Double normalization
When procedural law is made digital
##plugins.pubIds.doi.readerDisplayName##:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1305Gako-hitzak:
e-justice, law and technology, fair trial, judicial reformLaburpena
The comparison of three e-justice platforms (EJP) leads to the identification of a common dynamic – called double normalization – which makes EJP development an institutional and constitutional issue, not just a functional one. The case study analysis of Trial on Line in Italy, e-Curia (Court of Justice of the European Union) and Kwaliteit en Innovatie rechtspraak in the Netherlands shows how EJPs, establishing the working environment for judges, lawyers, and clerks, create more powerful constraints than those provided by the law. The normalization carried out by legal standards to make judicial procedures predictable and homogeneous and grant equal treatment is supplemented by the digital working environment. Hence technology provides an additional layer of normalization, steering the behaviour of judges in predetermined directions and inhibiting other action pathways. The process challenges the right of the judge to interpret procedural law and require appropriate judicial governance mechanisms to safeguard fair trial.
##plugins.generic.usageStats.downloads##
Metrics
Downloads:
PDF_12_3_Contini_Reiling_OSLS (English) 495
XML_12_3_Contini_Reiling_OSLS (English) 174
Erreferentziak
Amsler, L.B., Martinez, J.K., and Smith, S.E., 2020. Dispute Systems Design: Preventing, Managing, and Resolving Conflict. Stanford University Press.
Aprile, S., 2011. Rapporto ICT Giustizia: Gestione dall’aprile 2009 al novembre 2011 [online]. Rome: Ministero della Giustizia. Available from: http://www.distretto.torino.giustizia.it/allegato_riservata.aspx?File=5691 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Asser, W.D.H., et al., 2006. Uitgebalanceerd. Eindrapport fundamentele herbezinning Nederlands burgerlijk procesrecht [online]. Boom Juridische. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12832/1335 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Augusto, A., 2003. Judicial Electronic Data Interchange in Italy. In: M. Fabri and F. Contini, eds., Judicial Electronic Data Interchange in European Civil Proceedings and Criminal Matters. Bologna: Lo Scarabeo, 281–303.
Biancofiore, G., 2021. I numeri dell’avvocatura al 2020. Cassa forense [online], January-April. Available from: https://www.cassaforense.it/riviste-cassa/la-previdenza-forense/previdenza/i-numeri-dell-avvocatura-al-2020/ [Accessed 8 April 2022].
Bijker, W.E., and Law, J., eds., 1992. Shaping technology, building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bing, P., Sharma, M.K., and Godla, J.K., 1999. Critical Issues Affecting an ERP Implementation. Information Systems Management, 16(3), 7–14.
Bobek, M., 2021. What Are Grand Chambers for? Yearbook of European Legal Studies [online], vol. 23, 1–19. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/cel.2021.5 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Borsari, G., 2014. Processo civile telematico “online civil trial” [online]. Conferenza internazionale - e-Justice and e-Law conference. Rome. Available from: https://www.cortedicassazione.it/cassazione-resources/resources/cms/documents/Borsari.pdf [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Borsari, G., Tsevetkova, A., and Epineuse, H., 2021. Analytical Overview of the State of Play in Electronic Court Filing (e-filing) in selected member States of the Council of Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Bunjevac, T., 2020. Judicial Self-Governance in the New Millennium: An Institutional and Policy Framework. Singapore: Springer.
Cappelletti, M., 1988. Giudici irresponsabili? Studio comparativo sulla responsibilità dei giudici. Milan: Giuffré.
Cappelletti, M., 1989. The Judicial Process in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Carnevali, D., 2006. L’Italia nel tunnel dell’e-justice. In: D. Carnevali, F. Contini and M. Fabri, eds., Tecnologie per la giustizia, I successi e le false promesse dell’e-justice. Milan: Giuffré, 83–132.
Carnevali, D., 2011. Tecnologie dell’informazione e della comunicazione. In: A. Gaito, ed., Digesto delle Discipline Penalistiche. Turin: UTET Giuridica/Wolters Kluwer Italia, 684–708.
Carnevali, D., and Resca, A., 2014. Pushing at the Edge of Maximum Manageable Complexity: The Case of Trial Online in Italy. In: F. Contini and G.F. Lanzara, eds., The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice: Interoperability and Infrastructures for European Transborder Judicial Proceedings. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 161–183.
