2. System Design and Design Management Principles for Implementing e-Justice
2.1. Bootstrapping through Simplicity and Accessibility
2.2. Adaptability and Modularization
2.3. Relationship between Law and Technology
2.4. Established Installed Technological and Legal Bases
2.5. Design Management Principles
2.6. Selection of Examples
3. European National and EU Trans-Border Cases
3.1. TOL: from Maximum Complexity to Feasible Simplicity
3.2. MCOL: Building on an Established Installed Base
3.3. e-CODEX: Trans-Border e-Justice
4. Canadian Examples—Case Management Systems in Ontario and BC
4.1. Ontario’s Attempts to Integrate and Unify Case Management Systems
4.1.1. The Integrated Justice Project (IJP)
Ontario is one of the largest court jurisdictions in North America with extensive criminal, family, civil, small claims, and provincial offences operations…In such a complex environment, modernizing the support systems is a large undertaking
4.1.2. Court Information Management System (CIMS)
4.2. British Columbia’s eCourt Initiative
|Bootstrapping and accessibility||Reduction of original project’s functionalities allowed bootstrapping, raised accessibility and reduced overall complexity. Also, reduction of complexity by delegating to external agencies.||Rapid diffusion thanks to easy to use service, understandable procedure, switch to paper-based procedure. Low complexity of the system. Not below the maximum feasible simplicity: the system covers the entire procedure.||Main focus on advertising the project between potential users. Low focus on reducing system’s complexity and making procedure accessible.||Bootstrapping not verified. High complexity due to the extent of Ontario jurisdiction and to the many objectives of the project (CMS for criminal justice with a common inquiry system accessible to lawyers, staff, judges, and public).||Intention to simplify by creating a single portal for multiple applications first to facilitate internal access with a view to later facilitating public access to certain aspects.||Bootstrapping through the expansion of installed base’s users base. System above the maximum feasible simplicity: the system covers many functions and procedures.|
|Adaptability and Modularization||Modularized system: modification of peripheral components affects whole architecture; however, high adaptability.||Very adaptable (changes in one module did not affect the system): e.g., modification of the accounting system.||Modular architecture: this should ensure the adaptability of the system. However, unequal accessibility of the system.||Modularized systems including for Computer-aided Dispatch ad Records Management, Offender Tracking, DARS, e-Filing, and separate civil and criminal case management systems intended to be integrated with a Common Inquiry System.||Modularized, four modules to be developed: portal technology, document management, common scheduling, and financial management.||Modularized: criminal and civil case management modules foundational to the system.|
|Law & Technology||Hypertrophic regulation, legal formalism, and delays in disciplining the first version of the system contributed to the abandoning of the first project.||Legal change in parallel with technological change.||Simply inscribed EU procedure for possession orders into technology; normative change only regarding an agreement that disciplines the functioning of the system.||N/A||Goal to rationalize and improve upon existing procedures; systems updated to reflect changes in procedural rules.||Normative change in parallel with consultative development of practice directions.|
|Installed Base||Most of the installed base has been implemented from scratch, however, legal installed base remained (installed base that hindered system’s performances).||Used agencies that already were dealing with claims issued electronically: CPC (Claim Production Centre) and CCBC (County Court Bulk Centre).||Installed base constituted by the national systems connected through e-Codex and by the European procedure for possession claims that is affected by many issues.||Intention to replace existing installed base.||Use and update of existing installed base. Project developed by drawing on existing provincial investments (and related internal government expertise).||Creation of two modules that became an installed base: Justice Information System (JUSTIN) and the Civil Electronic Information System (CEIS).|
|Design Management Principles||Both for the first version and for the simplified version: involvement of judges, court staff, lawyers, MoJ officials.|
Involvement of Milan Bar Association, creation of the Innovation Office.
|Involvement of stakeholders during and after development; coordinated activity of multiple private and public actors.||Bootstrapping through involvement of stakeholders: consumers associations, bars, judges.|
Division of work among multiple specialists with different backgrounds.
