As the latest technology has been developing rapidly, many aspects of our lives have changed, one of which is the digitalized judicary. In order to satisfy the needs of my recent study and to broaden my knowledge about both Chinese and Polish developments in judicary, I have made the research about it.
The COVID-19 epidemic has shown that in Poland, it is still far from intelligent judgments. While most of the country was working remotely, majority of the administrative staff in courts still performed their job duties the old-fashioned way in courts buildings.
As far as judges are concerned, the latest statistics of the Ministry of Justice also show that from the beginning of July 2020 to mid-March 2021, over 69 thousand court hearings took place in common courts in a remote mode. However, due to the fact that still no one is working on application for the hearingsfor this purpose, some courts use JITSI, SCOPIA or MS Teams. Therefore, it seems that this is an extremely small number of hearings.
The public portal of common court judgments has published 360,446 judgments since 2012; tagging made by a person determines the search. However, according to the information obtained from the Judicial Competence and Computerization Center in Wrocław, no work is currently being carried out on the use of artificial intelligence to analyze judgments. Instead, such activities are carried out commercially.
In Poland, there is currently only one e-court that hears cases in the so-called electronic writ of a payment procedure. Simply put, this applies only to cases involving a pecuniary claim and only if there are grounds for issuing an order for payment in the writ of payment proceedings, i.e. without the participation of the opposing party. If the opposing party does not agree with the payment order and the opposition itself (the procedure assumes that its submission does not require any evidence to be attached) will refer the case to a stationary court for examination.
As a side note, it can be mentioned that on July 3rd, 2021, the provisions enabling the electronic delivery of letters from the court to legal representatives during the epidemic will enter into force On the other hand, the submission of letters to common courts in an electronic form does not produce any legal effects. However, it is possible in proceedings before administrative courts.
In this context, the situation in the Chinese justice system appears to be a futuristic future. Naturally, the first thing to notice are the differences between the democratic countries of the West, where the democratic system influences the formation of the judiciary, and then the Internet courts, and China. In the case of China, the influence of the autocratic system determines the development of courts, the publication of judgments and contacts between the court and the party to the proceedings. The rules for influencing the activities of judges are also different. In the case of Poland, similarly to other Western countries, Montesquieu’s division of powers recognizes the impartiality of judges, who are supposed to be free from any pressure. As a result, in the event of changes in the judiciary, also in terms of its electronisation, it encounters resistance that is difficult to overcome. At the same time, however, not without significance for the use of technology in the Chinese judiciary the availability of the judiciary seems to be perceived through the prism of the number of judges. The Second World War and the subsequent sovietization of the judiciary changed a lot in the Polish dimension of justice in the context of judges, but it did not take such a toll as the reforms in China after 2002. It seems, however, that it was inevitable, considering that out of over 250,000 judges serving in China in 1998, only 5.6% had a university degree[1] which was the result of making judges out of many soldiers and officials. As the result of series of reforms between 2014 and 2018, and the subsequent introduction of the quota judge system[2] , the total number of judges across the country fell by 46 percent, from 211,990 to 120,138[3]. In the same period, the number of court proceedings increased dramatically, as in the years 2005-2017 the number of cases admitted by courts across the country increased dramatically from 7,984,920 to 22,601,567[4].
At this point, let me make the thesis that the computerization of the courts and the reduction of the number of judges were were closely intertwined with one another. On the one hand, it was certainly necessary to regulate the education and knowledge of judges and to significantly professionalize this profession. Simultanousily, would it be possible to reduce such a number of judges without the vision of computerization of the courts? It was in 2014 that the computerization of the courts became so important, as a result of the plans to reform the courts established by the Central Committee. It was then that the mass digitization of its procedures and archives of court decisions was accelerated[5], creating a virtual court environment. That’s how intelligent judgments are built. Under this policy, assumptions include an integrated network between different systems such as judicial databases, online trial platforms and court internal systems that connect not only courts and other judicial authorities such as prosecution and police but also private technology companies and law firms[6].
It was in 2017 that the first Chinese online court was established, enabling online proceedings to be conducted, from filing a statement of claim and further pleadings via an online platform, to participation in a hearing in the form of a videoconference. This court dealt with the following types of cases: 1. Internet purchases, services, Contractual disputes such as small financial loans; 2. Copyright disputes and infringement of copyright on the Internet; 3. Using the Internet to infringe personal rights of other people; 4. Disputes regarding liability for the purchase of Internet products; 5. Internet domain name disputes. 6. Internet related administrative disputes. Subsequently in 2018 Internet courts in Beijing and Guangzhou were established respectively. In these three courts alone, 200,000 cases have been settled since 2018[7].
The process of filing lawsuits, not only in internet cases, has also been significantly simplified. The system in basic and intermediate people’s courts, introduced in 2019, allows you to file a claim through the system available in the court building and even through WeChat applications[8]. This shows that Chinese courts are increasingly automating and digitizing their lawsuits, integrating technology applications in all aspects of their work.
Another important aspect without which it would be impossible to develop smart judgments is document analysis. Since 2018, it has been common to use the „Intelligent Case Recommendation System” via the China Justice Big Data Service Platform.The system recommends similar cases based on the facts, nature of the dispute and related laws. Already at the moment, courts use algorithms to search data sets in search of similar cases, which are then transferred to the judge together with a proposal for a decision or even a penalty. A case in point is the financial lending robot Xiao Zhi operating in a Zhejiang court as a virtual assistant. Meanwhile, unknown to the google search engine – Faxin creates a public database of laws, court documents, cases and research.
Comparing this amount of data proportionally to the Polish conditions, it is easy to overreact to this solution. However, Liebman rightly notes in Mass Digitization of Chinese Court Decisions: How to Use Text as Data in the Field of Chinese Law that unpublished texts also matter.
In conclusion, it should be noted that the use of technology in the Chinese judiciary has accelerated the resolution of cases, reduced the financial and administrative burden associated with lawsuits, and made court documents more accessible.
It remains to be hoped that there will also be substitutes for smart courts in Poland in the distant future.
[1]Ma Junju and Nie Dezong, Dangqian Woguo Sifa Zhidu Cunzai de Wenti yu Gaijin Duice ( 当 前 我 国 司 法 制 度 存 在 的 问 题 与 改 进 对 策 ) [Existing Problems of the Contemporary Chinese Legal System and Strategies for Improvements] , 6 FAXUE PINGLUN (1998).
[2]Zuigao Renmin Fayuan Fabu “Siwu Gaige Gangyao” (最高人民法院 发布“四五 改 革 纲要”) [The SPC Issued “Siwu Reform Guidelines”], PEOPLE’S COURTS DAILY, July 10, 2014, http: / /www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-8168.html; see also Lin Feng, The Future of Judicial Independence in China, in ASIA-PACIFIC JUDICIARIES 81, 87 (HP Lee & Marilyn Pittard eds., 2017).
[3]According to statistics reported to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in November 2017,
[4]Law Yearbook of China (2006-2018).
[5] Ahl and Sprick, 2017, Stern et al., 2021, Liebman et al., 2019
[6] (Guo, 2019)
[7] According to the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) acc. As of June 1, 2021
[8] According to the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) (2019).