Digitalization of judicial proceedings: The experience of regional integration organizations

The article examines the digital transformation of judicial processes within the following integration organizations: the European Union (EU), the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The relevance of the study stems from the fact that effective digitalization of justice has become a key prerequisite for the functioning of integration-based judicial mechanisms. Thus, cross-border disputes require unified electronic procedures, while disparities in the digital maturity of member states hinder access to justice and slow the development of a common legal space. The aim was to identify the institutional solutions, technological tools, and constraints characteristic of the digitalization of judicial processes in integration organizations. The methodological framework included a comparative legal approach, institutional analysis, as well as the examination of legal acts, strategic documents, and academic publications on digital justice issued between 2010 and 2024. The study revealed varying levels of digital maturity across the integration organizations in question. In the EU, the following elements have been implemented: the e-Curia unified electronic system, the e-Justice portal, and digital interaction with national courts. The main limitations include inconsistent technological standards among member states and the complexity of modernizing judicial infrastructure. In the EAEU, the following components have been implemented: electronic submission of applications to the EAEU Court, digital publication of its decisions, and pilot use of videoconferencing. The key obstacles are the absence of a unified digital platform for the Union and low interoperability among national IT systems. In MERCOSUR, digitalization is fragmented (electronic document management and remote hearings of arbitration bodies), yet there are no unified digital regulations or integration with national justice systems. In ASEAN, digitalization progresses exclusively within national initiatives, since the organization does not possess its own judicial body. Here, the main constraint is the impossibility of procedural harmonization due to the intergovernmental nature of ASEAN. The study concludes that digitalization can enhance transparency, accelerate judicial procedures, and improve cross-border access to justice. However, critical barriers persist, including inconsistent legal frameworks, the lack of common technological standards, and infrastructural asymmetry among member states.

1. Afanas'yev, S. F., Borisova, V. F., & Branovitskiy, K. L. (Eds.). (2022). Tsifrovyye tekhnologii i yurisdiktsionnaya deyatel'nost': Obraz budushchego pravosudiya po grazhdanskim delam: Monografiya [Digital technologies and jurisdictional activities: The future of civil justice: Monograph]. Statut.

2. Aleksandrov, O. B., & Butorina, O. V. (Eds.). (2016). Evropeyskaya integratsiya [European integration] (2nd ed.). Aspekt Press.

3. Anufriyeva, L. P., & Tolstykh, V. L. (Eds.). (2014). Instituty mezhdunarodnogo pravosudiya: Uchebnoye posobiye [Institutions of International Justice: A Study Guide]. Mezhdunarodnyye Otnosheniya.

4. Avila Paz de Robledo, R. A. (2007). Sistema de solución de controversias en el MERCOSUR bajo el régimen del Protocolo de Olivos, su reglamento con sus modificatorias y complementarias: Aspectos procesales [Dispute settlement system in MERCOSUR under the Olivos Protocol regime, its regulations with amendments and additions: Procedural aspects]. Anuario del CIJS, 308–328. https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r29555.pdf

5. Baimoldina, Z. K. (2025). Primeneniye informatsionnykh tekhnologiy v kazakhstanskom grazhdanskom sudoproizvodstve [Application of information technology in Kazakh civil proceedings]. Digital Law Journal, 5(4), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.38044/2686-9136-2024-5-3

6. Belyakova, A. V. (2024). «Ob'yektivnaya istina» v usloviyakh «tsifrovogo» pravosudiya [“Objective truth” in the context of “digital” justice]. Bulletin of the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, (5), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.24412/2073-0454-2024-5-12-19

7. Burdina, E. V., Zuyev, S. V. (Eds.). (2021). Elektronnoye pravosudiye [Electronic justice]. RGUP.

8. Diyachenko, E., & Entin, K. (2017). The Court of the Eurasian Economic Union: Challenges and perspectives. Russian Law Journal, 5(2), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.52783/rlj.v5i2.94

9. Entin, K. V. (2020). Pravo Evropeyskogo Soyuza skvoz' prizmu praktiki Suda Evropeyskogo Soyuza [European Union law through the lens of the practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union]. Statut.

