For Ukrainian citizens, access to justice should start with simple and seemingly basic things: the ability to file procedural documents online without unnecessary obstacles; join a hearing via video conferencing; review case files electronically; and be confident that the court is able to operate without interruprion even in times of crisis. When these basic elements are unavailable or unstable, access to justice and the enjoyment of the human right to a fair trial are negatively affected.

That is why the digital transformation of justice in Ukraine is not just a technical issue. It is a tool for strengthening the capacity and resilience of the judiciary, in particular under martial law, as well as in the context of fulfilling Ukraine’s European integration commitments.

Digitalisation of justice as an element of European integration

For the European Union, the digitalisation of justice is part of a broader modernisation of public administration. It is not about technology for technology’s sake, but about increasing the accessibility and transparency of justice, as well as the efficiency of court administration.

The e-court is not perceived as something isolated, but as part of a holistic judicial governance ecosystem that includes case management, court statistics and analytics, HR processes, and convenient interaction between courts and citizens. In its Digital Justice 2030 strategy, the European Commission emphasises that digital court systems should reduce delays, increase transparency and provide access to justice online, provided they are reliable, secure and institutionally sustainable.

Modern European standards also require court IT systems to be interoperable by default, with built-in mechanisms for data protection, cybersecurity and transparency. Judicial IT solutions handle large amounts of sensitive information, so compliance with the GDPR principles (General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, is the EU’s basic document on personal data protection) is considered in European practice as an indicator of the quality of the system architecture and professional data management.

For Ukraine, this means building a judicial IT infrastructure that is compatible with European approaches, where digital solutions are designed as a manageable and secure ecosystem, rather than a collection of individual modules. At the same time, the success of digital transformation is only possible with the coordinated participation of all stakeholders, as the real owner of the reform is the entire judiciary as a whole, not a single IT project or donor.

It is in this context that the Unified Judicial Information and Communication System (UJICS) plays a key role, as it is a comprehensive digital platform that ensures the functioning of the judicial system in an electronic format. At the current stage of its reform, the system is moving from fragmented IT solutions to a systemic strategic approach. The basis for this is the new concept of the UJICS development. It was formed on the basis of the findings of the functional and technical audits conducted with the support of international partners. The audits identified key weaknesses of the eCourt, such as limited integration, lack of strategic IT governance, and risks to the sustainability of the digital infrastructure.

Why it is important not to repeat the EU’s mistakes: failed cases of digital reforms and lessons learnt

The digital transformation of justice is one of the key conditions for Ukraine's accession to the EU. It is intended to make the judiciary more transparent, accessible and efficient. Its implementation is envisaged, in particular, by the Rule of Law Roadmap, which is a key instrument for fulfilling Ukraine’s European integration commitments within the negotiation cluster “EU Accession Framework”, which is the first to open and the last to close.

At the same time, Ukraine today has the opportunity to learn not only from successful European practices, but also from mistakes. Despite the overall high level of development, EU countries have also experienced unsuccessful attempts at digital modernisation of justice. Here are some illustrative examples.

The Netherlands: KEI programme. The large-scale programme Kwaliteit en Innovatie rechtspraak (KEI, or “Quality and Innovation of Justice”) was launched in 2013 with the aim of fully digitising the civil and administrative justice system in the Netherlands. However, it was in 2018, due to a lack of support from the judiciary and the decision of the Ministry of Justice to stop funding the project, that the KEI programme had to be curtailed.

The scale of the “simultaneous” reform proved to be excessive: constant changes in legislation, vague goals, and fragmented management led to cost overruns, delays, and eventual failure of the initiative.

The lesson learnt by the Dutch is that you should not try to implement “one big reform” at once. It is better to move gradually, implementing and testing solutions step by step in order to identify risks in time and gain the support of users.

Italy: “Civil Trial Online”. Italy’s first attempts to introduce e-justice (the Processo Civil Telematico project) also encountered difficulties. Initially, the system was designed as a highly complex, almost mirroring paper-based processes – with all the bureaucratic formalities simply transferred to a computer. This led to outright opposition from users (judges and lawyers) and a virtual blockage of implementation: people preferred to continue using paper rather than a complicated electronic service.

It was only by revising the approach – simplifying the system architecture, reducing the number of fields and procedures, and introducing a gradual rollout across the regions – that the Italians managed to “reboot” the reform, and eventually the electronic civil process became operational.

Lesson learned: digitalisation should simplify and optimise processes, rather than preserve their shortcomings in electronic form.

Portugal: Citius system. In 2014, Portugal simultaneously implemented several large-scale reforms: court remapping (court network), procedural legislation and introducing a new electronic system Citius. This "three-pronged" approach turned out to be a disaster: in September 2014, the Citius electronic system crashed, paralysing the courts for six weeks. The reform was implemented in a hurry, without proper financial and administrative support. The courts simply could not cope with the simultaneous load of changes - both organisational and technical.

Lesson learned: IT systems of justice should be implemented in stages with adequate resources. The entire system should not be “broken” at once – transition periods, backup plans, and gradual expansion of functionality are needed.

Despite the different national contexts, all these cases have one thing in common: digital reforms failed not because of a lack of technology, but because of managerial mistakes. At the same time, none of these countries has abandoned the digitalisation of justice as such. On the contrary, the failures became the basis for revising approaches: moving to a phased implementation, strengthening the role of users in system design, professionalising IT management, and realistic financial planning.

First challenges for Ukraine: sustainable funding and professional IT governance

One of the first challenges for the digital justice reform in Ukraine was the funding pause in 2024-2025. At the beginning of 2025, USAID suspended funding for a number of programmes, and e-court-related projects also fell under this “freeze”. As a result, the implementation of key e-court components was delayed for almost a year.

This experience has clearly demonstrated that digital justice cannot be developed as a set of one-off or donor-dependent projects. It requires medium- and long-term financial planning and ongoing investment not only in the development, but also in the maintenance, modernisation and cybersecurity of systems. At the same time, these costs should be viewed as a return on investment: digitalisation reduces paperwork, logistics and archiving costs; optimises court operations, and strengthens management decisions through analytics. In the long run, this means significant budgetary savings.

An equally important lesson was the crucial role of professional IT management. Even substantial resources are ineffective without a clear model: defined roles and responsibilities for digital products, system lifecycle management, and institutional capacity of the customer. This requires qualified personnel within the system – IT specialists, analysts, project managers – and the preservation of institutional memory in the State Enterprise “Information Court Systems”, the State Judicial Administration, and the courts.

These lessons – both from the European experience and from the Ukrainian practice of recent years – form the vision for the further implementation of the UJICS development strategy. We are talking about the transition:

• from project logic to a sustainable state policy in the field of digital justice
• from dependence on external funding to predictable multi-year budget planning
• from a technical approach to strong institutional IT governance as a permanent function of the judiciary.

Digital transformation of justice is a multi-year process that goes beyond a single budget or political cycle. In the context of European integration, Ukraine must demonstrate not only the launch of individual IT solutions, but also the ability to systematically manage the digital justice ecosystem and ensure its stable operation over the years.

The success of digital justice is determined not by technology, but by the quality of management decisions. The experience of EU countries shows that the biggest failures of digital reforms were caused not by a lack of resources, but by the absence of a clear strategy, responsibility and professional IT governance. For Ukraine, the implementation of the new concept of the UJICS should become just such a management project – focused on results, public trust, and real access to justice.

The text was first published in the regular blog of EU Project Pravo-Justice on LB.ua