Revista Ítalo-Española de Derecho Procesal
pp. 143-168
Madrid, 2025
DOI: 10.37417/rivitsproc/2916
Marcial Pons Ediciones Jurídicas y Sociales
© Marco Giacalone
© Gioia Arnone
ISSN: 2605-5244
Recibido: 22/11/2024 | Aceptado: 07/02/2025
Editado bajo licencia Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
DIGITALISATION OF THE EUROPEAN SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE THROUGH BLOCKCHAIN
Marco Giacalone*
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
Gioia Arnone**
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
ABSTRACT: The study explores blockchain’s potential in transforming the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP), proposing its integration into the ESCP paradigm for cross-border disputes under €5,000. It reviews the legal digitalisation and blockchain literature, noting their gradual adoption in public administration. Using a mixed-method approach, the quantitative analysis found no significant impact on ESCP turnaround times or stakeholder satisfaction, while the qualitative data highlighted benefits in transparency and effectiveness. However, there remain challenges in technical integration, scalability, and legal frameworks. The paper concludes with cautious optimism, emphasising continued research and collaboration between IT and legal professionals.
KEYWORDS: Blockchain Technology; European Small Claims Procedure; Legal Digitization; Smart Contracts; Cross-border Disputes; Digitalisation; Access to justice.
In the EU legal context, the critical mechanism aimed at facilitating cross-border legal disputes up to € 5,000 is the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP). Introduced on 1 January 2009, the ESCP aims to simplify and reduce small claims court procedures for every European Union member state, except for Denmark. It essentially operates in a written format, which makes resolving international claims under the Brussels Regime simpler and more convenient. 1 This framework offers a reputable solution to contested cross-border transactions for consumers and small enterprises at affordable prices. 2 Under the ESCP, judgments can be enforced in all member states of the EU without requiring a declaration of enforceability, thereby eliminating issues of commonality of the process in various jurisdictions. However, the current level of digitalisation of the legal sector, including the ESCP, is constantly changing, adding more advanced and secure technologies—for instance, blockchain—to boost these processes. The primary problem with small claims in the European perspective is related to effectiveness, transparency, and security. Although the ESCP has already achieved significant progress, an immediate digitalisation is necessary to address the challenges efficiently. However, there are also traditional practices that could take longer and are not always as clear as the digital world. This research aims to analyse the digitalisation of the European Small Claims Procedure by introducing blockchain technology. The progressive characteristics of blockchain technologies widen the possibility of transforming the small claims system in the EU. This research investigates how blockchain can be incorporated into the current ESCP framework to strengthen its efficacy and safety and render the claim process more convenient and trustworthy for EU citizens. Blockchain technology yields different benefits. It ensures better legal safety and openness, which reduces fraud and errors. It also ensures a more effective claims resolution process that is more user-friendly for stakeholders, including businesses and individuals. In sum, the digitalisation of the ESCP via blockchain will positively impact the effectiveness of interstate small claims handling, thereby paving a path for adopting advanced technologies in legal procedures at the EU level. What are the ways to implement blockchain technology in the European Small Claims Procedure process so that it can become effective and secure? Implementing blockchain into the European Small Claims Procedure will greatly contribute to this procedure’s efficiency, security, and transparency and will thus make handling small claims in the European context much simpler.
Few studies have focused on digitalising legal systems, especially regarding small claims. Digitalisation concerns technological advances and requires bringing digital technologies into organisational programs and routines of people’s everyday lives, transforming activities, business processes, and how customers or citizens deal with businesses and government agencies. 3 This evolution reaches the judicial system, as digitalisation can entirely reshape how courts operate, including dealing with small claims. Digitalisation in public administration, including legal systems, has been adhering to the enterprise 2.0 approach, primarily using information technologies to promote efficiency and transparency. For instance, researchers have demonstrated that digitalisation can transform the bureaucratic nature of public administration, including school administration and management control within enterprises. 4 This points to a shift toward a more regimented and technologically based approach for several administrative and legal processes.
Blockchain technology has been a highly discussed topic in various industries, including the law. It is known for its decentralised nature that allows time-stamped digital and permanent recording of transactions on a distributed ledger network of computers. This plays a significant role in legal contracts, especially smart contracts coded to self-execute through formal and rigid computer programming languages such as Solidity in the Ethereum blockchain. This adaptable form of contract is very different from traditional legal contracts since it provides for periodic reviews and reduces surveillance costs and opportunistic problems. They also have deficiencies such as privacy violations, the need for formalisation of difficult legal obligations, and the pseudonymous characteristics of participants. The enforceability of smart contracts in the blockchain framework depends on the law of different legal systems, such as the US, depending on the parties’ will to be bound. This feature of blockchain technology is vital for the European Small Claims Procedure due to its enhanced efficiency, clarity, precision, and security. 5 However, the adoption of blockchain in legal systems is challenging. This could be due to privacy and security concerns, limited functionality in smart contracts, difficulties with error correction and enforcement, lack of standardisation, or the exploitation of smart contracts in criminal or unethical activities. The essential part of Blockchain-based legal automation is the smart contract, which is the digital form of contractual obligations that are self-executing. Smart contracts could be used within the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP) to automate the execution of dispute resolutions, for instance, in cases of a predefined amount of compensation claims and out-of-court settlements. 6 With the introduction of legally binding terms in blockchain-based smart contracts, parties could eliminate enforcement procedures and streamline compliance, without the need for preceding actions. Nevertheless, smart contracts do not necessarily fit within the practical interpretative flexibility that contract law often demands. In addition, these smart contracts alone are not intended to substitute for judicial discretion in deciding complex disputes but can complement existing ESCP mechanisms by expediting procedural compliance and reducing the administrative delays associated with ESCP operation. 7 However, for their integration, regulatory adaptations would have to be made to harmonise blockchain-based agreements with existing legal standards.