10. Entin, M. L. (1984). Mezhdunarodnyye sudebnyye uchrezhdeniya: Rol' mezhdunarodnykh arbitrazhnykh i sudebnykh organov v razreshenii mezhgosudarstvennykh sporov [International judicial institutions: The role of international arbitration and judicial bodies in resolving interstate disputes]. Mezhdunarodnyye Otnosheniya.

11. Entin, M. L. (1987). Sud evropeyskikh soobshchestv: Pravovyye formy obespecheniya zapadnoyevropeyskoy integratsii [Court of Justice of the European Communities: Legal forms of ensuring Western European integration]. Mezhdunarodnyye Otnosheniya.

12. Fabri, M. (2024). From court automation to e-Justice and beyond in Europe. International Journal for Court Administration, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.640

13. Globenko, O. A. (2021). Tsifrovizatsiya, sudebnaya diskretsiya, priroda pravosudiya: Eshche raz o probleme balansa [Digitalisation, judicial discretion, the nature of justice: Revisiting the issue of balance]. Pravo i Gosudarstvo: Teoriya i Praktika, 7, 141–146.

14. Ispolinov, A. S. (2018). Sudy regional'nykh integratsionnykh ob'yedineniy v sisteme mezhdunarodnogo pravosudiya (na primere suda ES i suda EAES) [Courts of regional integration associations in the system of international justice (on example of the Court of justice of the EU and the Court of the EAEU)]. yustitsinform.

15. Kalamkaryan, R. A. (2011). Mezhdunarodnyy sud OON: Stanovleniye i razvitiye [International court of Justice. Formation and evolution]. Gosudarstvo i Pravo, 5, 62–71. https://doi.org/10.7868/S20000617-6-1

16. Kalamkaryan, R. A. (2012). Mezhdunarodnyy sud v miroporyadke na osnove gospodstva prava [International court in the world order based on the rule of law]. Nauka.

17. Kukartseva, A. N. (2023). Vliyaniye tsifrovizatsii na osushchestvleniye sudebnoy vlasti v Rossiyskoy Federatsii [The impact of digitalization on the exercise of judicial power in the Russian Federation]. Vestnik Kemerovskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnyye I Obshchestvennyye Nauki, 7(1), 112–118. https://doi.org/10.21603/2542-1840-2023-7-1-112-118

18. Laptev, V. A., & Solovyanenko, N. I. (2021). Tsifrovoe pravosudie. Tsifrovoi dokument [Digital justice. Digital document]. Prospekt.

19. Le, T. A. T. (2025). The impact of digital transformation on economic integration in ASEAN-6: Evidence from a Generalized Least Squares (GLS) model. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 18(4), Article 189. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18040189

20. Mikhaliova, T., & Vasilevich, G. (2023). Integration political and legal analysis of dispute resolution and prospects for digitalization of justice in the Eurasian Economic Union. WISDOM, 28(4), 190–200. https://doi.org/10.24234/wisdom.v28i4.1089

21. Neshatayeva, T. N. (2017). Sud Evraziyskogo ekonomicheskogo soyuza: Ot pravovoy pozitsii k deystvuyushchemu pravu [Eurasian Economic Union Court: From legal position to applicable law]. Mezhdunarodnoye Pravosudiye, 2, 64–79.

22. Neshatayeva, T. N. (2021). Sud i pravo: Evraziyskaya integratsiya [Justice and law: Eurasian integration]. Norma Infra-M.