|Weak interaction among key stakeholders, including failure to agree on feasibility of realizing expected benefits. Involvement of public and private actors, and later proposals for more flexible “gateway review process” for contracting.||Iterative process and staged development allowing for stakeholder input.|
Involvement of public and private actors.
|Stakeholder consultation and collaboration facilitated understanding of the diversity of the user base and support from key actors (especially the judiciary).|
|Architecture||Decentralized: system not present in all Tribunals. Delivery of service is decentralized.||Centralized system: only one website, one agency that manages the claim (CCBC), one court that issues it (Northampton County Court).||Decentralized system. Connects national e-filing systems to Court’s system for cases management. Potential disparity of service between European citizens.||Centralized:|
intended to cover entire province of Ontario.
intended to cover entire province of Ontario.
|Centralized: covers the entire province of British Columbia.|
|Project outcomes||First version abandoned. Simplified version active in 32 courts (2013 data).||System very diffused: use of the online procedure overcame the use of the paper based procedure (60% in 2009–2010 period).||Not verified. Pilot became a running project only recently.||Project terminated in 2002 due to significant cost increases and delays.||In December 2013, Ministry of the Attorney General cancelled plans to proceed with CIMS, opting instead for a strategy of incremental development of certain technologies such as videoconferencing.||System used across British Columbia, incorporating not only case management functions internal to courts but also online public access to court records. Project now superseded by Court Administrative Technology Suite.|
Conflicts of Interest
References and Notes
- Marco Fabri in collaboration with Giampiero Lupo. “Some European and Australian e-justice services.” Towards Cyberjustice Project Working Paper No. 1. Montréal, QC, Canada: Cyberjustice Laboratory, University of Montréal, 2012. Available online: http://site.cyberjustice.ca/Content/documents/WP001_EU_Australia_e-justice_IRSIG20121019.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- Jane Bailey. “Digitization of Court Processes in Canada.” Towards Cyberjustice Project Working Paper No. 2. Montréal, QC, Canada: Cyberjustice Laboratory, University of Montréal, 2012. Available online: http://site.cyberjustice.ca/Content/documents/WP002_CanadaDigitizationOfCourtProcesses20121023.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- André Andrade, and Luiz Antonio Joia. “Organizational Structure and ICT Strategies in the Brazilian Judiciary System.” Government Information Quarterly 29 (2012): S32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Center for State Courts. “Technology in Courts: Resource Guide.” Available online: http://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Technology/Technology-in-the-Courts/Resource-Guide.aspx (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- Marco Velicogna. “Justice Systems and ICT: What Can Be Learned from Europe? ” Utrecht Law Review 3 (2007): 129–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marco Velicogna. “Use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in European Judicial Systems.” Available online: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/series/Etudes7TIC_en.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- In this paper, the term "e-justice initiatives" refers to technological initiatives related to the justice system.
- Ole Hanseth, and Kalle Lyytinen. “Design Theory for Dynamic Complexity in Information Infrastructures: The Case of Building Internet.” Journal of Information Technology 25 (2010): 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jane Bailey, and Jacquelyn Burkell. “Implementing Technology in the Justice Sector: A Canadian Perspective.” The Canadian Journal of Law & Technology 11 (2013): 253–82. [Google Scholar]
- Marco Fabri, and Francesco Contini, eds. Justice and Technology in Europe: How ICT Is Changing the Judicial Business. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001.
- Jannis Kallinikos. “Institutional Complexity and Functional Simplification: The Case of Money Claim Online Service in England and Wales.” In ICT and Innovation in the Public Sector. Edited by Francesco Contini and Giovan Francesco Lanzara. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2009, pp. 174–210. [Google Scholar]
- Richard Mohr, and Francesco Contini. “Reassembling the Legal: ‘The wonders of modern science’ in court-related proceedings.” Griffith Law Review 20 (2011): 994–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marco Velicogna. “ICTs in the Justice Sector.” In Handbook on Judicial Politics. Edited by Ramona Coman and Cristina Dallara. Iasi: Institutul European, 2012, pp. 195–236. [Google Scholar]
- Marco Velicogna. “Electronic Access to Justice: From Theory to Practice and Back.” Droit et Cultures. 2011. Available online: http://droitcultures.revues.org/2447 (accessed on 10 June 2014).
