THE PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE IN THE CONTEXT OF DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION: CHALLENGES AND RISKS
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/2415-881x.2025.99.313-326
Abstract
The relevance of the topic is обусловлена the ongoing digital transformation of the judiciary and the transition of judicial proceedings into the digital domain. Alongside new opportunities to enhance the efficiency, convenience, accessibility, and transparency of judicial activity, this process also entails new latent risks to the independence of both individual judges and the judicial system as a whole.
The article examines the principle of judicial independence as the foundation of the rule of law and a key prerequisite for the balanced and stable development of statehood. The principle is decomposed into external (institutional) and internal (procedural) aspects, and a structural analysis of their constituent elements is conducted. Each of these elements is further considered in the context of digital transformation processes with the aim of identifying potential risks and ways to minimize them. In particular, the risks of a “silent digital dictate” by technology service providers, “algorithmic conformism” on the part of judges, and manipulation of the “digital footprint” within the judicial system are identified.
Based on an analysis of international instruments, in particular Opinions No. 14 and No. 26 of the Consultative Council of European Judges, approaches are proposed for the formation of the judiciary’s “technological sovereignty” and for establishing guarantees to preserve the human factor in the administration of justice.
Keywords
Full Text:
>PDF (Українська)
References
Montesquieu, C. S. (2001). The Spirit of Laws (T. Nugent, Trans.). Kitchener: Batoche Books. 726 p.
Cappelletti, M. (1989). The Judicial Process in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Teitel, R. (2000). Transitional Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bingham, T. (2011). The Rule of Law. London: Penguin Books.
Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE). (2023). Moving forward: use of assistive technology in the judiciary (Opinion No. 26). Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/ccje-opinion-no-26-2023-final/1680adade7
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. (2010). Judges: Independence, efficiency and responsibilities(Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12). Retrieved from https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805afb78
UN Economic and Social Council. (2006). The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (Resolution No. 2006/23). Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/corruption/judicial_group/Bangalore_principles.pdf
Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE). (2011). Justice and information technologies (IT) (Opinion No. 14). Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/168074816b
Satterthwaite, M. (2025). Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems: Promises and Pitfalls. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers (A/80/169). Retrieved from https://docs.un.org/en/A/80/169
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2018). European ethical Charter on the use of Artificial Intelligence in judicial systems and their environment. Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/ethical-charter-en-for-publication-4-december-2018/16808f699c
Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE). (2019). The Role of Judicial Assistants (Opinion No. 22). Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/opinion-22-ccje-en/168098eecb
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The editorial board does not always share the position of the authors. The authors are responsible for the accuracy of the material presented.
All rights reserved.
© Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 2026