This article explores the concept of open justice in the context of European Union (EU) cross-border litigation and focusing on the e-justice dimension. It does it looking both at the open justice principle coming from the legal tradition and at the new ideas coming from the open government discourse. More in detail, the article investigates the attempt to create an open area of justice in Europe through the development and implementation of an European Justice Digital Service Infrastructure and the opening of such infrastructure to users and service providers. It is a development and implementation effort, which builds on the EU’s multilevel legal frameworks, which uses available technological innovations, which responds to the economic needs and challenges of an EU without internal borders, and which result should be capable of being embedded in the existing cultural communities. EU Member States (MSs) have developed such infrastructure and tested it successfully. Currently, EU institutions are faced with the serious and unavoidable challenge to open up such infrastructure and to ensure its use. In a dynamic environment in which EU and MSs laws, technologies, economies, and cultures coevolve, this is not an easy task.
AlcaideA.ZuffadaR.CimuC.AnghelM.Van der lindeX.SteigengaE.…WeigendK. (2015, May29). D3.6 scenarios for governance models on short, medium and long-term: MS preferences on long term sustainability, Düsseldorf, Germany:e-SENS deliverable.
2.
BeckerH. S. (1958). Problems of inference and proof in participant observation. American Sociological Review, 23, 652–660.
3.
CarnevaliD.RescaA. (2014). Pushing at the edge of maximum manageable complexity: The case of ‘trial online’ in Italy. In ContiniF.LanzaraG. F. (Eds.), The circulation of agency in e-justice. Interoperability and infrastructures for European (pp. 161–183). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
4.
CEPEJ. (2008, July2). Checklist for promoting the quality of justice and the courts adopted by the CEPEJ in July 2008. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
5.
CEPEJ. (2016). Handbook for conducting satisfaction surveys aimed at Court users in the Council of Europe’s member States. CEPEJ Studies No. 25. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
6.
ContiniF.CarnevaliR. (2010). The quality of justice in Europe: Conflicts, dialogue and politics. Paper presented at the SISP Conference 2010, Venice.
7.
ContiniF.MohrR. (2008). Judicial evaluation: Traditions, innovations and proposals for measuring the quality of court performance. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM.
8.
DijkstraR. I.LangbroekP. M.Bozorg ZadehK.TürkZ. (2017). The evaluation and development of the quality of justice in the Netherlands. In ContiniF. (Ed.), Handle with care: Assessing and designing methods for evaluation and development of the quality of justice (pp. 227–276). Bologna, Italy: IRSIG-CNR. Retrieved fromhttp://www.lut.fi/hwc
9.
EU Commission (2010). Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP), ICT Policy Support Programme, ICT PSP Work Programme 2010. EU Commission, Bruxelles.
10.
European Commission. (2017, July17). Cross-border e-Justice in Europe (e-CODEX). Inception Impact Assessment. Ref. Ares(2017)3600084. European Commission, Bruxelles.
11.
FabriM.LangbroekP. M. (Eds.). (2000). The challenge of change for judicial systems, developing a public administration perspective. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press OHMSHA.
12.
HarrisonT. M.GuerreroS.BurkeG. B.CookM.CresswellA.HelbigN.…PardoT. (2012). Open government and e-government: Democratic challenges from a public value perspective. Information Polity, 17, 83–97.
13.
HixS.JunikiewiczA.WigardS.JaspersP. (2011). D1.5 Interim Activity Report No. 1. V.1. e-CODEX project deliverable. e-CODEX, Project coordinated by the Ministry of Justice of North Rhine-Westphalia: Düsseldorf, Germany.
14.
HvillumD. B.FerrandL.PelletJ. M. (2016). D3.8 WP3 Final Report. e-CODEX project deliverable. e-CODEX, Project coordinated by the Ministry of Justice of North Rhine-Westphalia: Düsseldorf, Germany.?
15.
JanssenM.CharalabidisY.ZuiderwijkA. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29, 258–268.
16.
Jiménez GómezC. E.Gascó HernándezM. (2017). Preface. In Jimenez-GomezC. E.Gascó-HernándezM. (Eds.), Achieving open justice through citizen participation and transparency (pp. xiv–xxiii). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
17.