- Francesco Contini, and Giovan Francesco Lanzara, eds. ICT and Innovation in the Public Sector. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2009.
- The sections dealing with the European case-studies and with the systems’ design principles are influenced by an unpublished paper presented by Lupo at the Law and Society Conference, Boston.
- Giampiero Lupo. “Explaining Successes and Failures of E-Justice Services in Europe: The Cases of Money Claim on-Line, Trial Online, e-Barreaux and e-Codex.” In Paper presented at the Law and Society Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, USA, 1 June 2013.
- Ole Hanseth, and Margunn Aanestad. “Design as Bootstrapping: On the Evolution of ICT Networks in Health Care.” Methods of Information in Medicine 42 (2003): 384–91. [Google Scholar]
- Ole Hanseth. “Developing Pan-European eGovernment Solutions: From Interoperability to Installed Base Cultivation.” In The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice: Interoperability and Infrastructures for European Transborder Judicial Proceedings. Edited by Francesco Contini and Giovan Francesco Lanzara. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014, pp. 161–83. [Google Scholar]
- In the IS literature on the evaluation of information systems, "net benefits" refers to the positive organizational returns from an information system, such as cost savings, productivity gains, and return on investments.
- William H. DeLone, and Ephraim R. McLean. “Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable.” Information Systems Research 3 (1992): 60–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- William H. DeLone, and Ephraim R. McLean. “The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update.” Journal of Management Information Systems 19 (2003): 9–30. [Google Scholar]
- Giovan Francesco Lanzara. “The Circulation of Agency in Judicial Proceedings: Designing for Interoperability and Complexity.” In The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice: Interoperability and Infrastructures for European Transborder Judicial Proceedings. Edited by Francesco Contini and Giovan Francesco Lanzara. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014, pp. 3–32. [Google Scholar]
- Giampiero Lupo. “Law, Technology and System Architectures: Critical Design Factors for Money Claim and Possession Claim Online in England and Wales.” In The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice: Interoperability and Infrastructures for European Transborder Judicial Proceedings. Edited by Francesco Contini and Giovan Francesco Lanzara. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014, pp. 83–107. [Google Scholar]
- Marco Velicogna, and Francesco Contini. “Assemblage in the Making: Developing the e-Services for the Justice of the Peace Office in Italy.” In ICT and Innovation in the Public Sector. Edited by Francesco Contini and Giovan Francesco Lanzara. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2009, pp. 211–43. [Google Scholar]
- This argument is not specific to the most recent literature on ICT and e-justice. Simon, using the watch as his example, suggested that loose-coupled and relatively independent sub-systems facilitate problem solving (if one of several pieces of the watch is broken it is easier to substitute it if the parts of the watch are built independently.
- Herbert A. Simon. “The Architecture of Complexity.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106 (1962): 467–82. [Google Scholar]
- Sebastiano Faro, and Roberta Nannucci. “A Pan-European Service Disseminating National Case Law: the Caselex Project.” Informatica e Diritto XXXII (2006): 75–90. [Google Scholar]
- Giovan Francesco Lanzara. “Building Digital Institutions: ICT and the Rise of Assemblages in Government.” In ICT and Innovation in the Public Sector. Edited by Francesco Contini and Giovan Francesco Lanzara. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2009, pp. 9–48. [Google Scholar]
- Mireille Hildebrandt. “Legal and Technological Normativity: More (and Less) than Twin Sisters.” TECHNE 12 (2008): 169–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karl E. Weick. “Technology as Equivoque: Sensemaking in New Technologies.” In Technology and Organisations. Edited by Paul S. Goodman and Lee S. Sproull. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990, pp. 1–43. [Google Scholar]
- Hans Kelsen. Pure Theory of Law. Translated by Max Knight. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Francesco Contini, and Marco Fabri. “Judicial Electronic Data Interchange in Europe.” In Judicial Electronic Data Interchange in Europe: Applications, Policies and Trends. Edited by Francesco Contini and Marco Fabri. Bologna: Lo Scarabeo, 2003, pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
- For example, with Caselex, creating a platform for trans-border access to case law required close attention to intellectual property issues (, p. 81).