It is based on blockchain as a regulatory technology. 8 It functions within its technical frame, beyond the traditional regulatory system, encapsulating a notion of illegality. This term refers to the fact that blockchains, especially decentralised ones, live in what is neither legally clean nor illegally defined, and they operate just outside the standard legal and illegal dichotomy by being and doing things. As a regulatory technology, blockchain allows researchers to study its embedding into legal processes. Today, blockchain may transform the organisation and application of procedures by law in the European Small Claims Procedure. The framework suggests that blockchain integration needs an understanding of its legal status and the ability to develop appropriate policies and legal systems capable of accommodating and regulating this technology. Rather, blockchain aims to enhance efficiency, transparency, and security in legal processes without compromising the legal standards and principles that define them. The theoretical framework thus emphasises the need to balance blockchain’s individualism and the legal system’s modification to accommodate these developments. This entails building blockchain systems that are legally compliant and developing new laws or adapting existing ones to regulate and allow blockchain applications to be included in legal proceedings.
While current research offers a general sense of how legal processes are digitising and blockchain technology is being used, there is a glaring void in studies that attempt to examine the incorporation of blockchain technology in the European Small Claims Procedure. 9 Other literature discusses blockchain in a broader legal context or within other industries, leaving space for a deeper discussion of how blockchain can be specifically used to improve the digitalisation of small claims procedures within the European Union. This gap creates room for this study to provide worthwhile information about the practicalities, merits, and shortcomings of employing blockchain technology to advance ESCP and make it easy for EU citizens.
This study data was collected over a six-month intervention period between March 2023 and September 2023 in three European Union (EU) member states (France, Germany, and the Netherlands). The reason for choosing such locations was that they have diverse legal landscapes in which the digitalisation of the judicial process stands out. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were used to gather the qualitative data through direct conversations with legal practitioners, blockchain experts and business representatives who have worked with the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP). This integrated approach ensured a comprehensive view of blockchain technology in small claims procedures. Online questionnaires were sent to legal professionals and claimants who had already used the ESCP to understand their experiences, perceptions and challenges brought on by the digitalisation of cross-border small claims. Data was collected quantitatively from public databases and EU legal institutions’ reports to create anonymised records of ESCP case proceedings, surveys on blockchain adoption, and digital legal infrastructure assessments. In ESCP, this multi-source data collection method was introduced to capture the practical and theoretical aspects of blockchain’s implementation. The primary thematic qualitative research for this study on digitalizing the European Small Claims Procedure through Blockchain has primarily utilized two qualitative data collection methods:
— Semi-structured interviews, administered to gain insightful information from respondents. This method allows discussions on specific topics and connections to other relevant fields. Neutral yet open body language was used in the interviews to make the respondents feel comfortable. Silence, reflection on comments, and inquisitive questions were used for eliciting detailed information. At the end of each interview, the participants were invited to add further remarks to ensure the revelation of unknown and unexpected information. They were all transcribed verbatim to ensure accuracy. 10
— Focus Groups, employed to determine the meaning of collective beliefs and what those beliefs represent. Group norms, meanings, and behaviours are particularly prominent when focus groups are used. For dynamic and successful information extraction, the number of respondents was 6-8 for each focus group. Simultaneously, each group type was meticulously selected to ensure a safe and welcoming space for the discussion. 11
Based on a total of 38 participants in the qualitative analysis, the ESCP and blockchain ecosystem were provided with a well-rounded representation. Among them, 20 participants were legal experts on ESCP, selected for their specialty in managing small claims disputes under an EU framework. In addition, 10 blockchain experts were surveyed to gauge the feasibility in terms of technical aspects and challenges of deploying distributed ledger technology in judicial activities. Moreover, eight remaining participants were not only business representatives but who were also using the ESCP in previous cross-border disputes. In three separate sessions, 6 to 8 participants joined the focus groups, offering the opportunity for lengthier discussions surrounding the positive and negative aspects of blockchain integration into the small claims process.
In addition, an online survey was sent to a larger group of stakeholders, consisting of claimants, legal practitioners, and judicial officers, between May and July 2023. From various EU member states, 150 responses were received to the questionnaire, which provides important quantitative information not only on the awareness, the expectations and concerns of the public who face blockchain-based legal proceedings.
