-Northern Ireland UK-Scotland Israel % of courts 4 points

10 Table 5.7 Computer facilities used within the courts for three areas of use (Q62, Q63, Q64) Table 5.7 Computer facilities used within the courts for three areas of use (Q62, Q63, Q64) States/entities Direct assistance to judges and court clerks Word processing Electronic database of jurisprudence Electronic files Internet connection Total Case registration system Administration and management Court management information system Financial information system Videoconferencing Total Electronic web forms Communication between courts and the parties Website Follow-up of cases online Electronic registers Electronic processing of small claims Electronic processing of undisputed debt recovery Electronic submission of claims Videoconferencing Other electronic communication facilities Total IT Score Evolution /09/2014 Albania Andorra Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina For many categories the availability is at 100% in most if not all countries, especially in the case of technologies for the direct assistance of judges & court clerks and of technologies for administration and management. Keeping using them will not provide additional benefits. Better to 1) start looking at results produced e.g. number of electronic court decisions, number of official electronic communications, level of refinement and use of court statistics for managerial and disciplinary purposes etc. or 2) move the focus of attention to other areas e.g. level of interoperability between organizations in the justice sector, with other administrations etc. Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Georgia Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Republic of Moldova Monaco Montenegro Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russian Federation Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland The FYROMacedonia Turkey Ukraine UK-England and Wales UK-Northern Ireland UK-Scotland Israel % of courts 4 points

11 A good map to get us here, but what s next?

12 Research on ICT and e-justice cases studies are providing many ideas on what is becoming relevant and what should be investigated Contini, F., & Lanzara, G. F. (2013). The circulation of agency in e-justice. Springer. Velicogna, M., Errera, A., & Derlange, S. (2013). Building e-justice in Continental Europe: The TéléRecours Experience in France. Utrecht L. Rev., 9, 38. Mohr, R., & Contini, F. (2011). Reassembling the legal: The wonders of modern science in court-related proceedings. Griffith L. Rev., 20, 994. Velicogna, M., Errera, A., & Derlange, S. (2011). e-justice in France: the e-barreau experience. Utrecht L. Rev., 7, 163. Reiling, D. (2010). Technology for justice. How information technology can support judicial reform (p. 310). Leiden University Press. Contini, F., & Lanzara, G. F. (Eds.). (2009). ICT and innovation in the public sector: European studies in the making of e-government. Palgrave Macmillan. Hanseth, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2008). Theorizing about the design of Information Infrastructures: design kernel theories and principles. Velicogna, M. (2008). Use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in European judicial systems. CEPEJ Studies No. 7. Council of Europe.

13 Some emerging elements that need considering! From technology to e-justice information systems! Performativity! Complexity of multimediality! Scale! Pervasivity! Time! Feasibility

14 Some emerging elements that need considering! From technology to e-justice information systems! Performativity! Complexity We are dealing of multimediality not just with technological tools but with multi-domain, heterogeneous objects resulting from the! Scale assemblage of distinct legal, organizational and technological components which provide e-justice! Pervasivity services! Time! Feasibility

15 Some emerging elements that need considering! From technology to e-justice information systems! Performativity! Complexity of multimediality! Scale A judicial utterances that is communicated through proper! Pervasivity e-justice systems is not merely descriptive, does not just say something. It performs a certain kind of action (begins a! Time civil procedure, activates an arrest, a surrender procedure, etc.) changing the social order it is describing.! Feasibility

16 Some emerging elements that! From technology to e-justice information systems Easy can become suddenly difficult e.g.! Performativity identification, signature, and roles attribution! Complexity of multimediality! Scale! Pervasivity! Time! Feasibility need considering Media behave differently and when switching from one medium to another and back changes take place and need to be managed e.g. signature, printing of digitally signed document

17 Some emerging elements that! From technology to e-justice information systems! Performativity! Complexity of multimediality! Scale need considering! Pervasivity We are entering the area of ultra large scale information systems and of information infrastructures, which are! Time characterized by unprecedented amounts of hardware and! Feasibility software components, numbers of users, volumes of data, whose borders becomes often unclear as they are developed and used by many stakeholders across multiple organizations

18 Some emerging elements that need considering! From technology to e-justice information systems! Performativity E-Justice systems are becoming a core part of! Complexity of multimediality every justice procedure and service.! Scale! Pervasivity! Time! Feasibility

19 Some emerging elements that! From technology to e-justice information systems! Performativity - Time boundedness of components (and! Complexity components of multimediality providers), objectives, requirements, users needs! Scale - Shifting of focus from design to development to implementation to sustainability and evolvability! Pervasivity! Time! Feasibility need considering