- Claudio U. Ciborra, and Giovan Francesco Lanzara. “Formative Contexts and Information Technology.” Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 4 (1994): 61–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ole Hanseth, and Nina Lundberg. “Designing work oriented infrastructure.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work 10 (2001): 347–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giampiero Lupo. “The Case of Money Claim Online and Possession Claim Online in England and Wales.” In Paper presented at the Building Interoperability for European Civil Proceedings Online Final Research Conference, Bologna, Italy, 15 June 2012.
- In the Caselex context, for example, existing public case law, which was unevenly available and distributed became something of an installed base for a trans-border system of online access (, pp. 77–78).
- Giovan Francesco Lanzara. “Self-Destructive Processes in Institution Building and Some Modest Countervailing Mechanisms.” European Journal for Political Research 33 (1998): 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mauro Cislaghi, George Eleftherakis, Roberto Mazzilli, Francois Mohier, Sara Ferri, Valerio Giuffrida, and Elisa Negroni. “Secure Judicial Communication Exchange Using Soft-computing Methods and Biometric Authentication.” In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Computational Intelligence in Security for Information Systems CISIS’08, Genova, Italy, 23–24 October 2008; Edited by Emilio Corchado, Rodolfo Zunino, Paolo Gastaldo and Álvaro Herrero. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 11–18. [Google Scholar]
- Carolina Luisa dos Santos Vieira, Antônio Sérgio Coelho, and Monica Maria Mendes Luna. “ICT Implementation Process Model for Logistics Service Providers.” Industrial Management & Data Systems 113 (2013): 484–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raymond F. Zammuto, Terri L. Griffith, Ann Majchrzak, Deborah J. Dougherty, and Samer Faraj. “Information Technology and the Changing Fabric of Organization.” Organization Science 18 (2007): 749–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ongoing consultation with stakeholder groups has also proven important in other kinds of e-justice systems relating to access to case law (e.g., Caselex) and management of audio and video information flowing from court proceedings (e.g., Judicial Management by Digital Libraries Semantics (JUMAS)). See (, p. 87).
- Elisabetta Fersini, Enza Messina, Francesco Archetti, and Mauro Cislaghi. “Semantics and Machine Learning: A New Generation of Court Management Systems.” In Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. Edited by Ana Fred, Jan L.G. Dietz, Kecheng Liu and Joaquim Filipe. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 382–98. [Google Scholar]
- Bill Harley, Christopher Wright, Richard Hall, and Kristine Dery. “Management Reactions to Technological Change: The Example of Enterprise Resource Planning.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 42 (2006): 58–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- These include systems such as those facilitating access to case law (such as Caselex), as well as those improving judicial access to audio and video knowledge (such as JUMAS ) and those piloting document exchange between justice operators (such as the J-Web Collaboration Platform ).
- For a more comprehensive list, see “Legal Information Systems & Legal Informatics Resources.” Available online: http://www.personal.psu.edu/rcr5122/Projects.html (accessed on 28 May 2014).
- In Italian "Processo Civile Telematico (PCT)".