KallinikosJ. (2005). The order of technology: Complexity and control in a connected world. Accounting, Management, and Information Technologies, 15, 3.
18.
KingstedtA.van der LindeX.CicirielloC.AlcaideA.CirnuC.GregoireB.BuhrA. (2014). D3.6 Scenario for governance models on short, medium and long-term, e-SENS deliverable, e-SENS, Project coordinated by the Ministry of Justice of North Rhine-Westphalia: Düsseldorf, Germany.
19.
KochM.ZoubekD.VelicognaM. (2017). Study of the Austrian e-Justice infrastructure, governance and experience in connecting the applications used by legal professionals to the e-CODEX infrastructure to identify existing best practices, Pro-CODEX project report, Project coordinated by the Research Institute on Judicial Systems of the National Research Council of Italy: Bologna, Italy.
20.
KramerX. E. (2015). A European perspective on e-justice and new procedural models: Transforming the face of cross-border civil litigation and adjudication in the EU, available at SSRN 2696978. In KarimB.JaneB.JacquelynB.FabienG. (Eds.), eAccess to Justice (University of Ottawa Press 2016), pp. 351–375.
21.
KramerX. E. (2010). Enhancing enforcement in the European Union. The European order for payment procedure and its implementation in the member states, particularly in Germany, the Netherlands, and England. In van RheeC. H.UzelacA (Eds.), Enforcement and enforceability: Tradition and reform (pp. 17–39). Cambridge, England: Intersentia.
22.
KramerX. E.van RheeC. H. (Eds.). (2012). Civil litigation in a globalising world. Hague, the Netherlands: TMC Asser Press.
23.
LangbroekP. (2010). Quality management in the judicial organisation in the Netherlands. In LangbroekP. (Ed.), Study on “Quality management in courts and in the judicial organisations in 8 Council of Europe Member States. (CEPEJ Study No. 13). Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
24.
LathropD.RumaL. (Eds.) (2010). Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice. Newton, MA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.
25.
LourençoR. P.FernandoP.GomesC. (2017). From eJustice to open judiciary: An analysis of the Portuguese experience. In Jiménez-GómezC. E.Gascó-HernándezM. (Eds.), Achieving open justice through citizen participation and transparency (pp. 111–136). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
26.
LupoG.VelicognaM. (2017). Making EU justice smart? Looking into the implementation of new technologies to improve the efficiency of cross border justice services delivery. In Rodriguez Bolivar BolívarM. P. (Ed.), Smart technologies for smart governments. Transparency, efficiency and organizational issues (pp. 95–121). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
McDermottP. (2010). Building open government. Government Information Quarterly, 27, 401–413.
29.
MelloneM. (2013). Legal interoperability: The case of European payment order and of European Small Claims procedure. In ContiniF.LanzaraG. F. (Eds.), Building interoperability for European civil proceedings online (pp. 57–84). Bologna, Italy: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice Bologna.
30.
MelloneM. (2014). Legal interoperability in Europe: The cases of the European payment order and the European small claims procedure. In ContiniF.LanzaraG. F. (Eds.), The circulation of agency in e-justice: Interoperability and infrastructures for European transborder judicial proceedings (pp. 245–264). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
31.
National Center for State Courts. (2001). Trial court performance standard and measurement system. Williamsburg, VA: Author.
32.
NgG. Y. (2007). Quality of judicial organisation and checks and balances. Antwerp, Belgium: Intersentia.
33.
NgG. Y. (2013). Experimenting with European payment order and of European small claims procedure. In ContiniF.LanzaraG. F. (Eds.), Building interoperability for European civil proceedings online (pp. 317–334). Bologna, Italy: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice Bologna.
34.
NgG. Y. (2014). European payment order and European small claims procedure in practice: Findings from a simulation experiment. In ContiniF.LanzaraG. F. (Eds.), The circulation of agency in E-Justice: Interoperability and infrastructures for European transborder judicial proceedings (pp. 265–286). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
35.
ObamaB. (2009). Transparency and open government. Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39, 429.
36.