The choice criteria were set up to enable participants to demonstrate their capabilities and experience in the ESCP and blockchain technology field. The participant pool encompassed various key stakeholders. Lawyers with knowledge of ESCP, its complexities, and its current status contributed deep legal insights into blockchain technology integration in the ESCP. 12 Specialised blockchain experts addressed technical aspects of feasibility and applicability. Their detailed knowledge was instrumental in assessing the technical components of blockchain adoption. 13 Additionally, legal entity representatives who have already adopted, or plan to adopt, blockchain offered practical illustrations of real-world benefits and implications of blockchain implementation in law. A group of people with different cultures and specialisations offered an integrated review of blockchain implementation and its impact on legal procedures. 14 This approach allowed for the consideration of various insights, including legal and technical views of the ESCP, as well as implications resulting from practical implementation by the participants.
Thematic analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data. First, the research group immersed themselves in the data, going through the transcripts several times to become familiar with the topic. Codes were systematically applied to the data; that is, sections of relevant texts for the research were tagged with codes representing their content. Clustering the themes resulted in gathering coherent information.
The themes were modified and formulated to ensure that they accurately represent the data. This could involve clustering, merging, or deleting topics. Each theme was distinct and named, stating what each theme represents. The closing document integrates the analytic narrative with the data extracts and creates a coherent and lucid data analysis. Based on the obtained quantitative data, this approach allows the study to find valuable results and understand blockchain’s immersion into the ESCP.
In this work, data were extracted from various sources to quantify the impact of blockchain in ESCP case handling. To conduct the main analysis, primary datasets included anonymised case records from ESCP proceedings across EU jurisdictions and claims filed between January 2021 and December 2022.
These datasets revealed detailed insights into procedural aspects such as claim amounts, processing times, success rate, stakeholder satisfaction levels, security incident reports and so forth. Secondly, the study included legal-tech adoption surveys that had been conducted across European member states to measure how blockchain was being used in judicial proceedings. They also reviewed reports from the European Commission and national legal institutions to interpret the effectiveness of digital legal infrastructure. With this diversity of quantitative data on hand, a strong evaluation of blockchain’s potential contribution to more efficient, secure, and transparent ESCP was possible.
The subsequent quantitative analysis of this study on the digitalisation of the ESCP by blockchain was based on datasets from Kaggle and other reliable sources providing empirical evidence for the application of blockchain in legal systems. 15 Data sets with histories of blockchain transactions revealed blockchain technology’s use patterns and trends in jurisprudence. We analysed the statistics of the performance indicators of the European Small Claims Procedure, such as processing times, success rates, and users’ satisfaction levels, to evaluate the efficiency of e-solutions. Other forms of information that were projected to aid in deriving insights on the adoption and impact of blockchain in legal systems included publicly accessible survey data and reports from legal institutions, technology organisations, and research studies. In addition, comparative studies of legal systems, with data from areas or countries that have adopted blockchain in their judicial frameworks and those that have not, provided a more holistic picture of the performance of blockchain technology across different legal categories. 16 A broad spectrum of such data provided a holistic and balanced picture of the current situation regarding blockchain technology’s integration into the legal sphere, which meets the primary research objectives.
The analysis of the collected data has been conducted using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) statistical tool, employing various statistical techniques:
— Descriptive Statistics: To summarise and describe the main characteristics of the data, including the central tendency and dispersion.
— Regression Analysis: Analysing the correlations between the multiple variables, especially to uncover how blockchain affects the efficiency and effectiveness of the European Small Claims Procedure.
— Analysis of Variance (T Test): To compare means across groups – for instance, measuring the efficacy of legal proceedings in regions with varied blockchain integration.
— Correlation Analysis: To evaluate the nature and magnitude of the correlation between blockchain technology use and several outcomes in legal systems.
A mixed methods triangulation strategy was adopted to integrate qualitative and quantitative findings. The qualitative results obtained from interviews and focus groups provided further insights into the stakeholders’ experiences and perceptions around using blockchain technology in the European Small Claims Procedure. Meanwhile, qualitative data indicate how blockchain technology may affect us. The results of the two approaches were compared and contrasted to generalise the findings. It was accomplished by comparing the narratives from the qualitative data to the patterns discovered in the quantitative findings to gain more insights into the problem. This integrative method helped the research form an appropriate large-scale and holistic view of the possible risks blockchain technology poses to the European Small Claims Procedure.
Dataset descriptive statistics summarise the main variables associated with blockchain implementation in the ESCP. The average claim amount is €2653.32 and varies from €104 to €4998.00, which testifies to various claim values. The duration of processing claims is diverse, approximately thirty days, indicating the time necessary to manage these claims. 17
Blockchain integration was distributed evenly across the claims, with blockchain technology used in the other half of the claims. Security incidents are relatively frequent, occurring at 2.52 incidents per claim, with a standard deviation of 1.689, implying some variations in the security challenges. The success rate for resolutions is almost balanced, with a mean around the halfway point. The mean score for stakeholder satisfaction is 2.97 on a scale of 1 to 5, which reflects a moderate level of satisfaction with the claims process. 18 This section provides a snapshot of issues that must be addressed, especially focusing on security incident management and stakeholder satisfaction.