- Mario Jacchia, ed. Il Processo Telematico: Nuovi Ruoli e Nuove Tecnologie Per un Moderno Processo Civile. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2000. (In Italian)
- Davide Carnevali. Soggetti Smarriti: Perché Innovazione e Giustizia non si Incontrano (quasi) Mai. Milan: Franco Angeli, 2010. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
- Davide Carnevali, and Andrea Resca. “The Civil Trial On-Line in Italy.” In Building Interoperability for European Civil Proceedings Online. Edited by Francesco Contini and Giovan Francesco Lanzara. Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice Bologna, 2013, pp. 273–316. [Google Scholar]
- Giulio Borsari, and Antonio Baratta. “L’interoperabilità e gli strumenti per i soggetti esterni.” In Tecnologia, Organizzazione e Giustizia. L’evoluzione del Processo Civile Telematico. Edited by Stefano Zan. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2004, pp. 227–39. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
- Davide Carnevali. “L’Italia nel tunnel dell’e-justice.” In Tecnologie per la Giustizia. I Successi e le False Promesse Dell’e-Justice. Edited by Davide Carnevali, Francesco Contini and Marco Fabri. Milan: Giuffrè Editore, 2006, pp. 83–132. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
- Giovanni Xilo. “L’esperienza dei laboratori sperimentali del Processo Civile Telematico.” In Tecnologia, Organizzazione e Giustizia. L’evoluzione del Processo Civile Telematico. Edited by Stefano Zan. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2004, pp. 119–38. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
- Francesco Contini. “L’infrastruttura dell’informazione nei sistemi giudiziari.” In Tecnologie per la Giustizia. I Successi e le False Promesse Dell’e-Justice. Edited by Davide Carnevali, Francesco Contini and Marco Fabri. Milan: Giuffrè Editore, 2006, pp. 43–82. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
- The Court Domain includes: case management systems (CMS), documents repositories, judgements databases and the Internal Users Interface for court staff, judges and lawyers and consists of a CMS interface for clerks, a dashboard for judges and an internal web service station for lawyers.
- Davide Carnevali, and Andrea Resca. “Pushing at the Edge of Maximum Manageable Complexity: The Case of ‘Trial Online’ in Italy.” In The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice: Interoperability and Infrastructures for European Transborder Judicial Proceedings. Edited by Francesco Contini and Giovan Francesco Lanzara. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014, pp. 161–83. [Google Scholar]
- Ministerial Decree of 15 December 2005 The Gazzetta Ufficiale no. 301 (28 December 2005)
- Codice di Procedura Civile article 663 (It). (Article 663 of Italian Code of Civil Procedure.)
- If the judge accepts the request, s/he delivers an order for payment and within 40 days of delivery of the order the creditor must notify the debtor (by means of the bailiff service). The second phase of the procedure, which includes a hearing, is triggered only if the debtor opposes the order.
- Claimants are responsible to serve an order issued under a paper-based process on the defendant, typically effecting service through a bailiff.
- The Innovation Office is composed by court staff, ICT specialists and lawyers and promotes the use of ICT to court staff and lawyers. It provided organizational, procedural and legal expertise for system implementation.
- The MBA created the Unified Front Office to inform lawyers about TOL and to provide a Point of Access to lawyers that do not have access to the Bar's point of access.
- Marco Fabri. “E-justice in Finland and in Italy: Enabling versus Constraining Models.” In ICT and Innovation in the Public Sector. Edited by Francesco Contini and Giovan Francesco Lanzara. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2009, pp. 115–46. [Google Scholar]
- For a detailed evaluation of the norms regulating IT in the Italian justice system, see ( and , p. 129).
- Ministerial Decree of 21 February 2011 no. 44. “Regulations concerning the technical rules for the adoption process of information and communication technologies in civil and in criminal proceedings.” Gazzetta Ufficiale no. 89 (18 April 2011)
- Ministerial Decree no. 44 of 21 February 2011 is supported by prior legislation on Certified E-mail including the Decree of the President of the Republic 11 February 2005, no. 68, “Rules for the use of the Certified Electronic Mail, on the basis of the article 27 of the Law 16 January 2003, no. 3” Gazzetta Ufficiale no. 97 (28 April 2005)
- Figure adapted from: “Ministero della Giustizia. “Tribunale di Genova”.” Available online: http://www.tribunale.genova.it/pct.aspx?pnl=3 (accessed on 6 May 2014).
