Remote Justice: Enhancing Access to Justice – a Comparative Study of EU Policies and Ukraine’s Experience
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31861/jiel.2026.1.77-88Keywords:
remote justice, access to justice, e-justice, videoconferencing, fair trial guarantees, judicial technologies, public safetyAbstract
The article is devoted to a comprehensive and comparative study of the theoretical and practical aspects of remote justice - a complex, interdisciplinary concept that inherently integrates advanced legal doctrines and modern technological solutions. This study aims to systematically compare, analyze, and evaluate the strategic policies and empirical practices of implementing remote technologies within the judiciary, with a primary focus on their ultimate effectiveness in improving and safeguarding access to justice. As a crucial, evolving component of electronic justice, remote justice involves the strategic deployment of innovative information and communication technologies to conduct various stages of court proceedings efficiently, thereby eliminating the traditional requirement for the physical attendance of participants in the courtroom.
The author rigorously investigated the efficacy of remote court proceedings as a viable means of guaranteeing uninterrupted access to justice, meticulously taking into account a wide array of interrelated legal, technical, psychological, and social factors. Furthermore, the study provides concrete, practical suggestions and actionable recommendations for the future structural and legislative advancement of this modern form of justice. It was firmly established that remote court hearings offer numerous tangible benefits, including significantly increased procedural efficiency, broader geographical accessibility, and reduced administrative and logistical costs for all parties involved. However, the widespread adoption of these technologies also poses critical, multifaceted challenges. These include ensuring robust data confidentiality, improving software quality, preventing digital exclusion, and maintaining strict compliance with fundamental fair trial guarantees.
Ultimately, it was concluded that the admissibility and procedural validity of videoconference court sessions must strictly comply with international fair trial standards, ensuring that technological convenience never compromises human rights or statutory protections. When properly regulated and securely implemented, remote court proceedings serve as a highly effective, indispensable means of ensuring continuous access to justice, public safety, and the timely consideration of legal cases, particularly during emergency situations or global crises.
References
1. Alassini v. Wind SpA (Joined Cases C-317/08 to C-320/08). (2010). Court of Justice of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62008CJ0317&from=EN
2. Burt, T. W., & McCurdy, G. S. (2006). E-discovery of dynamic data and real-time communications: New technology, practical facts, and familiar legal principles. The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part, 116, 166. http://yalelawjournal.org/forum/e-discovery-of-dynamic-data-and-real-time-communications-new-technology-practical-facts-and-familiar-legal-principles
3. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000 C 364/01. (2000). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf
4. Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly. (2015). Access to justice and the Internet: Potential and challenges (Report Doc. 13918). Council of Europe. https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=22245&
5. Council of Europe. (1950). Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
6. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers. (2009). Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on electronic democracy (e-democracy). https://www.coe.int/t/dgap/goodgovernance/Activities/Keyexts/Recommendations/Recommendation_CM_Rec2009_1_en_PDF.pdf
7. Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE). (2011). Opinion No. (2011)14 on justice and information technologies (IT). Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/168074816b
8. Custers, B. (2022). New digital rights: Imagining additional fundamental rights for the digital era. Computer Law & Security Review, 44, Article 105636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105636
9. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2021). Guidelines on videoconferencing in judicial proceedings. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/cepej-2021-4-guidelines-videoconference-en/1680a2c2f4
10. Filtz, E., Kirrane, S., & Polleres, A. (2021). The linked legal data landscape: Linking legal data across different countries. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 29(4), 485–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-021-09282-8
11. Gibbs, P. (2017). Defendants on video – conveyor belt justice or a revolution in access? Transform Justice. https://www.transformjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Disconnected-Thumbnail-2.pdf
12. Greenstein, S. (2022). Preserving the rule of law in the era of artificial intelligence (AI). Artificial Intelligence and Law, 30(3), 291–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-021-09294-4
13. Irion, K. (2015). Your digital home is no longer your castle: How cloud computing transforms the (legal) relationship between individuals and their personal records. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 23(4), 348–371. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eav015
14. Koshman, A. (2022). Perspektyvy zastosuvannia dystantsiinoho pravosuddia pislia pandemii COVID-19 [Prospects for the application of remote justice after the COVID-19 pandemic]. Naukovi zapysky NaUKMA. Yurydychni nauky, 9-10, 71-76.
15. Marcello Viola v. Italy (No. 2), No. 45106/04 (European Court of Human Rights June 13, 2019). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-77244%22]}
16. Moradi, R. (2023). Insights into remote justice in the Austrian justice system. International Bar Association (IBA). https://www.ibanet.org/article/60DFF95C-FAE5-4CA9-84E7-0EC8150946AE
17. Naichenko, A. (2021). E-evidence and e-court in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic: A study from Ukraine. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 14(12), 163–181. https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-4.4-n000091
18. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. (2015). L’égalité et la non-discrimination dans l’accès à la justice (Resolution 2054). https://pace.coe.int/pdf/56577579d5ec11e1b2cb995aaf7d869b74882ada27c59d7eb06ff67d23f3fd0d/r%C3%A9solution%202054.pdflang=en
19. Practical guidelines for remote judging in Central and Eastern Europe. (2021). CEELI Institute. http://ceeliinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Remote_Judging_2021Book_Final.pdf
20. Proekt Zakonu pro vnesennia zmin do deiakykh zakonodavchykh aktiv shchodo tsyfrovizatsii sudochynstva ta udoskonalennia nakaznoho provadzhennia u tsyvilnomu sudochynstvi [Draft of the Law on Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts on Digitalization of the Judiciary and Improvement of Writ Proceedings in Civil Proceedings] (No. 9091). (2023). Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_1?pf3511=75745
21. Rowden, E., Wallace, A., Tait, D., Hanson, M., & Jones, D. (2020). Gateways to justice: Design and operational guidelines for remote participation in court proceedings. Nuffield Family Justice Observatory. https://www.nuffieldfjo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/nfjo_remote_hearings_vulnerable-groups_rapid-review_20200506.pdf
22. Smyrnov, M. I. (2004). Dystantsiine kryminalne sudochynstvo: realnist ta perspektyvy [Remote criminal justice: Reality and prospects]. Naukovyi visnyk Chernivetskoho universytetu: Zbirnyk nauk. prats. Vyp. 212: Pravoznavstvo, 117-121.
23. Sovova, O., Sova, M., & Fiala, Z. (2017). Privacy protection and e-document management in public administration. Juridical Tribune - Tribuna Juridica, 7(2), 18-26. https://www.tribunajuridica.eu/arhiva/An7v2/2.%20Sovova.pdf
24. Stoykova, R. (2021). Digital evidence: Unaddressed threats to fairness and the presumption of innocence. Computer Law & Security Review, 42, Article 105575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105575
25. The Action Group on Access to Justice (TAG). (2017). Millennials, technology and access to justice in Ontario. Law Society of Ontario. https://lawsocietyontario.azureedge.net/media/lso/media/tag/resources/tag_millennials_technology_and_access_to_justice_in_ontario.pdf
26. UN General Assembly. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171). https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
27. Whalen, R. (2022). Defining legal technology and its implications. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 30(1), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaac005