In this paper, the term ‘safety incidents’ or as referred to throughout the study, ‘cybersecurity threats and procedural irregularities,’ are being used with regard to the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP). The incidents take place in cases of unauthorized forking of case records, data integrity breaches, fraudulent filings, and vulnerability in digital legal transaction security. A comparison is made between cases in which blockchain technology was used and cases that followed standard legal processes in order to assess if blockchain reduces security risks. In other words, the study aims to categorise these incidents and evaluate whether blockchain’s immutability and cryptographic security mechanisms can help reduce unauthorised record alterations and fraudulent claims.
The correlation analysis reveals no strong correlations between the studied variables, as all Pearson correlation coefficients are relatively low. For instance, the correlation between Claim Amount and Processing Time is very weak (r = -0.032, p = .650), indicating no significant relationship between these variables. Similarly, the correlation between Blockchain Integration and Security Incidents Reported is negligible (r = 0.018, p = .803), suggesting that the integration of blockchain technology does not significantly affect the number of security incidents reported. A notable observation, however, is the mild positive correlation between Security Incidents Reported and Stakeholder Satisfaction (r = 0.139, p = .050), which is on the borderline of statistical significance. 19 This suggests a potential, albeit weak, relationship where higher security incidents might be associated with slightly increased stakeholder satisfaction. Overall, these results imply that the variables studied have minimal direct linear relationships with each other in the context of this dataset.
The regression analysis aimed to determine the level of Stakeholder Satisfaction from the variables Security Incidents Reported, Claim Amount, and Processing Time. The R Square value for this model is 0.032, which means that these variables explain at most 3.2% of the variance in Stakeholder Satisfaction, which is low. The Adjusted R Square, which accounts for the number of predictors in the model, is even lower at 0.017. This suggests that other unmeasured factors might play a more significant role in determining Stakeholder Satisfaction. In the coefficients table, Security Incidents Reported shows a significant positive relationship with Stakeholder Satisfaction (B = 0.116, p = .038), suggesting a slight increase in stakeholder satisfaction as security incidents increase. 20 However, neither the claim amount nor the processing time significantly predicts satisfaction, as indicated by their p-values (Claim Amount: p = .799; Processing Time: p = .108). The model suggests a limited predictive power of these variables on stakeholder satisfaction, with reported security incidents having a marginal but statistically significant effect. This implies exploring additional factors influencing satisfaction in the context of the European Small Claims Procedure.
The Independent Samples T-test was conducted to compare the means of Processing Time and Stakeholder Satisfaction between two groups (likely those with and without blockchain integration, though the groups are not specified here). Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances for Processing Time shows a significant result (F = 6.287, p = .013), indicating that the variances of the two groups are not equal. However, the t-test for Processing Time shows no significant difference in the means between the groups (t = -1.572, df = 198, p = .118). 21 This suggests that integrating blockchain technology significantly affects the processing time of claims. For Stakeholder Satisfaction, Levene’s Test indicates equal variances between the groups (F = 1.638, p = .202). The t-test for Stakeholder Satisfaction also shows no significant difference between the groups (t = -0.427, df = 198, p = .670). This implies that blockchain integration only significantly affects the satisfaction levels of stakeholders.
The Chi-Square test examined the association between two categorical variables (likely Blockchain Integration and Resolution Success, though not explicitly stated). The results of the Pearson Chi-Square test (χ² = 0.083, df = 1, p = 0.774) indicate no significant association between these variables. This is further supported by the Continuity Correction (p = 0.884), Likelihood Ratio (p = 0.774), and the Linear-by-Linear Association (p = 0.774). Additionally, Fisher’s Exact Test indicates no significant association (p = 0.779, one-sided p = 0.442). These findings suggest that integrating blockchain technology does not have a statistically significant impact on the success of resolutions in the dataset context. It is worth mentioning that the minimum anticipated count in the cells was more than 5, which means that an appropriate sample size was obtained for this test. 22 These results indicate no variation in the European Small Claims Procedure claim settlement outcomes resulting from blockchain integration within this dataset.
The second section of the study involved semi-structured interviews and focus groups that sought to understand the processes of blockchain technology adoption for use by the European Small Claims Procedure. The chosen participants included lawyers, blockchain practitioners, and people who were familiar about the ESCP. The intent was to stimulate a diversity of opinions on the matter. 23 A thematic analysis determined the recurring themes and patterns in qualitative information. This approach allowed a better understanding of how the respondents saw the implementation of blockchain technology in the legal process.
