Judicial Reform in the Era of Digital Democracy from the Perspective of Ensuring the Rule of Law: The Perspective from Poland and Lithuania
Abstrakt
In this article, we explore the complex challenges and opportunities arising from the digital transformation of the judiciary in the context of modern democratic societies, with a particular focus on Poland and Lithuania. As digital tools increasingly shape how justice is administered, ensuring the rule of law, transparency, and fair trials remains a central concern. We analyse the legal, institutional, and technological aspects of judicial reforms, including the use of remote hearings, algorithmic decision-making, online access to court services, and the risks of digital exclusion. Drawing on European standards, we highlight the need to strike a careful balance between innovation and fundamental rights. By examining recent legislative initiatives, court practices, and comparative insights from both countries, this article contributes to the broader discourse on the legitimacy, efficiency, and accountability of digital justice systems in a democratic setting.Bibliografia
Academy of European Law (ERA) (2025). Advanced Training in EU Law for Judges and Prosecutors: Preliminary Ruling Procedure, Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law (Vilnius, 12–14 May 2025)
Balcerzak, M., & Kapelańska-Pręgowska, J. (2024). Artificial intelligence and international human rights law: Developing standards for a changing world. Edward Elgar. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollbook oa/book/9781035337934/9781035337934.xml
Bartoszek, M. (2022). Application of artificial intelligence in the judiciary in the light of the principle of effective judicial protection. Folia Iuridica Universitatis Wratislaviensis, 11(1), p. 8–29. https://bibliotekacyfrowa.pl/Content/133810/PDF/Folia_Iuridica_Universitatis_Wratislaviensis_2022_vol_11_no_1.pdf?
Chałubińska-Jentkiewicz, K. (2019) Komentarz do art. 48 CyberbezpU. In W. Kitler, J. Taczkowska-Olszewska, & F. Radoniewicz (Eds.), Ustawa o krajowym systemie cyberbezpieczeństwa. Komentarz (pp. 292–302). Warsaw.
Clifford Chance and Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (2021). New technologies. New justice. New questions. Implementation of new technologies in the justice system. Clifford Chance and Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights. https://hfhr.pl/upload/2021/09/raportnn_en1ocoscreen_1.pdf?
Constitution of the Republic of Poland (Journal of Laws of 1997, no. 78, item 483).
Council of the European Union (2001). Council Decision 2001/470/EC of 28 May 2001 establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 174, 27.6.2001, p. 25–31.
Council of Europe. (n.d.) TITLE. https://search.coe.int/cm#{%22CoEIdentifier%22:[%2209000016805b1524%22], %22sort%22:[%22CoEValidationDate%20Descending%22Dolniak, P., Kuźma T., Ludwiński, A., & Wasik, K. (2024). Sztuczna inteligencja w wymiarze sprawiedliwości. Między prawem a algorytmami. Wolters Kluwer Polska
Eltis, K. (2023). Judicial independence and the corporate ‘custodians’ of digital tools: A call to scrutinize reliance on private platforms as ‘essential infrastructure’. In C. Castets-Renard & J. Eynard (Eds.), Artificial intelligence law between sectoral rules and comprehensive regime: Comparative law (pp. 1–12). Bruylant. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4599274
European Commission. (2025, 16 January). European e-justice strategy 2024–2028 (O. J. C 2025/437). https://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/437/oj
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2018). European ethical charter on the use of artificial intelligence in judicial systems and their environment. https://www.europarl.europa. eu/cmsdata/196205/COUNCIL%20OF%20EUROPE%20-%20European%20Ethical%20Charter%20on%20the%20use%20of%20AI%20in%20judicial%20systems.pdf
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2021). Guidelines on electronic court filing (e-filing) and digitalisation of courts (CEPEJ(2021)15). https://rm.coe.int/e-filing-en/1680b2calcEuropean
Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ). (2017, 31 March). Justice seminar in the District Court of Amsterdam. https://www.encj.eu/articles/87
European Parliament. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and Repealing Directive 95/46/EC (GDPR).