- Codice di Procedura Civile article 18 (It). (Article 18 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure.).
- Codice di Procedura Civile article 637 (It). (Article 637 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure.).
- Legislative Decree 179/2012. Gazzetta Ufficiale no. 294 (18 December 2012).
- MCOL can only be used for fixed money claims (e.g., not damage claims) of up to 100,000£ against a maximum of two defendants who must be resident in England and Wales. It is unavailable for cases falling under the Mental Capacity Act 2008 and cannot be used by claimants who are eligible for fee exemptions.
- Government of the United Kingdom. “Government Gateway. ” Available online: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/index.htm (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- (1) Guidance screen; (2) Claimant details screen; (3) Defendant details screen; (4) A page for indicating the amount claimed; (5) A screen where details of the claim can be described in no more than 1080 characters; (6) Statement of truth screen; (7) Credit/debit card details screen; (8) Confirmation screen where the claimant can download the claim as a pdf or plain text.
- e-CODEX Work Package 2-Communication. Online European Payment Order across Europe: Handbook for Citizens and Business. Dusseldorf (North Rhine-Westphalia): e-CODEX, 2014, forthcoming. Document presenting the e-Codex architecture and solutions to new-coming partners. [Google Scholar]
- Research Institute on Justice Systems of the National Research Council of Italy.
- Institute of Theory and Technique of Justice Information of the National Research Council of Italy.
- e-CODEX. Technical Annex, Unpublished internal document. 2010.
- The seven WPs are: WP1 Project administration and sustainability; WP2 Communication; WP3 Pilot and experimentation; WP4 Identity for natural and legal persons; WP5 Exchange of documents and data and ePayment; WP6 Document standards and semantics; and WP7 System architecture .
- Marco Velicogna. “Coming to Terms with Complexity Overload in Transborder e-Justice: The e-CODEX Platform.” In The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice: Interoperability and Infrastructures for European Transborder Judicial Proceedings. Edited by Francesco Contini and Giovan Francesco Lanzara. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014, pp. 309–30. [Google Scholar]
- The Management Board includes the project coordinator and the WP leaders and monitors the implementation of the project, arranges meetings with the European Commission, makes proposals to the General Assembly in terms of budgets and tasks of the WPs and executes the decisions of the General Assembly . The General Assembly is the decision-making body of the project and it ratifies decisions and proposals from WPs and Management Board. The body meets only twice a year and is composed of one representative of each project participant, with each country (or European institution, such as CCBE) having one vote .
- For example, the delays of WP4 in providing a component of the architecture (the Trust-Ok Token library; see below), delayed WP3’s coordination of the pilot’s testing.
- Dea Brix Hvillum, Cyril Murie, Luc Ferrand, and Jean-Marc Pellet. “e-Codex Deliverable D3.3: Documented System Requirements and Specifications.” Available online: http://www.e-codex.eu/news-and-media/media/deliverables.html?eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=138 (accessed on 10 June 2014).
- Regulation (EC) No. 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 Creating a European Order for Payment Procedure, 2006 O.J. (L 399) articles 1–32.
- Adrian Klar, Rudi Teschner, Viljar Tina, Cyril Murie, and Lesli Hommik. “e-Codex Deliverable D4.2: Concept for Implementation of WP4.” Available online: http://www.e-codex.eu/news-and-media/media/deliverables.html?eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=139 (accessed on 10 June 2014).
- European Union. “European e-Justice Portal.” Available online: https://e-justice.europa.eu/home.do?action=home&plang=en (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community Framework for Electronic Signatures, 2000 O.J. (L 013) 12–20.
- An advanced electronic system is an electronic system which meets the following requirements: (a) the created document is uniquely linked to the user; (b) the system is capable of identifying the user; (c) the document is created using means that the user can maintain under his control; (d) any subsequent change of the data of a created document is detectable .
- Figure adapted from: e-CODEX. “Technical Background.” Available online: http://www.e-codex.eu/about-the-project/technical-background.html (accessed on 6 May 2014).
