Digitalization of administrative court proceedings: Russian and French experience

Prior to the advent of the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, digitalization of administrative court proceedings was not a prominent priority in Russia. However, subsequent to the emergence of this global health crisis, a series of unprecedented modifications were initiated. The regulation of administrative proceedings remains distinct from other procedural rules with regard to the implementation of digital technologies. For instance, admission to remote participation (web conferencing) depends not only on technical capabilities of a court but also on whether a judge deems such interaction feasible.  Another significant aspect of digitalization is the application of artificial intelligence, the implementation of which is still unclear in relation to existing procedural norms. This study aims to evaluate the current rules governing administrative judicial proceedings in Russia in terms of their readiness for digital transformation. To obtain valid results, the author compares these rules with those of foreign jurisdictions where the process of digitalization has commenced and achieved considerable success, with France serving as a notable example. Using the comparative legal method, the study establishes a conceptual framework, evaluates the legal regulations, and identifies options for addressing emerging legal issues. In Russia, the Code of Administrative Procedure imposes additional requirements for employing web conferencing. However, neither the law nor judicial practice has developed criteria for cases where personal presence is deemed necessary. This situation creates conditions for a violation of the right to a remedy, as it arbitrarily restricts litigants’ rights. Furthermore, if remote participation is not approved, disputing parties are left with the “old” set of legal instruments, depriving them of many advantages associated with remote access, which could reduce material and time costs. In contrast, France does not face this issue, as the idea of real cost reduction has been enshrined in law. Additionally, foreign experiences in implementing artificial intelligence are significant, as Russian domestic law does not adequately address this matter. Despite the long-standing availability of court decisions in Russia for public scrutiny, a significant market for services related to predictive justice remains non-existent, in contrast to the prevalent market dynamics observed in France. The article’s conclusion asserts the urgency of implementing artificial intelligence to prevent the privatization of justice administration by private entities. In the absence of such measures, the principles of judicial independence and impartiality may be compromised, resulting in a violation of constitutional guarantees.

1. Afanas’eva, S. I., & Dobrovlyanina, O. V. (2023). O vnedrenii, razvitii, usovershenstvovanii elektronnykh sposobov sobiraniya dokazatel’stvennoy informatsii po ugolovnym delam [On the introduction, development, improvement of electronic methods of collecting evidentiary information in criminal cases]. Vestnik Permskogo Universiteta. Juridicheskie Nauki [Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences], (2), 349–377. https://doi.org/10.17072/1995-4190-2023-60-349-377

2. Branovitskiy, K. L., Renc, I. G., & Yarkov, V. V. (2020). Sudebnoe pravotvorchestvo v usloviyakh pandemii koronavirusa: Nonsens ili neobkhodimost’? [Judicial rule-making in the context of coronavirus pandemic: Absurdity or necessity?]. Zakon, (5), 107–117.

3. Branovitskiy, K. L., & Yarkov, V. V. (2021). Vozmozhnye napravleniya transformatsii tsivilisticheskogo processa v usloviyakh tsifrovizatsii i pandemii: Prediktivnoe pravosudie [Possible ways of the civil procedure transformation under digitalization and pandemic: Predictive justice]. Russian Law: Education, Practice, Research, (4), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.34076/2410_2709_2021_4_19

4. Diallo, I. (2020). Les enjeux de la justice prédictive [The challenges of predictive justice]. HAL Archives. 1–8. https://hal.science/hal-02563645/document

5. Duflot, A. (2024). Artificial intelligence in the French law of 2024. Legal Issues in the Digital Age, 5(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.17323/2713-2749.2024.1.37.56

6. du Marais, B., & Gras, A. (2016). La cyberjustice, enjeu majeur pour la qualité de la justice administrative [Cyberjustice, a major issue for the quality of administrative justice]. Revue Française d'Administration Publique, 159(3), 789–806. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfap.159.0789

7. Épineuse, H., & Garapon, A. (2018). Les défis d’une justice à l’ère numérique de “stade 3” [The challenges of “stage 3” justice in the digital age]. Annales des Mines — Enjeux numériques, 3(3), 16–19. https://stm.cairn.info/revue-enjeux-numeriques-2018-3-page-16?lang=fr

8. Galkovskaia, N. G., & Kukartseva, A. N. (2024). Otsenka perspektiv i riskov ispol ‘zovaniia iskusstvennogo intellekta v sfere pravosudiia [Assessment of prospects and risks of using artificial intelligence in the field of justice]. Vestnik Grazhdanskogo Protsessa [Herald of Civil Procedure], 14(2), 257–282. https://doi.org/10.24031/2226-0781-2024-14-2-257-282