European Parliament. (2022). Decision (EU) 2022/2481 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 Establishing the Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030 (O. J. L 323, 19.12.2022, pp. 4–26).
European Parliament (2022), Decision (EU) 2022/2081 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 establishing the 2030 Policy Programme ‘Path to the Digital Decade’, OJ L 323, 19.12.2022, pp. 4–26.European Parliament. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence and Amending Certain Legislative Acts (Artificial Intelligence Act) (O. J. L 1689/1).
European Union. (1950). European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (O. J. C 2010/83, p. 389).
European Union. (2000). Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed on 7 December 2000, OJ C 364, 18.12.2000, pp. 1–22.
European Union. (2005.) The Hague Programme: Strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, European Council, 4–5 November 2004, OJ C 53, 3.3.2005, pp. 1–14.
European Union. (2014.) Regulation (EU) no. 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on Electronic Identification and Trust Services for Electronic Transactions in the Internal Market and Repealing Directive 1999/93/EC (OJ 2014 L 257).
Fik, P., & Staszczyk, P. (2022). Sztuczna inteligencja w unijnej koncepcji e-sprawiedliwości – teoria i możliwy wpływ na praktykę. Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 7, 4–9.
Friedland, L. A. (1996). Electronic democracy and the new citizenship. Media, Culture & Society, 18(2), 185–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/016344396018002002
Gaubienė, N. (2023). Digital transformation of enforcement procedures of court decisions and search for efficiency. Przegląd Prawa Egzekucyjnego, 7, 7–36.
Gov.pl. (2021, 16 September). System Losowego Przydziału Spraw wyeliminował patologie w sądownictwie. https://www.gov.pl/web/sprawiedliwosc/system-losowego-przydzialu-spraw-wyeliminowal-patologie-w-sadownictwie
Gov.pl. (n.d.). E-doręczenia: Harmonogram. https://www.gov.pl/web/e-doreczenia/harmonogram
Gov.pl. (2022, 22 October). Wyszukiwarka raportów z Systemu Losowego Przydziału Spraw. https://www.gov.pl/web/sprawiedliwosc/wyszukiwarka-raportow-z-systemu-losowego-przydzialu-spraw
Gov.pl. (2024, 1 August). Rewolucja w regulacji: wchodzi w życie Akt o AI. https://www.gov.pl/web/ai/rewolucja-w-regulacji-wchodzi-w-zycie-akt-o-ai
Greičienė, J. (2023, 20 October). Development of digital technologies increases the accessibility of the justice system. Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania. https://tm.lrv.lt/en/news/jurga-greiciene-development-of-digital-technologies-increases-the-accessibility-of-the-justice-system
Hagen, M. (1997). A typology of electronic democracy. http://martin-hagen.net/publikationen/elektronische-demokratie/typology-of-electronic-democracy/
Horváth, M., Hlásny, M., & Krásna, S. (2025). Strengthening the rule of law for the future of democracy: Anticipated trends in law in the digital era. Acta Educationis Generalis, 15, pp. 106–120. https://
doi.org/10.2478/atd-2025–0017
Institute of Law at the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences. (n.d.). News: A new article by Institute researchers examines AI applications and development trends in the judicial systems of the Baltic
States. https://teise.org/en/20250423–2
Janssen, M., & van den Hoven, J. (2015). Big and Open Linked Data (BOLD) in government: A challenge to transparency and privacy? Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 363–368. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.11.007
Jastrzębska, K. (2018). Elektroniczna administracja jako narzędzie wdrażania zmian organizacyjnych. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. .
Judicial Council of Lithuania. (2024, 27 September Teisėjų taryba (2024 m. rugsėjo 27 d.). Nutarimas Nr. 13P-134-(7.1.2) „Dėl 2025 metų teisėjų mokymo programų patvirtinimo ir Teisėjų tarybos 2024 m. sausio 26 d. nutarimo Nr. 13P-12-(7.1.2) „Dėl įvadinių teisėjų mokymo programų patvirtinimo“ pripažinimo netekusiu galios“. Vilnius. https://www.teismai.lt/data/public/uploads/2024/10/tt-nutarimas-ir-mokymu-programos.pdf
Karolczuk, J. (2018). Informatyzacja postępowania sądowego. Szanse i zagrożenia, Młody Jurysta – numer specjalny – I Konferencja Młodych Naukowców Prawa Administracyjnego, 4, 37.
