ONLINE COURT AS A PLATFORM FOR SMALL CLAIMS PROCEEDINGS IN TERMS OF THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IN CIVIL PROCEDURE

Author
, Dr. of Legal Science, Head of the Department of Civil Procedure, Arbitration and International Private Law, Kharkiv

In heading

 Law;

Signed print

 07.09.2023

Issues number

 2023-№3 (54)

Page

 77-92

Type of articles

 Scientific article

Code UDK

 347.91/.95:004

ISSN print

 2411-5584

Abstract

 The article is devoted to analyzing the online courts as a platform for small claims proceedings in civil cases. The author describes the concept of “e-justice”, which involves e-filing, electronic systems of assignment of cases, e-case-management, eDiscovery, ODR, electronic systems for court practice, and using Artificial Intelligence (AI) in civil proceedings. The article describes two main approaches to the ODR concept – narrow and broad. In terms of the broad approach the author describes different types of online courts for small claims, particularly Online Civil Resolution Tribunal (British Columbia, Canada), Online Solutions Court (Great Britain), etc. The author analyzes current innovations in the structure of online courts, connected with integrating information systems and online ADR into online court platforms. Special attention is paid to the guaranties of the right to a fair trial in online courts.

Keywords

 Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), online court, small claims, fair trial, e-justice, cyberjustice, digital justice.

Reviewer

External reviewer

Article in PDF

 77-92

Bibliography

 1. Baumann, B. (2002). Electronic Dispute Resolution (EDR) and the development of internet activities. Syracuse Law Review, 52(4), 1227–1242.
2. Bordone, R. C. (1998). Electronic Online Dispute Resolution: A systems approach – Potential, problems, and a proposal. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 3, 175–212.
3. Boscheinen-Duursma, H. Ch., & Khanyk-Pospolitak, R. (2019). Austrian and Ukrainian comparative study of e-justice: Towards conference of judicial rights protection. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 4, 42–59.
4. Cashman, P., & Ginnivan, E. (2019). Digital Justice: Online resolution of Minor Civil Disputes and the use of digital technology in complex litigation and class actions. Macquarie Law Journal, 19, 39–80.
5. Access to justice and the Internet: Potential and challenges: Resolution 2081 (2015) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-EN.asp?fileid=22283
6. Opinion No. (2011)14 of the Consultative Council of European Judges CCJE “Justice and information technologies (IT)”: Adopted by the CCJE at its 12th plenary meeting (Strasbourg, 7–9 November 2011): CCJE(2011)2 Final. https://rm.coe.int/168074816b
7. Dimitrov, G. G. (2013). E-justice as adopted in Bulgaria. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 10, 97–103.
8. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice. (2017). Guidelines on how to drive change towards cyberjustice: Stock-taking of tools deployed and summary of good practices. As adopted at the 28th meeting of the CEPEJ on 7 December 2016. https://edoc.coe.int/en/efficiency-of-justice/7501-guidelines-on-how-to-drive-change-towardscyberjustice-stock-taking-of-tools-deployed-and-summary-of-good-practices.html
9. Case of Fexler v. Sweden (Application no. 36801/06), Judgement, 13 October 2011 (ECHR). http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-106918
10. Fredriksen, H. H., & Strandberg, M. (2016). Is e-justice reform of Norwegian civil procedure finally happening. Oslo Law Review, 3(2), 72–88.
11. Case of Fröbrich v. Germany (Application no. 23621/11), Judgement, 16 March 2017. ECHR). http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-171971
12. Haloush, H. A. (2008). Internet infrastructure and Online Alternative Dispute Resolution. John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law, 25(2), 217–240.
13. Haloush, H. A., & Malkawi, B. (2008). Internet characteristics and Online Alternative Dispute Resolution. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 13(2), 327–348.
14. Kastner, Ph. (2017). Transitional justice + Cyberjustice = Justice. Leiden Journal of International Law, 30(3), 753–770.
15. Brigs, J. (2016, July). Civil courts structure review: Final report. Judiciary of England and Wales. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-сontent/uploads/2016/07/civil-courtsstructure-review-final-report-jul-16-final-1.pdf
16. Lupo, G., & Bailey, J. (2014). Designing and implementing e-justice systems: Some lessons learned from EU and Canadian examples. Laws, 3(2), 353–387.
17. Online Dispute Resolution Advisory Group (2015). Online Dispute Resolution for low value civil claims: Report. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Online-Dispute-Resolution-Final-Web-Version1.pdf
18. Rabinovich-Einy, O. (2006). Balancing the skales: The Ford-Firestone case, the Internet, and the future Dispute Resolution Landscape. Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 6, 1–53.
19. Rabinovich-Einy, O., & Katsh, E. (2014) Digital justice: Reshaping boundaries in an Online Dispute Resolution environment. International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, 1(1), 5–36.
20. Rabinovich-Einy, O., & Katsh, E. (2017). Access to digital justice: Fair and efficient processes for the modern age. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 18(3), 637–658.
21. Rabinovich-Einy, O., & Katsh, E. (2017). The new new courts. American University Law Review, 67(1), 165–215.
22. Rule, C. (2016). Is ODR ADR: A response to Carrie Menkel-Meadow. International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, 3(1), 8–11.
23. Salter, Sh. (2017). Online Dispute Resolution and justice system integration: British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, 34(1), 112–129.
24. Salter, Sh., & Thompson, D. (2017). Public-centered civil justice redesign: A case study of the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal. McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution, 3, 113–153.
25. Schmitz, A. J. (2019). Expanding access to remedies through e-court initiatives. Buffalo Law Review, 67(1), 89–163.
26. Sourdin, T. (2018). Judge v. Robot: Artificial Intelligence and judicial decision-making. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 41(4), 1114–1133.
27. Sourdin, T., Li, B., & Burke, T. (2019). Just, quick and cheap: Civil Dispute Resolution and technology. Macquarie Law Journal, 19, 17–38.
28. Susskind, R. E. (1986). Expert systems in law: A jurisprudential approach to Artificial Intelligence and legal reasoning. Modern Law Review, 49(2), 168–194.
29. Tan, V. (2019). Online Dispute Resolution for small civil claims in Victoria: A new paradigm in civil justice. Deakin Law Review, 24, 101–138.
30. Thompson, D. (2015). Creating new pathways to justice using simple Artificial Intelligence and Online Dispute Resolution. International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, 2(1), 4–53.
31. Thornburg, E. G. (2000). Going private: Technology, due process, and Internet Dispute Resolution. U. C. Davis Law Review, 34(1), 151–220.
32. Tsuvina, T. A. (2020). Online courts and Online Dispute Resolution in terms of the international standard of access to justice. Problems of Legality, 149, 62–79.
33. Van den Hoogen, R. (2008). Will e-justice still be justice – Principles of a fair electronic trial. International Journal for Court Administration, 1(1), 65–73.
34. Velicogna, M., & Errera, A. (2013). Building e-justice in continental Europe: The TeleRecours experience in France. Utrecht Law Review, 9(1), 38–59.
35. Victorio, R. M. (2001). Internet Dispute Resolution (iDR): Bringing ADR into the 21st Century. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 1(2), 279–300.

Code DOI

 https://doi.org/10.31359/2411-5584-2023-54-3-77

07.09.2023