20 Some emerging elements that need considering! From technology to e-justice information systems What has been defined as the dynamic space for! Performativity solutions designs, and which is related to the concepts of manageable complexity and feasible simplicity, and! Complexity which depends of multimediality from the interactions between the legal, technological, organizational and institutional domains,! Scale from the available resources (budget, competences, ICT! Pervasivity providers market, installed base, governance ) and from the innovation approach (blue-print design Vs! Time bootstraping etc.)! Feasibility Need to get a better understanding of the dynamics related to the shifting of complexity from one domain to another and of the elements that acts as complexity sinks and amplifiers

21 Some cases and lessons

22 Learning from experience: COVL (Slovenia) Central department for enforcement on the basis of authentic documents CMS ivpisnik Claim processing clerks judges, e-registry e-filing Central Office Digitization and data capture Paper filing

23 COVL! Looking at England & Wales, Finland and Germany for best practices (also to reinforce strategic directions and decisions)! Decision not to commit by law in advance to specific technical solutions! Open standards and software to prevent vendors lock-in! Moving from a paper based decentralized system to a centralized and automated procedure (single national jurisdiction)! Use of credit cards for identification, elimination of the signature requirement

24 COVL! Connection to external registers for data needed for the judicial procedure, including localization of debtors assets! XML based forms with automatic data checks on various registers and double level warnings (red blocking and yellow! Provide economic incentives to the use of the system (reduced fees)! Do not require the sending of proofs, just the type of document and reference number! Introduce clear sanctions for the abuse of the enforcement procedure! Development of a B2G interface for bulk filing! Creation of an automated postal dispatch system for the offline part of the procedure

25 COVL! Connection to external registers for data needed for the judicial procedure, including localization of debtors assets! XML based forms with automatic data checks on various registers Tax Registry and at double Tax Authority level (DURS) warnings (red blocking and yellow! Provide Public Payments economic Administration incentives (UJP) to the use of the system (reduced Central Registry fees) of Citizens at Ministry of Internal Affairs (CRP) Registry of Bank Accounts at Bank of Slovenia (BS/RTRR)! Do Central not Securities require the Clearing sending Corporation of proofs, Registry just (CSCC/KDD) the type of document Employment and Office reference (ZZZS) number! Introduce Land Registry clear at courts sanctions (EZK) for the abuse of the enforcement procedure Registry of Land Units at Surveying Authority (RPE) Company Registry at courts and at AJPES (PRS)! Development of a B2G interface for bulk filing! Creation of an automated postal dispatch system for the offline part of the procedure

26 Experience does not always work smoothly: MCOL and PCOL

27 MCOL success story! Building on existing installed base (organization, ID etc.)! Incremental development! Loose coupling of relatively independent subsystems easing problem solving an overall evolvability! Single national jurisdiction for on-line procedure! Functional simplification through exclusion rules! Law designed to support the service being designed

28 One example of change in the subsystems: the Government Gateway providing for ID, payment and accounting to MCOL

29 PCOL somewhat less successful story! Many of MCOL ideas, components and functionalities were re-used, but when PCOL was introduced, the result was not as satisfactory! Different complexity of the procedure! Different typology of court users! Different expectations (?)

30 till recently In 2013 PCOL has been completely revised by the MoJ s digital services team with the idea of putting the user first Note: MCOL is also being revised according to the same philosophy and it is now in the alpha phase (a core service prototype that meets the main user needs is being built and tested with users)

31 The enabling power of the installed base: e-id, e-signature and e-justice services in Estonia History of E-Justice systems in Estonia! : KOLA publication of judgments in the internet + statistics Interoperability! X-ROAD! /2014: KIS main functions of a document management system NB! Since 2008 enables processing of electronic payment orders!! 2013/2014 : KIS² modern document management system for the courts! E-FILE! Supreme Court had a separate system from the I and II instance courts until 2014

32 e-id Card! Since 2002! 1.1 million active e-id cards in Estonia (1.3 million residents)! Provides proof of identification when logging into public and private systems! Can be used to sign documents

33 The e-id card as a complexity sink in designing e-services! Public e-file is a web-based information system that enables the parties and their representatives to participate in civil, administrative, criminal and misdemeanor proceedings electronically in Estonia.! If an Estonian logs in to this portal he/she can see all the documents delivered to him/her in any court proceedings.! He/she will also get an notification every time a new document is delivered. A user of the Public e-file system can determine which he/ she wants to use for receiving notifications. In addition, every Estonian has an official The notification includes a link to the document and a note telling them to go to the portal and sign in using the national e-id card. If a document needs to be signed, again, the national e-id card is used.! In payment order proceedings, which are now fully electronic, the Public e- File system is the only channel that can be used to file a case or communicate with the court. For other proceedings the Public e-file system is also widely used, but alternative ways are available ( , letter etc.).