Kotalczyk, M. (2021). Artificial intelligence in the service of the Polish court: Proposed solutions. Iustitia, 2, 61.
Kulesza, C. (2021). Rozprawa zdalna oraz zdalne posiedzenie aresztowe w świetle konwencyjnego standardu praw oskarżonego. Białostockie Studia Prawnicze, 26(3), pp. 75–92.
Lietuvos Teismai. (2024, 18 November). Naujienos: Lietuvos Aukščiausiajame Teisme pristatytas Teismo dirbtinio intelekto įrankis ‘TeDIA’. https://www.lat.lt/naujienos/lietuvos-auksciausiajame-teisme-pristatytas-teismo-dirbtinio-intelekto-irankis-tedia/1869
Limantė, A., Šukytė, M., & Gaubienė, N. (2025). Dirbtinis intelektas teismuose: teorija, praktika ir teisinis reguliavimas, Vilnius. https://teise.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/DI_teismuose.pdf
Małecka-Łyszczek, M. (2024). Aksjologiczne umocowanie inkluzji cyfrowej. In A. Gryszczyńska, G. Szpor, & W. Wiewiórowski (Eds.), Internet. Solidarność cyfrowa. Digital solidarity (pp. 45–60). C.H. Beck Polska.
Minister of Justice in Poland (2017), Regulation of the Minister of Justice of 28 December 2017 – Rules of Procedure of Common Courts (Journal of Laws 2017, item 2487).
Minister of Justice in Poland. (2019). Ordinance of 18.06.2019: Regulations of the Official Procedure of Common Courts (Journal of Laws of 2024, no. 867).
Minister of Justice in Poland. (2023). The order of the Minister of Justice of 16 October 2023 on the Establishment of an Interdisciplinary Team for the Implementation of Modern Technologies (Official Journal of the Minister of Justice 2023, item 196).
Minister of Justice in Poland. (2024). The order of the Minister of Justice of 17 October 2024 Amending the Order on the Establishment of an Interdisciplinary Team for the Implementation of Modern Technologies (Official Journal of the Minister of Justice 2024, item 252),
Minister of Justice in Poland. (2025). The order of the Minister of Justice of 19 February 2025 Amending the Order on the Establishment of an Interdisciplinary Team for the Implementation of Modern Technologies (Official Journal of the Minister of Justice 2025, item 10).
Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości. (n.d.). Automatyzacja i cyfryzacja postępowań sądowych wyniki badania w sądach. Pp. 1–102. https://www.si-dla-sprawiedliwosci.gov.pl/publikacja-ms-raport-z-badania-oczekiwan-w-zakresie-automatyzacji/
Mukhtar, M., & Siddiqah, A. (2024, 22 October). Critically evaluate the use of AI in judicial proceedings.http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4995240
Mummalaneni, V., & Challa C. (2024). ICT and access to justice: The role of telelaw in empowering vulnerable populations. Global Journal of Business Disciplines, 8(1), pp. 78–90.
Musiał-Karg, M., & Kapsa, I. (2020). Attitudes of Polish voters towards introduction of e-voting in the context of political factors. In S. D. J. Barbosa, J. Filipe, A. Ghosh, I. Kotenko, & L. Zhoum (Eds.), E-democracy – Safeguarding democracy and human rights in the digital age: 8th international conference, e-democracy 2019 Athens, Greece, December 12–13, 2019 proceedings (pp. 137–148). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978–3-030–37545-4_11
Pianini, D., & Omicini, A. (2019). Democratic process and digital platforms: An engineering perspective. In P. Contucci, A. Omicini, D. Pianini, & A. Sîrbu (Eds.), The future of digital democracy: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 69–84). https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3-030–05333-8
Porębski, L. (2013). Rozwój elektronicznej administracji jako element zróżnicowania regionalnego. Studia Regionalne i Lokalne, 3, 5–23.