- Connectors and gateways are two e-Codex software components developed by piloting countries according to e-Codex specifications. They are installed on a single machine (hardware component). In Figure 3, connectors and gateways are represented as two separate elements for the sake of clarity.
- The Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures defines that an advanced electronic signature should meet the following requirements: "(1) The signature is uniquely linked to the signatory; (2) It is capable of identifying the signatory; (3) It is created using means that the signatory can maintain under their sole control; (4) It is linked to the data to which it relates in such a manner that any subsequent change in the data is detectable" (, article 2).
- Nadia Carboni, and Marco Velicogna. “Electronic Data Exchange within European Justice: A Good Opportunity? ” International Journal for Court Administration 4 (2012): 104–20. [Google Scholar]
- Marco Velicogna, Antoine Errera, and Stéphane Derlange. “Building e-Justice in Continental Europe: The TéléRecours Experience in France.” Utrecht Law Review 9 (2013): 38–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Typically jurisdiction is based on where the defendant resides, with some exceptions .
- Anne Wallace. “Judicial Electronic Data Interchange in Australia.” In Judicial Electronic Data Interchange in Europe: Applications, Policies and Trends. Edited by Francesco Contini and Marco Fabri. Bologna: Lo Scarabeo, 2003, pp. 67–102. [Google Scholar]
- Giulio Borsari, and Marco Velicogna. “e-CODEX: e-Justice Communication via Online Data Exchange; Realizing cross-border e-Justice in Europe.” PowerPoint presentation at the SPOCS Industry Group meeting, Poznan, Poland, November 2011; Available online: http://www.e-codex.eu/news-and-media/media/articles-and-presentations.html (accessed on 10 June 2014).
- The agreement also governs project participants’ responsibilities, security and data protection issues, the general requirements of system components and the termination of a project participant’s participation in the pilot. It also includes an annex with technical requirements, standards and regulations . The e-Codex Management Board and General Assembly have approved the agreement and it has been signed by the project participants.
- Giulio Borsari, Marco Velicogna, Remco Boersma, Zoi Kolitsi, and Susanne Wigard. “e-Codex Deliverable D7.1: Governance and Guidelines Definition.” Available online: http://www.e-codex.eu/news-and-media/media/deliverables.html?eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=143 (accessed on 10 June 2014).
- Marco Mellone. “Legal Interoperability: The Case of European Payment Order and of European Small Claims Procedure.” In Paper presented at the Building Interoperability for European Civil Proceedings Online Final Research Conference, Bologna, Italy, 14–16 June 2012.
- Francesco Contini. “e-Curia.” In Paper presented at the Building Interoperability for European Civil Proceedings Online Final Research Conference, Bologna, Italy, 14–16 June 2012.
- Ministry of the Attorney General. “Court Services.” Available online: http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_en/en08/307en08.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- Ministries of the Attorney General and Public Safety and Security. “Integrated Justice Project.” Available online: http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_en/en03/403en03.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- Melissa Wilson. “Ontario Government vs. the 21st Century.” In Precedent; 12 September 2011. Available online: http://lawandstyle.ca/ontario_government_vs_the_21st_century/ (accessed on 26 April 2014). [Google Scholar]
- In the same article, Wilson also reported that in 2010 Court Canada Limited filed a lawsuit against the province of Ontario in connection with Court Canada’s electronic booking system called Online System for Court Attendance Reservations .
