Katarina Knol Radoja, Dinka Šago

TRANSPARENCY OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN THE DIGITAL AGE

Introduction

Transparency of civil proceedings in the digital age. Examines civil proceedings transparency in the digital age. Boosts judicial efficiency, public trust, but faces data protection and privacy challenges in modern digital court systems.

Abstract

This paper examines the significance of the principle of publicity in civil proceedings, highlighting its role in promoting transparency, accessibility, and the openness of the judiciary. The principle of publicity enhances the efficiency of the judicial system and fosters public trust in the courts by enabling citizens to monitor court operations, thereby ensuring societal oversight of judicial processes. Public access to court proceedings and judgments also has a positive impact on judges, contributing to their accountability and compliance with the rules of civil procedural law. Court hearings and judgments are public, except in cases involving the protection of privacy, national security, or other exceptional circumstances. In such instances, the court may decide to exclude the public to safeguard the interests of justice. The digitalisation of court proceedings represents a crucial step toward the modernisation of European judiciary systems, significantly enhancing the transparency of the judicial system and enabling faster and easier access to court information, thereby promoting a more efficient realisation of the principle of publicity. Through digital tools, courts can reduce administrative obstacles and expedite case processing, contributing to more efficient proceedings and reducing the workload of judges and other judicial personnel. Additionally, digitalisation provides citizens with easier and more direct access to court processes, further strengthening their trust in the judicial system. However, due to the digitalisation of judicial proceedings, modern challenges arise, where such digital tools sometimes allow access to a larger number of individuals, despite confidentiality markings on documents. This presents a challenge in terms of data protection and information security in civil proceedings. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the use of digital technology does not undermine the procedural guarantees of other, diametrically opposed rights. In conclusion, the need for further improvement and more precise legal solutions is therefore emphasized to ensure effective protection of privacy and confidentiality of data in the context of digitalisation.

Review

This paper effectively addresses the highly relevant and critical issue of transparency in civil proceedings within the rapidly evolving digital age. It commences by establishing the foundational significance of the principle of publicity, underscoring its pivotal role in fostering judicial transparency, accessibility, and public trust. The abstract clearly articulates how public oversight enhances accountability and efficiency within the judicial system, positioning the principle as a cornerstone of modern jurisprudence. The paper commendably highlights the positive transformative potential of digitalisation, viewing it as a crucial step towards modernising European judiciaries, streamlining processes, reducing administrative burdens, and ultimately providing citizens with easier access to court information. The core strength of the paper lies in its identification and clear exposition of the inherent tension arising from the digitalisation of civil proceedings. While digital tools significantly advance the principle of publicity by offering unprecedented access, the paper astutely points out the emerging modern challenges related to data protection and information security. It notes the critical concern that digital access, despite confidentiality markings, can lead to the unintended dissemination of sensitive information to a larger audience. This brings into sharp focus the complex dilemma of balancing the constitutional right to a public trial with the equally vital rights to privacy and confidentiality, which the abstract aptly describes as "diametrically opposed rights." In its conclusion, the paper rightfully emphasizes the pressing need for further improvement and more precise legal solutions to safeguard privacy and data confidentiality amidst increasing digitalisation. While the abstract powerfully frames this modern challenge, a more detailed exploration of specific technological safeguards, refined legal frameworks, or comparative analyses of how different jurisdictions are tackling this intricate balance would likely enrich the paper's overall contribution. Nevertheless, the paper's timely identification of this critical intersection between technological advancement and fundamental procedural guarantees makes it a valuable and pertinent contribution to the ongoing discourse on judicial reform in the digital era.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.