Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology. – 3. Results and Discussion. – 3.1. European Standards and Regulatory Architecture of the Digital Justice in the European Union. – 3.2. National Practices of Digital Justice in the Countries of Central and Eastern Europe. – 3.3. National Practices of Digital Justice in the Countries of the Baltic Region. – 3.4. Ukraine’s Digital Justice Landscape: Challenges, Gaps and Alignment with EU standards. – 4. Conclusions.
Background: This article examines European approaches to digital justice, focusing on how supranational regulatory models—ranging from digital rights principles to operational e-justice instruments—shape national practices across Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic States. The study conceptualises digital justice as a multidimensional phenomenon that integrates technological tools, institutional design, data governance, and human-centred values. Particular attention is given to how these European developments may inform Ukraine’s justice sector reforms as the country progresses toward alignment with the EU acquis.
Methods: The research employs a doctrinal legal methodology combined with comparative analysis. It systematically examines EU regulatory frameworks, CEPEJ instruments, and the Digital Decade monitoring architecture alongside civil procedure legislation and e-justice platforms in eleven EU Member States. Empirical insights are drawn from the EU Justice Scoreboard 2024–2025 and Digital Decade Country Reports. This methodological approach enables the identification of patterns, divergences, and implementation models, forming a basis for assessing Ukraine’s digital justice trajectory.
Results and Conclusions: The findings demonstrate that the European Union has developed a coherent, value-oriented architecture of digital justice that unites legally binding standards, interoperable technological solutions, and principles of inclusiveness, transparency, and human oversight—particularly in the context of high-risk AI. The Baltic States provide the most integrated and technologically advanced model, whereas Central and Eastern European jurisdictions exhibit more gradual or fragmented pathways. Systemic integration—characterised by mandatory electronic filing, unified data-exchange infrastructures, and machine-readable judicial data— correlates with stronger performance across EU indicators. Conversely, fragmented or parallel systems constrain accessibility, interoperability, and data-driven justice. Ukraine has achieved notable progress through UJITS, automated case management, and electronic document flow; however, substantial gaps persist in interoperability, machine-readability, user-centred design, and AI governance. Structural fragmentation and the absence of a comprehensive digital justice strategy limit its convergence with EU standards. Drawing on comparative insights, priority directions for Ukraine include full implementation of machine-readable formats (XML/JSON and ECLI), consolidation of fragmented subsystems into a unified ecosystem, mandatory digital procedures for professional participants, and the development of a rights-based AI governance framework aligned with the EU AI Act. Ensuring that digitalisation enhances–rather than restricts —access to justice requires balancing technological innovation with procedural safeguards, institutional resilience, and user inclusion.