Portal Samorządowy. (2025, 19 March). Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości przedstawiło plany dot. cyfryzacji sądownictwa. https://www.portalsamorzadowy.pl/polityka-i-spoleczenstwo/ministerstwo-sprawiedliwosci-przedstawilo-plany-dot-cyfryzacji-sadownictwa,603091.html
Pytlewska, M. (2019). The random case allocation system as a guarantee of the impartial right to a court in the context of the European Union recommendations. Prawo w Działaniu Sprawy Cywilne, 40, 268.
Reiling, D. (2009). Technology for justice: How information technology can support judicial reform. Leiden University Press and Amsterdam University Press.
Rejmaniak, R. (2021). Bias in artificial intelligence systems. Białostockie Studia Prawnicze, 26(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.15290/bsp.2021.26.03.12
Rojek-Socha, P. (2025, 4 April). Polak: Jeszcze w 2025 roku cyfrowy Sąd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów. Prawo.pl. https://www.prawo.pl/prawnicy-sady/cyfryzacja-sadow-apelacja-przez-portal-
informacyjny-wywiad-z-grzegorzem-polakiem,532330.html
Ronchi, A. M. (2019). E-democracy: Toward a new model of (inter)active society. Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3-030–01596-1
Sejm of Poland (2005). Act of 17 February 2005 on the Computerization of the Activities of Entities Performing Public Tasks (Journal of Laws of 2005, no. 64, item 565). Sieber, U. (2001). The emergence of information law. In E. Lederman & E. Shampira (Eds.), Law, information and information technology (pp. 1–36Kluwer Law International.
Skoczylas, D. (2023). Krajowy system cyberbezpieczeństwa. C.H. Beck Polska.
Socol de la Osa, D. U., & Remolina, N. (2024). Artificial intelligence at the bench: Legal and ethical challenges of informing – or misinforming – judicial decision-making through generative A. I. Data & Policy, 6, e59. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2024.53
Squeo, G. (2023). The design of digital democracy. Springer Textbooks in Law. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3-031–36946-9
Susskind, R. E. (2019). Online courts and the future of justice. Oxford University Press.
Szostek, D. (2021a). Is the traditional method of regulation (the legislative act) sufficient to regulate artificial intelligence, or should it also be regulated by an algorithmic code? Białostockie Studia Prawnicze, 36(3), 45.
Szostek, D. (Ed.). (2021b). Legal tech. Czyli jak bewzpiecznie korzystać z narzędzi informatycznych w organizacji, w tym w kancelarii oraz dziale prawnym. C.H. Beck Polska pp. 1–480
Vėbraitė, V. (2020). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on court proceedings in Lithuania. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 2–3, 156–159. https://doi:10.33327/AJEE-18–3.2–3-n000032
Vėbraitė, V., & Strikaitė-Latušinskaja, G. (2023). Digitalization of justice in Lithuania. In Vėbraitė, V., & Strikaitė-Latušinskaja, G. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on justice systems: Reconstruction or erosion of justice systems (pp. 223–234). V&R unipress. https://doi.org/10.14220/9783737015820.223
Viegas, R. B., Abrucio, F. L., Loureiro, M. R. G., Teixeira, M. A. C., & Borali, N. (2022). The communication of courts of accounts and prosecution services on social media: The challenges of accountability
in the digital democracy. Brazilian Journal of Public Administration, 56, pp. 342–348http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0034–761220210320x
Working Group on Artificial Intelligence, Subgroup on Ethics and Law. (2023). Report: Rekomendacje dotyczące wykorzystania sztucznej inteligencji w sądownictwie i prokuraturze (eng. Recommendations on the use of artificial intelligence in the judiciary and prosecutor’s office). Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Poland..
Wrzaszcz, P. (2023). E-justice in Poland: Polish experiences. Teka Komisji Prawniczej PAN Oddział w Lublinie, 16(1). Pp. 381–398 https://ojs.academicon.pl/tkppan/article/view/5288