Castelli, C., 2014. Il PCT è già una realtà. Questione Giustizia [online], 13 March. Available from: https://www.questionegiustizia.it/articolo/il-pct-e-gia-una-realta_13-03-2014.php [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Castillo-Ortiz, P., 2019. The politics of implementation of the judicial council model in Europe. European Political Science Review [online], 11(4), 503–520. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773919000298 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
CEPEJ, 2016. Thematic report: Use of information technology in European courts [online]. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/european-judicial-systems-efficiency-and-quality-of-justice-cepej-stud/1680788229 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
CEPEJ, 2018. European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and their environment [online]. Adopted at the 31st plenary meeting of the CEPEJ. 3-4 December. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/ethical-charter-en-for-publication-4-december-2018/16808f699c [Accessed 30 March 2022].
CEPEJ, 2021. Guidelines on electronic court filing (e-filing) and digitalisation of Courts [online]. Document adopted at the 37th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ, Strasbourg and online, 8 and 9 December 2021. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/cepej-2021-15-en-e-filing-guidelines-digitalisation-courts/1680a4cf87 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Ciborra, C., et al., 2000. From control to drift: The dynamics of corporate information infrastructures. Oxford University Press.
Consiglio Superiore Della Magistratura, 2015. Monitoraggio e studio delle problematiche attuative del Processo Civile Telematico (Delibera di Plenum) [online]. Rome. Available from: https://www.csm.it/documents/21768/139453/monitoraggio+PCT+delibera+13+maggio+2015/e06908d7-7cc5-f044-8461-038625441c15 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Consultative Council of European Judges, 2018. Opinion No. 21 (2018) Preventing Corruption Among Judges [online]. Zagreb, 9 November. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/ccje-2018-3e-avis-21-ccje-2018-prevent-corruption-amongst-judges/native/16808fd8dd [Accessed 14 January 2021].
Contini, F., 2013. The case of e-Curia at the Court of Justice of the European Union. In: F. Contini and G.F. Lanzara, eds., Building Interoperability for European Civil Proceedings Online. Bologna: CLUEB, 317–332.
Contini, F., 2014. Searching for Maximum Feasible Simplicity: The Case of e-Curia at the Court of Justice of the European Union. In: F. Contini and G.F. Lanzara, eds., The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice: Interoperability and Infrastructures for European Transborder Judicial Proceedings [online]. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 217–242. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7525-1_9 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Contini, F., 2017. e-Curia or How Technology Changed the Court of Justice of the European Union. In: E. Guinchard and M.P. Granger, eds., The New EU Judiciary. An Analysis of Current Judicial Reforms. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 325–340.
Contini, F., 2020. Artificial Intelligence and the Transformation of Humans, Law and Technology Interactions in Judicial Proceedings. Law, Technology and Humans [online], 2(1), 4–18. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.v2i1.1478 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Contini, F., and Cordella, A., 2010. ICT e Giustizia: successi e fallimenti tra legami deboli e governance duale. In: D. Carnevali, ed., Soggetti smarriti: Perché innovazione e giustizia non si incontrano (quasi) mai. Milan: Franco Angeli, 52–76.
Contini, F., and Cordella, A., 2015. Assembling Law and Technology in the public sector: the case of e-justice reforms. Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research [online]. Phoenix: ACM, 124–132. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1145/2757401.2757418 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Contini, F., and Mohr, R., 2014. How the Law Can Make It Simple: Easing the Circulation of Agency in e-Justice. In: F. Contini and G.F. Lanzara, eds., The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice: Interoperability and Infrastructures for European Transborder Judicial Proceedings. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 53–79.
Cordella, A., and Contini, F., 2020. Digital technologies for better justice: A toolkit for action. Discussion paper nº IDB-DP-761 [online]. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18235/0002297 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Cordella, A., and Tempini, N., 2011. E-government and Bureaucracy: The role of Functional Simplification in the case of the Venice Municipality [online]. tGov Workshop ‘11. 17–18 March, Brunel University, West London. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258698803_E-_Government_and_Bureaucracy_The_Role_of_Functional_Simplification_in_the_Case_of_the_Venice_Municipality [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, 2019. Unboxing Artificial Intelligence: 10 steps to protect Human Rights [online]. May. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/unboxing-artificial-intelligence-10-steps-to-protect-human-rights-reco/1680946e64 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Court of Justice of the European Union, 2011. e-Curia – User Manual. Luxembourg: Court of Justice of the European Union.
Court of Justice of the European Union, 2020. Annual management report 2019 [online]. Luxembourg: Court of Justice of the European Union. Available from: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-05/rapport_gestion_2019_en_final.pdf [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Court of Justice of the European Union, 2021. Annual Report 2020, Management Report [online]. Luxembourg: Court of Justice of the European Union. Available from: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-04/ra_gestion_2020_en.pdf [Accessed 30 March 2022].