34 If it is not complex, we do not like it: The Italian Civil Trial On-line! 140 tribunals! 26 Courts of Appeals! 1 Supreme Court! 465 justice of the peace offices! judges! court clerks! active lawyers pending cases new cases /year

35 Overall'architecture' PDF+XML( Digital(signature( a;achments( Encrypted(envelope( E"Jus&ce)domain) Gestore di PEC Giustizia (GiustiziaCert) e"filing(=(pec( Gestore di PEC Giustizia (GiustiziaCert) e"filing( Cer$fied'e(mail'system' Magistrato judges Cancelliere clerks Court) Registro Fascicolo informatizzato informatico District)data)center) On"line(services( Soggetto Punto di accesso Lawyers Access point abilitato (other practitioners) esterno 2"factor( authendcadon( Portale dei Portal servizi telematici Utente Citizens privato public/private (Cittadino companies e impresa)

36 e"filing(!meline' On(a(voluntary(basis( When'single'courts'and'bars'were'ready' 2006'+'2013' 2014' 2015' 30/6( 31/12( 30/6( Mandatory(by(law'for'injunc!ons' +'pleadings'in'new'cases'(in'all'tribunals)' Mandatory'also'in' all'courts'of'appeal' Mandatory'for'all'pleadings'(in'all'tribunals)'

37 Communica)ons+from+the+Courts+ 2011$ 2012$ 2013$ 2014$ 2015$ 19/11+ 18/2+ 15/12+ Introduc0on$of$ cer0fied$mail$ system$(pec)$ Mandatory+by+law$to$send$ ONLY$electronically$(via$PEC)$ Mandatory$also$ in$criminal$cases$ In$2014,$about$1$ million$court$ communica0ons$to$the$ par0es$per$month$

38 Some elements which allowed to succeed! Trying to keep it as simple as possible after the initial hypercomplex attempt: e.g revision to adopt PDF (complexity for XML, encryption, etc. left to vendors)! Move from the perfect legal provisions based on the paper procedure to more reasonable ones considering the differences of the electronic environment! Highest feasible levels of security and confidentiality (required by the Italian context)! Use of structured data in order to automatically feed the databases of all actors involved! Gradual deployment in courts: mandatory when sufficiently mature, no single ownership of the governance! Learning to deal with the world of the users ICT vendors

39 E-CODEX: e-justice Communication via Online Data Exchange e-codex is and is seen as several things:! An EU co-funded project,! A content agnostic e-delivery solution to exchange data and documents across legal domains! An information infrastructure using technology, organisational systems, rules and agreements to provide secure cross border judicial services which are performative.

40 E-CODEX! e-codex (e-justice Communication via Online Data EXchange) is a Large Scale Pilot, Co-Funded by the European Commission! CODEX goal is to Improve the cross-border access of citizens and businesses to legal means in Europe as well as to improve the interoperability between legal authorities within the EU! Initially running from Dec 2010 to Dec 2013, now extended to Feb 2015.

41 Partners & budget It involves 20 countries (with two additional countries in the process of joining), mainly through their Ministries of Justice or their representatives, but also other institutions such as the CCBE, CNUE, the National Research Council of Italy, and OASIS. Budget 24m (EU contribution: 12m) Initially running from Dec 2010 to Dec 2013, now extended to Feb It is under discussion its further extension till May 2016.

42 Organizational Structure and main challenges

43 Organizational Structure and main challenges Plurality of national solutions Existing and reusable EU components Integration Vs standard interfaces Compatibility issues (technological, normative, organizational) Performativity and the circle of trust Sustainability Mantainance and evolvability Reaching a critical mass of users 43

44 The marketing representation

45 A more technical representation Sending ecm Receiving ecm Service provider WP6 WP4 E-CODEX gateway Connector E-CODEX Connector Service gateway provider XML Transport Info XML e-delivery platform WP5 Receives Extracts from ebms3.0 PDF PDF Checks Trust-OK token Transforms from e-codex to National standards Creates documents (pdf, XML, other attachments) 3 Sends Adds Trust-OK token Transforms to e-codex standards Establishes connection Formats to ebms3.0 Receives Elaborates

46 A national solution example (Austria) MS$Na7onal$Solu7on$ MS$e;CODEX$e;Delivery$Component$$ EPO$ VJ$ Business$Register$ Land$Register$ JMS$Queues$ JMS$Queues$ JMS$Queues$ JMS$Queues$ ERV$(Elektronischer$ Rechtsverkehr$ WebService$ MS$specific$Connector$ part$ Connector$ Backend$ Integra7on$ WebService$ Gateway$$ $$$$$$$ebms$