- Ontario. “Report of Ontario’s Special Task Force on the Management of Large-Scale Information & Information Technology Projects.” Available online: http://itac.ca/uploads/ntpsbc/05JulOntarioSpecialTaskForce.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- Ministry of Government Services. “Ontario to Improve Management of Large-Scale I&IT Projects.” Ontario. 17 November 2005. Available online: http://news.ontario.ca/archive/en/2005/11/17/Ontario-To-Improve-Management-Of-LargeScale-IIT-Projects.html (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- Mike Anderson. “An Update on the I&IT Project Gateway Review Process.” PowerPoint presentation at the Enterprise Architecture Openhouse. Toronto, ON, Canada, June 2007. Available online: http://verney.ca/ea2007/presentations/372.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- Glenn Kauth. “Ontario Lagging in Court Technology.” Law Times. 31 December 2012. Available online: http://lawtimesnews.com/201212312125/headline-news/ontario-lagging-in-court-technology (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- Ontario Court Services Division. “Annual Report 2007–2008. ” Available online: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/courts_annual_07/Court_Services_Annual_Report_FULL_EN.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- The Integrated Court Offences Network (ICON) is used for Ontario Court of Justice matters (criminal, provincial offences, etc.), while FRANK is used for Ontario Superior Court of Justice matters (civil, criminal, family, as well as Ontario Court of Justice family matters and Divisional Court matters in all court locations except for Toronto (, p. 26).
- Ontario Court Services Division. “Annual Report 2009–2010. ” Available online: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/courts_annual_09/Court_Services_Annual_Report_FULL_EN.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- Moreover, it was estimated that in the 15 year period leading up to 2011 (which would incorporate both IJP and CIMS) the Ontario government spent almost $350 million to implement changes to case management systems to allow web-enabled access to material and online services .
- Yamri Taddese. “AG Falters on Court Technology Once Again.” Law Times. 9 December 2013. Available online: http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201312093658/headline-news/ag-falters-on-court-technology-system-once-again (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- Dominic Jaar. “Ontario’s CIMS (Court Information Management System).” PowerPoint presentation prepared for the Meeting of Canadians. Denver, CO, USA, September 2009. Available online: http://www.slideshare.net/djaar/cims-the-elements-presentation-sep-2009?utm_source=slideshow02&utm_medium=ssemail&utm_campaign=share_slideshow (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- British Columbia Ministry of Justice. “E-filing Improves Access to BC’s Highest Court.” 15 October 2012. Available online: http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2012JAG0234-001565.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2014). [Google Scholar]
- British Columbia Ministry of the Attorney General. “2010/11 Annual Service Plan Report. ” Available online: http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/Annual_Reports/2010_2011/pdf/ag.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- Andrew Clark. “E-Court: Status Update from BC.” PowerPoint presentation. September 2009. Available online: http://www.slideshare.net/djaar/bc-presentation-ctc-2009 (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- IntellAction Working Group. “E-Filing Case Studies.” Available online: http://wiki.modern-courts.ca/images/2/23/E-Filing_Case_Studies.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia. “Securing the Justin System: Access and Security Audit at the Ministry of Justice.” Available online: https://www.bcauditor.com/pubs/2013/report9/securing-justin-system-access-and-security-audit-ministry (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- Given the sensitivity of information in the JUSTIN system, the BC Auditor General recently raised concerns about the need to improve the security of information on the system (, pp. 11–12).
- D. Geoffrey Cowper. “A Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century. ” Available online: http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/public/justice-reform/CowperFinalReport.pdf (accessed 16 June 2014).
- British Columbia Court of Appeal. “2012 Annual Report. ” Available online: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/court_of_appeal/about_the_court_of_appeal/annual_report/2012%20Annual%20Report%20Final.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- British Columbia Ministry of the Attorney General. “Welcome to Court Services Online. ” Available online: https://eservice.ag.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- British Columbia Supreme Court. “Practice Direction—Re: Electronic Evidence. ” Available online: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme_court/practice_and_procedure/practice_directions_and_notices/electronic_evidence_project/Electronic Evidence July 1 2006.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2014).
- The practice direction was issued in 2006 following significant consultation with lawyers and the general public and prior to the electronic evidence presentation system becoming widely available. The direction provides guidance for lawyers and lay persons about preparing, managing and presenting electronic evidence .
- Which was completed in 2006 (, p. 219).
- British Columbia Supreme Court. “2011 Annual Report. ” Available online: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme_court/about_the_supreme_court/annual_reports/2011%20Annual%20Report.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2014).
© 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).