In order to enhance consumer confidence, it is critical to safeguard consumers against fraudulent activities in the digital marketplace by ensuring that appropriate authorities are readily accessible to provide remedies for disputes. 24 Blockchain use in the ESCP creates a new opportunity for change and a more accountable and effective legal process. Our qualitative findings demonstrate various stakeholder perspectives regarding this impact. As a related theme in how the interviews and focus group were conducted, participants noted procedural efficiency that blockchain technology is designed to enhance. 25 For them, the two focal attributes that characterised blockchain systems were speed and automation, making it possible to streamline the ESCP. For example, it was considered significant that contracts would execute automatically and that transactions would be confirmed without human intervention, thereby reducing processing time and administrative burden. This particularly applies to transboundary small claims cases where procedural inefficiency is often prevalent.
In addition, the distributed nature of the blockchain is associated with this efficiency. This allows data storage and validation over a distributed network that does not require a central authority or an intermediary. This factor speeds up the process and cuts off the span of misjudgements and delays typical in centralised systems. Another major sector of importance concerns transparency. Respondents highlighted the immutability and transparency of blockchain ledgers as key factors in guaranteeing trust among claim participants. According to them, traceability and verification of all transactions recorded on the public ledger will bring transparency to the ESCP.
This openness does not only relate to disclosure but also to making it comprehensible and user-friendly. 26 Real-time access to claim status and documentation provided by blockchain ensures that all parties are on the same page and, therefore, helping eliminate misunderstandings and disputes. Our findings align with the discussions in “Blockchain and the Law: “The Rule of Code.’ This concept, called lex cryptographic, means that blockchain can govern and implement laws without legal infrastructure. Similarly, in the case of ESCP, our study echoes this position in relation to improving performance and accountability.
On the other hand, the benefits are visible, but our results also suggest a measure of discretion. Questions have been raised in the literature concerning how such law systems would adapt to incorporating blockchain by assessing their capacity to respond to new technology. This also covers topics like data privacy, the legislation of smart contracts, and the need for regulation. Such adoption of blockchain technology by the ESCP is bound to increase efficiency and transparency significantly. Such improvements lead to faster response time, reduced costs, and greater trust among the parties. 27 However, considering technology’s strengths and weaknesses, this integration should be viewed from a balanced perspective. In the event of a redefinition of the legal landscape by the blockchain, engagement among technologists, lawyers, and policymakers will become essential in harnessing the numerous advantages offered by the technology without dwelling much on the problems.
The adoption of blockchain technology in legal systems—especially in ESCP—presents a host of challenges and restrictions. The qualitative data from our study illuminated these complexities as perceived by different stakeholders. One of the major issues brought to the fore is the technical intricacy associated with using blockchain technology. Scaling up blockchain-based solutions to handle a larger volume of cases within the ESCP poses hurdles. 28 The problems of the network’s speed, transaction costs, and energy efficiency of blockchain platforms were common topics. Therefore, these technical problems question the pragmatic possibility of legal systems’ adoption of blockchain on a large scale. Another technical issue is interfacing blockchain with the current legal IT infrastructure. The participants highlighted that harmonising new blockchain solutions with existing systems requires not only technical know-how but also substantial cost, and investment in infrastructure and training. Another key threat is the traditional nature of the legal profession. There is a reluctance to accept new technologies due to the lack of understanding and the generally conservative nature of legal practice. Tang et al. 29 say that cultural opposition to change prevalent in legal institutions may slow the adoption of blockchain technology. However, this creates a gap in the current legal frameworks and regulations since they were not intended for blockchain. In our discussions, we covered issues such as the legal nature of smart contracts, jurisdictional conflicts in transnational blockchain applications, and data protection under regulations like the GDPR.
The important problem is the enforceability of agreements on blockchain platforms. Considering that smart contracts work autonomously based on predefined rules, there are questions about their classification within the current contract law based on people’s interpretations and judgments. The other significant hurdle is the lack of standardisation in blockchain technologies. Since there are multiple blockchain platforms used by many organisations, interoperability between these systems is essential for the continuity of legal processes. The responding participants pointed to the technology’s fragmentation and the necessity of standards across the entire industry to ensure compatibility and effectiveness. These challenges resonate with the insights presented in “Blockchain Technology and the Law: Opportunities and Risks”, another category related to legal, technical, and practical implications of blockchain adaptation to laws. In this vein, the literature points out the importance of a cautious strategy when dealing with blockchain technology in the legal community due to obstacles that sometimes outweigh benefits. However, integrating blockchain technology into the ESCP and legal world is not an easy task. It includes technical and scalability problems, legal and regulatory risks, and interoperability and standards-related issues. Hence, technologists, lawyers, and regulators have to work together to address these issues. Therefore, one should proceed cautiously, acknowledging blockchain technology’s strengths and weaknesses for a successful integration into legal systems.