23. Onţanu, E. A. (2023). (2020). The Digitalisation of European Union Procedures: A New Impetus Following a Time of Prolonged Crisis. Law, Technology and Humans, 5(1), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.2706

24. Pavlova, N. V. (2020). Rol' natsional'nogo pravosudiya v realizatsii prava Evraziyskogo ekonomicheskogo soyuza [The role of national justice in implementing the law of the Eurasian Economic Union]. In: N. N. Kulesh, A. S. Bugayeva, E. S. Orlova, E. E. Rafalyuk, E. E. Sadykov, A. A. Turekhanov, M. S. Shmelev (Eds.), Pyat' let Dogovoru o Evraziyskom ekonomicheskom soyuze: rol' Suda: Mezhdunaraya konferentsiya (19–20 sentyabrya 2019 g., g. Minsk): sbornik materialov (pp. 161–166). Medisont.

25. Reiling, D., & Contini, F. (2022). E-Justice platforms: Challenges for judicial governance. International Journal for Court Administration, 13(1), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.445

26. Sarpekov, R. K. (2020). O vzaimodeystvii Suda EAES s natsional'nymi organami gosudarstv — chlenov Soyuza (na primere Respubliki Kazakhstan): Praktika, problemy i puti dal'neyshego sovershenstvovaniya [On the interaction between the EAEU Court and the national authorities of the Union member states (using the Republic of Kazakhstan as an example): Practice, problems, and ways for further improvement]. In: N. N. Kulesh, A. S. Bugayeva, E. S. Orlova, E. E. Rafalyuk, E. E. Sadykov, A. A. Turekhanov, M. S. Shmelev (Eds.), Pyat' let Dogovoru o Evraziyskom ekonomicheskom soyuze: rol' Suda: Mezhdunaraya konferentsiya (19–20 sentyabrya 2019 g., g. Minsk): sbornik materialov (pp. 167–175). Medisont.

27. Schmidt-Kessen, M. J., Nogueira, R., & Cantero Gamito, M. (2020). Success or failure?—Effectiveness of consumer ODR platforms in Brazil and in the EU. Journal of Consumer Policy, 43(3), 659–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-020-09448-y

28. Shinkaretskaya, G. G. (1992). Mezhdunarodnaya sudebnaya protsedura [International judicial procedure]. Nauka.

29. Shundikov, K. V. (2023). Iskusstvennyy intellekt v rossiyskom pravosudii: Sostoyaniye i perspektivy [Artificial intelligence in Russian justice: Status and prospects]. Obrazovaniye i Pravo, (8), 315–321. https://doi.org/10.24412/2076-1503-2023-8-315-321

30. Smbatyan, A. S. (2012). Resheniya organov mezhdunarodnogo pravosudiya v sisteme mezhdunarodnogo publichnogo prava [Decisions of international judicial bodies in the system of public international law]. Statut.

31. Szlak, G. R. (2012). Online dispute resolution in Latin America: Challenges and opportunities. In: M. A. Wahab, D. Rainey, & E. Katsh (Eds.), Online dispute resolution: Theory and practice: A treatise on technology and dispute resolution (pp. 529–559). Eleven International Publishing.

32. Tolstykh, V. L. (2015). Mezhdunarodnyye sudy i ikh praktika: Uchebnoye posobiye [International courts and their practice: A study guide]. Mezhdunarodnyye Otnosheniya.

33. Tolstykh, V. L. (2023). Resheniya mezhdunarodnykh sudov: Treteyskiye sudy, Postoyannaya palata mezhdunarodnogo pravosudiya, Mezhdunarodnyy tribunal po morskomu pravu [Judgements, advisory opinions and orders of international courts: Arbitration tribunals, Permanent Court of International Justice, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea]. Mezhdunarodnyye Otnosheniya.

34. Zanin, V. E. (2023). Perspektivy razvitiya fenomena sudebnoy diskretsii v usloviyakh tsifrovizatsii: Kognitivnyy aspekt [The prospects for the development of the phenomenon of judicial discretion in the context of digitalization: A cognitive aspect]. Pravo i Gosudarstvo: Teoriya i Praktika, 7, 103–106. https://doi.org/10.47643/1815-1337-2023-7-103