9. Gritsenko, E. V., & Yaluner, Yu. A. (2020). Pravo na sudebnuyu zashchitu i dostup k sudu v usloviyakh informatizatsii i tsifrovizatsii: znachenie opyta stran obs hchego prava dlya Rossii [Right to judicial protection and access to court in the era of digitalization: Value of experience in common law countries for Russia]. Sravnitel’noe Konstitutsionnoe Obozrenie, 29(3), 97–129. https://doi.org/10.21128/1812-7126-2020-3-97-129

10. Kashkarova, I. N. (2023). Processual’nye riski pri uchastii v sudebnom zasedanii putem ispol’zovanija sistemy veb-konferentsii: Pervyj opyt pravoprimenenija [Procedural risks of participating in a court session by using a web conference system: The first experience of law enforcement]. Zakon, (4), 172–187. https://doi.org/10.37239/0869-4400-2023-20-4-172-187

11. Kostsov, V. N. (2021). Pravovaia priroda sposobov pravovoi zashchity cherez prizmu mezhdunarodnogo grazhdanskogo protsessa [Nature of legal relief through the lens of international civil procedure]. Vestnik Grazhdanskogo Protsessa [Herald of Civil Procedure], 11(4), 179–228. https://doi.org/10.24031/2226-07812021-11-4-179-228

12. Laptev, V. A., & Feyzrakhmanova, D. R. (2024). Application of artificial intelligence in justice: Current trends and future prospects. Human-Centric Intelligent Systems, 4(3), 394–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44230024-00074-2

13. Mingaleev, P. R. (2023). Praktika primeneniya elektronnykh instrumentov uchastnikami arbitrazhnogo protsessa [Application of electronic tools by participants in commercial proceedings]. Digital Law Journal, 4(1), 86–128. https://doi.org/10.38044/2686-9136-2023-4-1-86-128

14. Momotov, V. V. (2021). Elektronnoe pravosudie v Rossiyskoy Federatsii: Mif ili real’nost’ [E-justice in the Russian Federation: Myth or reality]. Rossijskaja Yustitsiya, (7), 10–13. https://doi.org/10.52433/01316761_2021_7_2

15. Neznamov, A. V. (2024). Iskusstvennyi intellekt, edinoobrazie sudebnoi praktiki i tvorcheskii kharakter sudebnoi deiatel’nosti [Artificial intelligence, uniformity of judicial practice and the creative nature of judicial activity]. Vestnik Grazhdanskogo Protsessa [Herald of Civil Procedure], 14(2), 90–106. https://doi.org/10.24031/2226-0781-2024-14-2-90-106

16. Novopashina, N. N. (2024). Voprosy realizatsii sudoproizvodstva v distantsionnom formate [Issues of implementation of legal proceedings in a remote format]. Rossiyskiy Sud’ya, (11), 2–6. https://doi.org/10.18572/18123791-2024-11-2-6

17. Nouri, Z., Ben Salah, W., & AlOmrane, N. (2024). Artificial intelligence and administrative justice: An analysis of predictive justice in France. Hasanuddin Law Review, 10(2), 119–143. https://doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v10i2.5541

18. Pécaut-Rivolier, L., & Robin, S. (2023). Justice et intelligence artificielle: réconcilier l'irréconciliable? [Justice and artificial intelligence: Reconcile the irreconcilable?]. Statistique et Société, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.4000/statsoc.856

19. Fedorova, A. S., & Porokhov, M. Ju. (2024). Iskusstvennyi intellekt v sudebnoy dejatel’nosti — ot idei k primeneniyu [Artificial intelligence in judicial activity — from idea to application]. Rossiyskiy Sud’ya, (8), 57–61. https://doi.org/10.18572/1812-3791-2024-8-57-61

20. Staritsyn, A. Y. (2024). Iskusstvennyi intellekt v grazhdanskom sudoproizvodstve [Artificial intelligence in civil proceedings]. Rossiyskiy Sud’ya, (11), 57–61. https://doi.org/10.18572/1812-3791-2024-11-57-61

21. Tetyuev, S. V. (2023). Realizatsiya prava na oposredovannoe uchastie v sudebnom zasedanii v administrativnom sudoproizvodstve. [Realization of the right to indirect participation in a court session in administrative proceedings]. Zhurnal Rossijskogo Prava, 26(8), 108–118. https://doi.org/10.12737/jrl.2022.087

22. Tifine, P. (2022). V poiskakh yuridicheskogo statusa publichnykh algoritmov: Tekushhee polozhenie del i perspektivy vo francuzskom prave [Public algorithms legal status research: Current situation and prospects under French law] (D. S. Kurochkina, Trans.). Zakon, (10), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.37239/0869-4400-202219-10-175-185

23. Velicogna, M., Errera, A., & Derlange, S. (2013). Building e-justice in continental Europe: The TéléRecours experience in France. Utrecht Law Review, 9(1), 38–59. https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.211