OntanuE. A. (2017). Cross-border debt recovery in the EU: A comparative and empirical study on the use of the European uniform procedures. Cambridge, England: Intersentia.
37.
OntanuE. A.PannebakkerE. (2012). Tackling language obstacles in corss border litigation: The European order for payment and the European small claims procedure approach. Erasmus Law Review, 5, 169.
38.
OstromB. J.HallD. J.SchaufflerR. Y.KauderN. B. (2005). CourTools: Trial court performance measures. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
39.
OstromB. J.HansonR. A. (2007). Implement and use court performance measures. Criminology and Public Policy, 6, 799–806.
40.
PangalosG.SalmatzidisI.PagkalosI. (2014). Using IT to provide easier access to cross-border legal procedures for citizens and legal professionals-implementation of a European payment order e-CODEX pilot. International Journal for Court Administration, 6, 43–52.
41.
PollittC.BouckaertG. (2006). Public management reform. A comparative analysis. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
42.
ReinhardtS. (1995). Judicial speech and the open judiciary. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 28, 805.
43.
SchmidtA. H. J. (2007). IT and the judiciary in the Netherlands—A state of affairs. Computer Law & Security Report, 23, 453–460.
44.
SieberS. D. (1973). The integration of fieldwork and survey methods. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1335–1359.
45.
SpigelmanJ. J. (2006). The principle of open justice: A comparative perspective, 29 U.N.S.W.L.J. 147, 166.
46.
SteigengaE.KolitskiZ.VelicognaM.LupoG.MoelkerH.BerkelaarT.van de LaarV. (2017). API for Justice Report, 2017. API for Justice Project.
47.
SteigengaE.VelicognaM. (2017). Envisioning the next step in e-justice: In search of the key to provide easy access to cross border justice for all users. In HessBurkhardKramerXandra E. (Eds.), From common rules to best practices in European Civil Procedure (pp. 243–270). Oxford, England: Nomos/Hart. ISBN: 9781509918263.
48.
TapscottD. (2010). Foreword. In LathropD.RumaL. (Eds.), Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice (pp. xv–xvii). Newton, MA: O’Reilly Media.
49.
StorskrubbE. (2008). Civil procedure and EU Law: A policy area uncovered. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
50.
VelicognaM. (2017). In search of smartness: The EU e-Justice challenge. Informatics, 4, 38. Retrieved from April 11, 2018http://www.mdpi.com/2227-9709/4/4/38
51.
VelicognaM. (2018). Building infrastructures for smart cities: The e-CODEX infrastructure and API for Justice project experiences, In Rodríguez BolívarM. P. (Ed.), Setting foundations for the creation of public value in smart cities. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
52.
VelicognaM.LupoG. (2017). From drafting common rules to implementing electronic European civil procedures: The rise of e-CODEX. In HessBurkhardKramerXandra E. (Eds.), From common rules to best practices in European Civil Procedure (pp. 181–212). Oxford, England: Nomos/Hart. ISBN: 9781509918263.
53.
VelicognaM.NgG. Y. (2006). Legitimacy and internet in the judiciary: A lesson from the Italian courts’ websites experience. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 14, 370–389.
54.
VelicognaM.SteigengaE. (2016). Can complexity theory help understanding tomorrow E-justice? In Proceedings of the conference on complex systems, law and complexity session. Amsterdam, the Netherlands, September 20–23, 2016. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2914362
55.
VerhooselJ.TepandiJ.CirnuC.KarabatC.KarademirA.UstundagSoykan E.Ozgur Cetinkaya DemirM. (2016). D3.7 Sustainability plans for e-SENS building blocks, e-SENS project Deliverable, Project coordinated by the Ministry of Justice of North Rhine-Westphalia: Düsseldorf, Germany.
56.
YinR. K. (1982). Studying phenomenon and context across sites. American Behavioral Scientist, 26, 84–100.
57.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Third edition. Applied social research methods series. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58.
WirtzB.LangerP. (2016). Public Multi-channel Management—An integrated framework of off- and online multi-channel government services. Public Organization Review, 17, 563–580. doi:10.1007/s11115-016-0356-0