DeBrusk, C., 2018. The Risk of Machine-Learning Bias (and How to Prevent It). MIT Sloan Management Review [online], 26 March. Available from: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-risk-of-machine-learning-bias-and-how-to-prevent-it/ [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Di Federico, G., 2002. L’indipendenza della magistratura in Italia: una valutazione in chiave comparata. Rivista trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile [online], 56(1), 100–128 Available from: http://www.difederico-giustizia.it/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ss_0603104821_001indipmagistrat.pdf [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Di Natale, L.J., 2020. Digitising the Judicial Sector: A Case Study Analysis of the Dutch KEI Programme. LSE.
European Commission: DG Justice, 2020. Digitalisation of justice in the European Union: A toolbox of opportunities (COM (2020) 710) [online]. Brussels: European Commission. Available from: https://www.europeansources.info/record/digitalisation-of-justice-in-the-european-union-a-toolbox-of-opportunities/ [Accessed 30 March 2022].
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, 2018. Statement on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and ‘Autonomous’ Systems [online]. Luxembourg: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Unit RTD.01 — Scientific Advice Mechanism. Available from: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/dfebe62e-4ce9-11e8-be1d-01aa75ed71a1 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ), 2018. Independence, Accountability and Quality of the Judiciary: Validation of methodology, exploring quality of justice and promoting judicial change. ENCJ Report 2017-2018 [online]. Adopted General Assembly Lisbon, 1 June. European Network of Councils for the Judiciary. Available from: http://www.csm1909.ro/ViewFile.ashx?guid=7cf8e898-cff6-4f12-9715-0b1cde3c0043-InfoCSM [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Fabri, M., 2005. Policies to enhance the quality of justice in Europe. In: M. Fabri, H. Pauliat and P. Langbroek, eds., L’administration de la justice en Europe et l’évaluation de sa qualité. Paris: Montchrestien, 69–83.
Fabri, M., 2006. Amministrare la giustizia: Governance, organizzazione, sistemi informativi. Bologna: CLUEB.
Fabri, M., 2009. E-justice in Finland and in Italy: Enabling versus Constraining Models. In: F. Contini and G.F. Lanzara, eds., ICT and innovation in the public sector: European studies in the making of e-government. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 115–145.
Fabri, M., ed., 2008. ICT for the Public Prosecutor’s Offices. Bologna: CLUEB.
Faro, S., 2007. Il processo civile telematico: nota bibliografica. Informatica e diritto [online], 16(1-2), 259–267. Available from: http://www.ittig.cnr.it/EditoriaServizi/AttivitaEditoriale/InformaticaEDiritto/IeD2007_1-2_Faro.pdf [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Fedele, I., 2020. Processo Civile Telematico. Rassegna tematica della giurisprudenza di legittimità aggiornata con le decisioni pubblicate al 31 dicembre 2019 [online]. Rome: Corte di Cassazione. Available from: https://www.cortedicassazione.it/cassazione-resources/resources/cms/documents/Processo_civile_telematico_-_Rassegna_sul_PCT_aggiornata_al_31_dicembre_2019.pdf [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Fedele, I., ed., 2019. Processo Civile Telematico. Rassegna tematica della giurisprudenza di legittimità aggiornata con le decisioni pubblicate al 31 dicembre 2018 [online]. Rome: Corte di Cassazione. Available from: https://www.cortedicassazione.it/cassazione-resources/resources/cms/documents/_Rassegna_Tematica_sul_processo_civile_telematico.pdf [Accessed 30 March 2022].
General Court of the European Union, 2015. Press Release No 73/15. New procedural rules adopted by the General Court [online]. 19 June. Luxembourg: CURIA. Available from: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-06/cp150073en.pdf [Accessed 30 March 2022].
General Court of the European Union, 2018. Decision of the Court of Justice of 16 October 2018 on the lodging and service of procedural documents by means of e-Curia. Official Journal of the European Union [online], 20 November. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018D1120(01)&from=FR [Accessed 30 March 2022].
General Secretariat of the European Council, 2017. Working Party on the Court of Justice [online]. Council of the EU/European Council, 9 November. Available from: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/preparatory-bodies/working-party-court-justice/ [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Gloudemans-Voogd, N., 2015. Keuzes bij KEI: mijn zaak of het aansluitpunt. Advocatenblad [online], 7 July. Available from: https://www.advocatenblad.nl/2015/07/07/keuzes-bij-kei-mijn-zaak-of-het-aansluitpunt-2/ [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Gosain, S., 2004. Enterprise Information Systems as Objects and Carriers of Institutional Forces: The New Iron Cage? Journal of the Association for Information Systems [online], 5(4), 151–182. Available from: https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00049 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Groupes de travail du greffe de la Cour, 2008. e-Curia 0.3 – Spécifications fonctionnelles Luxembourg: CURIA.