47 Procedures being piloted European Payment Order (EPO) based on Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 Small Claims (SC) based on Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 Secure cross-border exchange of sensitive judicial data Freezing and confiscations based on Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA Mutual recognition to confiscation orders, based on Council FD 2006/783/JHA Data exchange for criminal matters within the EURegio cooperation framework European Arrest Warrant (EAW) based on the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Mutual recognition of financial penalties based on the Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA Synchronous Communication applied to business Registers based on Directive 2012/17/EU amending Council Directive 89/666/ EEC and Directives 2005/56/EC and 2009/101/EC

48 Piloting Procedures Based on EU Regulations and Framework decisions Presence of multilingual forms for the information exchange At least in theory a high level of procedural standardization

49 ! But! While these procedures provide a certain level of standardisation, their functioning relies on national organisations (e.g. courts), procedures (e.g. notification, payment of fees) which highly increase the complexity for potential users

50 Some dynamics emerging in the building and maintaining e-codex performative! The circle of trust solution to overcome holes in the EU normative framework and limits of the technologyneed to monitor and get involved in the changes in EU Regulations and Framework Decisions! Relevance of national norms and practice to which part of the procedure is delegated or through which the EU procedure is interpreted (e.g. notification, fee payment, etc.)! Changes in National practices introduced by e-codex piloting! The question of sustainability

51 Some concluding remarks We are now in a very peculiar moment in time. Justice has now a leading role in the discussion on ICT evolution. This is not just for the relevance of the justice domain, but for its extreme multilayered sociotechnical complexity and the constraints and pressure this puts into the information systems development. The bad news: developing justice IS is tough! The good news: there is a lot to learn from justice experiences not only within the justice domain and, as we have seen, justice systems are doing very interesting things!

52 Some suggestions for the CEPEJ questionnaire ICT section revision

53 General Considerations for the CEPEJ questionnaire ICT section revision! Considering the rise in relevance of ICT and the need to shift focus from individual and internal court ICT to interorganizational ICT! Need to shift focus from counting number of technical tools to counting the service provided! Greater difficulty in measuring ICT through quantitative indicators. It could be worth increasing the number of open questions and of qualitative data collection on key topics

54 Some quantitative questions for the CEPEJ questionnaire ICT section revision (1/2)! Number of lawyers communicating electronically with the courts or with other parties in court procedures (e.g. e-filing, legally valid electronic notifications from the court)! Existence of electronic addresses to which legally valid electronic notification of documents can be done, which are these categories (e.g. lawyers official , official enterprise etc.) and which coverage it provides (e.g. 100% of lawyers, 95% of private enterprises, 100% public administration etc.).! Availability of services for phones and Apps for smartphones and level of service provided + % of procedures for which it is available ( % per specific CEPEJ case category if possible) + number of communications/accesses per day

55 Some quantitative questions for the CEPEJ questionnaire ICT section revision (2/2)! Number of e-filed cases (per specific CEPEJ case category if possible) - absolute number and % of e-filed cases on the total number! Number of cases with e-decision sent/available to the parties (per specific CEPEJ case category if possible) - absolute number and % of e-decisions on the total number! Number of fully electronic cases (per specific CEPEJ case category if possible)- absolute number and % on the total number of cases

56 Some more qualitative questions for the CEPEJ questionnaire ICT section revision (1/3)! e-id and e-signature level required to participate in e-justice procedure and level of diffusion of such technologies between the professional and non professional court users! Existence of means to assess the satisfaction of external users for ICT services! Policy concerning justice administration ICT vendors and e- Justice vendors market

57 Some more qualitative questions for the CEPEJ questionnaire ICT section revision (1/3)! Electronic documents format and exchange requirements for legally valid electronic communication (e.g. signed pdf, certified , log-on secure system before uploading documents etc.), specifying if applicable to one, several or all procedures! Level of interoperability (open questions on other agencies/ registers etc. which are electronically interconnected and on the type of access available e.g. shared database, automatic data exchange, notifications etc.)

58 Some more qualitative questions for the CEPEJ questionnaire ICT section revision (1/3)! Open question on e-justice Governance: strategy, organizational structure, main policies, and procedures that have been established to develop, promote, manage and coordinate the use of ICT in the justice system.! Open questions on the main ICT projects and systems (name, short description, main positive aspects, number of users and cases, at least one development/implementation/ maintenance/sustainability problem)! ICT training: training policy, organizational structure, number and typologies of courses, number of trained personnel (per personnel category)