Many legal systems in the blockchain technology world, especially the ESCP, face challenges in adopting legal and regulatory frameworks. The findings from our qualitative research highlight the significance of simultaneously creating legal regulations while technology advances. A fixed element of our debate was the limitations of older legal systems that do not adequately respond to blockchain technology challenges. This adaptation is more than learning new technology; it is a complete paradigm shift in thinking about the foundational ideals and practices of law in the context of a distributed, transparent, and immutable system. Users highlighted that blockchain undermines fundamental legal concepts such as jurisdiction, contract enforceability, and dispute settlement, suggesting a need to reassess existing legal norms and practices. Among the key issues identified is the jurisdictional complexity. Because of the decentralised nature of the blockchain, data, and transactions can be transnational, which makes it difficult, in the case of disputes, to determine what country’s jurisdiction applies and in what manner. This is especially true for the ESCP, which addresses cross-border claims in the EU. The participants emphasised that in blockchain-implemented systems, there was a necessity to have specific legal guidelines on jurisdictional issues to avoid uncertainties and conflicts. The conversation also involved the legality of smart contracts. Self-executing contracts are central to blockchain systems and pose issues of their recognition and enforceability within the current legal frameworks. As highlighted in the literature “Blockchain and the Law: As ‘Is Code Law?’”, the debate is still going on about smart contracts as legal contracts. Participants in our study noted that digital contracts require laws that detail their nature.
After all, data privacy has become a major issue, given laws such as the GDPR in Europe. As data stored in the blockchain cannot be amended or erased, this feature presents complicated issues for GDPR principles, including the right to be forgotten. It is important to adapt data protection laws so they suit the particularities of blockchain and establish blockchain integration in legal systems. Finally, the discussion focused on creating regulatory standards for blockchain applications in legal frameworks. The respondents noted that a uniform regulating system would provide clarity and uniformity, supporting blockchain technology in legal proceedings. This includes establishing structures for data security-related standards, transaction authentication, and blockchain transaction dispute resolution. Our findings align with the discussions in “Blockchain and the Law: In the article “Is Code Law?” the author describes the intersection of blockchain with the law, pointing out disruptive features of blockchain and spotlighting the legal challenges it poses. According to the literature, blockchain technology generates a new legal arrangement where the code is the law. However, it cautions against adopting blockchain technology without considering the necessity of legal systems being modified and adapted to this new order.
As such, the adaptation of legal and regulatory frameworks is required to effectively use blockchain technology in systems of law such as the ESCP. This adaptation is characterised by the problem of jurisdiction, recognition of smart contracts, and compliance with data protection laws and regulations. However, with the development of blockchain technology, our legal systems should also grow to enable them to deal with the new issues and opportunities that this technology brings.
In terms of qualitative research, our analysis reveals that blockchain implementation ranges from advocacy to indecisive suspicion in the ESCP. For instance, solicitors demonstrate an interest in the claim that blockchain technology increases efficiency and accountability but also fear its compatibility with the traditional legal paradigm. 30 This arises from the looming threat of disrupting traditional legal processes and the need for changes in teaching and practice of the law. Meanwhile, blockchain experts focus on the revolutionary nature of blockchain, such as immutability, transparency, and security. They assert that such qualities can improve the validity and efficiency of legal processes. However, they also confess that there are problems regarding technological complexity, scalability, and interoperability with already existing systems. Respondents from business and non-business sectors with ESCP experience demonstrate optimism and apprehension. Although they see promise in rapid and transparent resolution of disputes, they also have concerns about the feasibility of such an advanced technological system and its effect on those who are not equipped with technology. Participants also considered how blockchain may reform legal standards and procedures. It is as if blockchain might usher in a new legal arrangement described in ‘Decentralized Blockchain Technology and the Rise of Lex Cryptographic,’ where contracts and transactions would be governed by programmable code. The transition from inherited legal systems to a newly automated legal framework is regarded as both an opportunity and a challenge.
A major problem is the risk to legal sovereignty. However, stakeholders voiced concerns that overreliance on technology in legal processes would make us lose the essential human factor in legal ethics and practice. There is a concern that blockchain could transform sophisticated legal decisions into algorithmic outputs. Almost all stakeholders recognise the need for a balanced approach to adopting blockchain. This means ensuring that technological progress is consistent with the basic values of justice and fairness. Implementing blockchain into the legal frameworks requires regulation and ethical guidelines in tandem with retaining human supervision. Our results relate to the debates in “Decentralized Blockchain Technology and the Rise of Lex Cryptographia,” referring to the emergence of a new legal paradigm due to blockchain technology. As is consistent with our results, the literature indicates that while blockchain embodies revolutionary potential, it poses fundamental dilemmas regarding the future of legal systems, the role of human judgment, and the value of regulatory safeguards in a world where everything is digital. The stakeholders’ perceptions of blockchain adoption in the ESCP setup shed light on a dynamic mix of optimism, caution, and uncertainties. It is acknowledged that the benefits may be enormous, but issues surrounding legality and ethics, technological issues, and balancing are all widely present. 31 With technological developments in blockchain, these diverse views will become essential factors in regulating the legal systems’ position such technology will occupy.