Guarnieri, C., and Pederzoli, P., 2020. The Judicial System: The Administration and Politics of Justice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hildebrandt, M., 2008. Legal and Technological Normativity: more (and less) than twin Sisters. Techne: Research in Philosophy and Technology [online], 12(3), 169–183. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5840/techne20081232 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Hildebrandt, M., 2015. Smart Technologies and the End(s) of Law: Novel Entanglements of Law and Technology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Jacchia, M., ed., 2000. Il processo telematico: Nuovi ruoli e nuove tecnologie per un moderno processo civile, Bologna: Il Mulino.
Kallinikos, J., 2006. The Consequences of Information: Institutional Implications of Technological Change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Kallinikos, J., 2009. The regulative regime of technology. In: F. Contini and G.F. Lanzara, eds., ICT and innovation in the public sector: European studies in the making of e-government [online]. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 66–87. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230227293_4 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Katsh, E., and Rabinovich-Einy, O., 2017. Digital Justice Technology and the Internet of Disputes. Oxford University Press.
Ke, W., and Wei, K.K., 2008. Organizational culture and leadership in ERP implementation. Decision Support Systems [online], 45(2), 208–218. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2007.02.002 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Konina, A., 2020. Technology-Driven Changes in an Organizational Structure: The Case of Canada’s Courts Administration Service. International Journal for Court Administration [online], 11(2), Art. 6, page 1–13. Available from: https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.326 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Krenn, C., 2008. Self-Government at the Court of Justice of the European Union: A Bedrock for Institutional Success. German Law Journal [online], 19(7), 2007–30. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200023312 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Langbroek, P.M., 2010. Organisational Development of the Dutch Judiciary, between Accountability and Judicial Independence. International Journal For Court Administration [online], 2(2), 21–30. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.39 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Lanzara, G.F., 2009. Building digital institutions: ICT and the rise of assemblages in government. In: F. Contini and G.F. Lanzara, eds., ICT and innovation in the public sector: European studies in the making of e-government. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 9–49.
Lanzara, G.F., 2014. The Circulation of Agency in Judicial Proceedings: Designing for Interoperability and Complexity. In: F. Contini, and G.F. Lanzara, eds., The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice: Interoperability and Infrastructures for European Transborder Judicial Proceedings. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 3–32.
Lessig, L., 2007. Code and other laws of cyberspace. Version 2.0. New York: Basic Books.
Liccardo, P., 2004. Identità e contingenza del Processo Civile Telematico. In: S. Zan, ed., Tecnologia, organizzazione e giustizia: L’evoluzione del processo civile telematico. Bologna: Il Mulino, 31–58.
Luhmann, N., 1993. The sociology of risk. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Lupo, G., and Bailey, J., 2014. Designing and Implementing e-Justice Systems: Some Lessons Learned from EU and Canadian Examples. Laws [online], 3(2), 353–387. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/laws3020353 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
March, J.G., and Simon, H.H., 1958. Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Marinai, G., 2014. PCT, prime pronunce sulla validità degli atti in formato pdf-immagine e dei depositi telematici in assenza di decreto ministeriale autorizzativo. Questione Giustizia [online], 5 September. Available from: https://www.questionegiustizia.it/articolo/pct_prime-pronunce-sulla-validita-degli-atti-in-fo_05-09-2014.php [Accessed 30 March 2022].
McAfee, A., 2006. Mastering the Three Worlds of Information Technology. Harvard Business Review [online], November, 141–149. Available from: https://hbr.org/archive-toc/BR0611 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Minister van Veiligheid en Justitie, 2013. Programma Kwaliteit en Innovatie rechtspraak Brief van de Minister van Veiligheid en Justitie [online]. The Hague: Minister van Veiligheid en Justitie, Nr. 164. Available from: https://www.parlementairemonitor.nl/9353000/1/j9vvij5epmj1ey0/vjarfx21u8xn [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Ministero della Giustizia, 2016. e-Justice in Italy: the "Online Civil Trial". Rome: Ministero della Giustizia.
Ministero della Giustizia, 2020. Processo Telematico. Stato dell’arte al 31/12/2019. Rome: Ministero della Giustizia.
Momoh, A., Roy, R., and Shehab, E., 2010. Challenges in enterprise resource planning implementation: state-of-the-art. Business Process Management Journal [online], 16(4), 537–565. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/14637151011065919 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Nandhakumar, J., Rossi, M., and Talvinen, J., 2005. The dynamics of contextual forces of ERP implementation. Journal of Strategic Information Systems [online], 14(2), 221–242. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2005.04.002 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Ontanu, A.E., 2019. Adapting Justice to Technology and Technology to Justice. A Coevolution Process to e-Justice in Cross-border Litigation. European Quarterly of Political Attitudes and Mentalities [online], 8(2), 1–18. Available from: https://repub.eur.nl/pub/120004/Repub_120004_O-A.pdf [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Pagallo, U., Casanovas, P., and Madelin, R., 2019. The middle-out approach: assessing models of legal governance in data protection, artificial intelligence, and the Web of Data. The Theory and Practice of Legislation [online], 7(1), 1–25. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2019.1664543 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Pégny, M., Thelisson, E., and Ibnouhsein, I., 2019. The Right to an Explanation. An Interpretation and Defence. Delphi [online], 2(4), 161–166. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21552/delphi/2019/4/5 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Rechtspraak, 2018. Reset digitalisering van de Rechtspraak. The Hague.
Reiling, D., 2009. Technology for Justice: How Information Technology Can Support Judicial Reform. Leiden University Press.
Reiling, D., 2020. De rechtspraktijk, toepassing van AI in de Rechtspraak. Computerrecht [online], 1(6). Available from: https://home.hccnet.nl/a.d.reiling/html/Reiling%20Courts%20and%20AI%20v%201.0.pdf [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Reiling, D., 2021. Digital Justice, nice to have but hard to achieve. In: S.P. de Souza and M. Spohr, eds., Technology, Innovation and access to justice. Edinburgh University Press, 131–143.
Ritter, T., and Pedersen, C.L., 2020. Digitization capability and the digitalization of business models in business-to-business firms: Past, present, and future. Industrial Marketing Management [online], 86, 180–190. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.11.019 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Schmitz, A.J., 2021. Dangers of digitizing due process. In: K. Benyekhlef, ed., AI and Law: A Critical Overview. Montreal: Thémis, 99–137.
Seibert-Fohr, A., ed., 2012. Judicial independence in transition. Heidelberg: Springer.
Shapiro, M., 1981. Courts: A comparative and political analysis. University of Chicago Press.
Stake, R.E., 2006. Multiple Case Study Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.
Steelman, D.C., Goerdt, J., and McMillan, J.E., 2004. Caseflow management: The heart of court management in the new millennium. 3rd printing, with revisions. Williamsburg: National Center for State Courts (NCSC).
Stiegler, B., 2019. The Age of Disruption: Technology and Madness in Computational Capitalism Cambridge: Polity Press.
Susskind, R., 2019. Online courts and the future of justice. Oxford University Press.
Thompson, J.D., 1967. Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
TRConsult, 2018. Quick scan Review KEI. Review op risicobeheersing en basis succescondities voor grote ICT-trajecten [online]. 5 April. The Hague. Available from: https://www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/2018-rapport-review-commissie.pdf [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Uzelac, A., 2019. Supreme Courts in the 21st Century: should organisation follow the function? Studia Iuridica [online], 81, 125–138. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0013.5464 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Van den Borne, F., et al., 2021. Het stopzetten van KEI-civiel nader bezien: Een gordiaanse knoop? Maastricht: Boom juridisch.
Verzelloni, L., 2009. Dietro alla cattedra del giudice: Pratiche, prassi e occasioni di apprendimento. Bologna: Pendragon.
Voltaire, 2019. Commentaire sur le Livre des Délits et des Peines. Paris: Hachette. (Originally published in 1766).
Von Papp, K., 2018. The Role and Powers of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In: E. Guinchard and M.P. Granger, eds., The New EU Judiciary: An Analysis of Current Judicial Reforms. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer, 101–122.
Wallace, A., 2019. Ten Questions for Dory Reiling: Developing IT for Courts. International Journal for Court Administration [online], 10(1), 1–3. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.293 [Accessed 30 March 2022].
Yin, R.K., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Zan, S., ed., 2004. Tecnologia, organizzazione e giustizia: L’evoluzione del processo civile telematico. Bologna: Il Mulino.
##submission.downloads##
Argitaratuta
##submission.howToCite##
Zenbakia
Atala
##submission.license##
##submission.copyrightStatement##
##submission.license.cc.by-nc-nd4.footer##OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