Our research identifies four themes related to the investigation of blockchain technology within the European Small Claims Procedure that reveal a complex picture of potentials and challenges. These themes complement but differ in certain details from the existing literature, providing new insights and highlighting several issues requiring further studies. The theme of “Blockchain’s Impact on Legal Efficiency and Transparency” aligns with the narrative in “Blockchain and the Law: As discussed in “The Rule of Code,” blockchain is a revolutionary tool for automating and simplifying the process of law. Our results, as well as the literature, clearly indicate the transformative character of blockchain, especially in terms of improving efficiency and transparency. Our work offers a more detailed view of the legal angle, pointing out the practical implications and urging prudent adoption of blockchain technology within the current legal frameworks. This brings a pragmatic perspective to the theoretical debates that are common in the current literature.
It is also a significant departure from the overly hopeful accounts dominating some scholarly literature. Our study highlights the substantial technical, legal, and cultural challenges in adopting blockchain, echoing the concerns raised in “Blockchain Technology and the Law:” However, the focus on scalability, interoperability, and legal adaptability gives a grounded view, offering a counterbalance to overly excited narratives about blockchain possibilities. “Legal and Regulatory Framework Adaptation” reflects the discussions in the literature about the necessity of adapting legal systems to technological progress.
Nevertheless, some issues related to jurisdictional ambiguities and GDPR compliance have emerged through our study that are not always fully addressed in other works. This helps develop a more specific and granular appreciation of the legal adjustments required for a link to blockchain. The subsection “Stakeholder Perspectives on Blockchain Adoption” provides new angles on the divergent reactions to blockchain in the legal sphere. While literature such as “Decentralized Blockchain Technology and the Rise of Lex Cryptographia” focuses on the paradigm shift blockchain might introduce, our study demonstrates the actual mindsets and assumptions of those potentially affected by such tech shifts. The emphasis on combining technological advancement with preserving fundamental legal principles provides a more holistic view than what is commonly found in the literature.
The comprehensive analysis of the ESCP in the context of blockchain technology integration, 32 as explored in our study, provides a multi-dimensional perspective on this innovative approach. Spanning across descriptive statistics, correlation and regression analyses, and thematic exploration, our findings offer a rich tapestry of insights that respond to our research question: “What are the ways to implement blockchain technology in the process of European Small Claims Procedure so that it can become effective and secure?”. The quantitative data illuminates the landscape of the current ESCP, suggesting that blockchain integration still needs to show a significant impact on processing times or stakeholder satisfaction. While the absence of strong correlations might initially seem to suggest a rejection of our research question, it is essential to delve deeper into the nuances of these findings. The minimal impact on processing times could be attributed to the early stages of blockchain integration or the complexities of adapting existing systems to this new technology. In addition, moderate stakeholder satisfaction indicates the possibility of improvement in user experience and system productivity, which can be achieved by implementing blockchain. Thus, our qualitative data present a more positive outlook on blockchain’s potential to transform the field of ESCP. 33 The most relevant themes are “Legal Efficiency and Transparency” and “Challenges and Limitations in Integrating Blockchain in Legal Systems.” There are effective ways to implement the technology based on the observed improved procedural efficiency and transparency through blockchain. However, the issues raised, such as technical complexity and integration barriers, serve as a reminder of this challenging road.
The theme of legal and regulatory framework adaptation directly correlates with the security component of the research question. It is necessary to adapt legal frameworks to blockchain’s peculiarities, such as its decentralised, immutable character, in order to ensure security and compliance, especially in international contexts such as ESCP. This blockchain theme confirms that significant legal and regulatory changes will ensure blockchain works adequately and credibly in the ESCP. Theme “Stakeholder Perspectives on the Blockchain Adoption” simultaneously exposes positive and negative views. The significant differences in perspectives emphasise the need to carefully consider user concerns and needs when deploying blockchain in the ESCP. Blockchain-dominated legal process autonomy and human judgment concerns imply a cautious approach that integrates awareness of the traditional paradigms but also adapts toward technology.
In conclusion, our research question is partially accepted or confirmed. Rather, the obstacle in the ESCP is achieving blockchain’s successful and safe implementation. Building a bridge between blockchain and current systems ensures that the solutions are scalable and applicable in different cases. Stronger legal frameworks addressing blockchain transactions, smart contracts, and data privacy compliance, particularly the GDPR, remain crucial. This includes guaranteeing that blockchain integration does not affect the key principles that characterise legal practice, including human decision-making and judgment. Engaging all stakeholders, including law professionals, blockchain experts, and ESCP users, is vital to resolve their requirements and concerns, offering education and training to shift to a blockchain-based system. Our research reveals that blockchain can provide significant potential to enhance efficiency, transparency, protection, and customer satisfaction in the ESCP. On the other hand, harnessing the disruptive wave calls for overcoming numerous technological, regulatory, and cultural dilemmas. 34 However, successful implementation will necessitate a joint and multi-disciplinary approach that reconciles technological complexity with the subtleties of legal practice and stakeholder considerations. Finally, incorporating blockchain into the ESCP is dynamic and requires continuous study, trial, and discussion among all actors.
The investigation into blockchain in the context of the ESCP yielded complex findings. Quantitatively, our analysis did not reveal noteworthy relationships between blockchain integration and key metrics of claim processing times and stakeholder satisfaction. This shows that the current presence of blockchain in the ESCP needs to be more widespread to reflect in these areas. However, it is important to put these results into perspective given blockchain integration in the legal system, which is still in its early stages. Qualitatively, we found a more positive view of blockchain potential. Blockchain is considered to be a catalyst for improving efficiency and transparency in the processes of the ESCP. This possibility is especially striking in cross-border small claims, 35 where blockchain’s innate features of speed, automation, and decentralised verifications can optimise the operations. However, these optimistic approaches are tempered by barriers, including technical challenges, integration issues with established legal frameworks, and the need for significant legal and regulatory adjustments to take advantage of blockchain’s full benefits. Altogether, these findings present a picture of a challenging yet transformative path for blockchain within the ESCP.
The study findings suggest that Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) could bring a positive contribution to the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP) in terms of increasing efficiency, while reducing security and reliability risks in key procedural stages. Second, the same archived case data stored in a blockchain can serve as an automated means of verifying cross border jurisdictional criteria under Regulation 1215/2012 for determining jurisdictional competence. It would allow for the correct identification of the competent court, which would shorten the time spent in procedural delays due to jurisdictional disputes. Secondly, blockchain can automate the service of documents by providing undeniable proof of the transmission of documents and receipt acknowledgment, thereby making it impossible for litigants to argue that service was never performed. Lastly, blockchain can be considered as a secure digital repository of electronic documents, increasing their reliability for judicial consideration, as well as collection and validation of evidence. The immutability of blockchain-held evidence minimises the risks of forgery, tampering, and challenges to evidence authenticity, thereby enhancing the trustworthiness of digital evidence in ESCP hearings.
Implementing blockchain infrastructures in the ESCP has several major implications for its future structural design. Although blockchain currently shows minimal effects on processing times and stakeholder satisfaction, its potential to reshape the ESCP is considerable. Concerning efficiency, the automation and distributed nature of blockchain can hasten the processing of claims, reducing the administrative lag common in many international claims. Another important aspect is transparency, a fundamental attribute of blockchain, which ensures a higher level of trust and visibility in the process, enabling traceable and verifiable transaction records. Security strengthened by the immutability of blockchain could significantly reduce fraud and inaccuracies, resulting in a stronger judicial system. However, these benefits can be attained only through a major transformation of the existing legal and regulatory framework. The proposed adaptation involves recognising blockchain transactions under the rule of law, regulating data privacy issues, such as those stated in GDPR, and developing standards for the operability of smart contracts. Therefore, even though blockchain unlocks revolutionary opportunities for the ESCP, the process of its seamless adoption depends on transcending the intricate legal and technological landscape.
Although this study is broad, several limitations must be highlighted. To begin with, the scope, particularly in quantitative analysis, is confined to the preliminary aspects of introducing blockchain technology to the ESCP. The preliminary stage may not fully capture the long-term implications that blockchain technology could impart in this legal context. Furthermore, although the qualitative insights provide much-needed richness and depth, these perceptions and predictions may vary as blockchain further enters the legal system. It is time for longitudinal research on changes in efficiency, transparency, and stakeholder satisfaction over time with blockchain’s influence on the ESCP.
Moreover, further analysis should be performed on the legal and technical aspects of blockchain implementation in legal systems. It should also include evaluating the nuances of regulatory compliance, the adequacy of blockchain with established legal frameworks, and the details of smart contracts’ use in court litigations. In turn, such targeted studies could result in a higher degree of specificity in terms of blockchain’s functionality in reshaping legal processes and its ability to remain effective in the judicial arena.
Thus, the results of our study on applying blockchain technology in the ESCP reveal many opportunities and difficulties. The above research question regarding the effective and secure use of blockchain technologies in the ESCP generates multiple answers. It requires a careful balance, which marries technological innovation with the traditional framework of legal practice without compromising the cornerstones of fairness and equity. Blockchain’s impacts on legal systems extend far beyond the ESCP. They point toward a novel technology-driven legal order, opening new spaces for transformation and posing new challenges. This research shows a positive outlook on the future role of blockchain in legal spheres.
|
Descriptive Statistics |
|||||
|
N |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
|
|
Claim Amount (€) |
200 |
104 |
4998 |
2653.32 |
1380.228 |
|
Processing Time (Days) |
200 |
1 |
60 |
30.24 |
17.361 |
|
Blockchain Integration |
200 |
1 |
2 |
1.50 |
.501 |
|
Security Incidents Reported |
200 |
0 |
5 |
2.52 |
1.689 |
|
Resolution Success |
200 |
1 |
2 |
1.49 |
.501 |
|
Stakeholder Satisfaction (1-5) |
200 |
1 |
5 |
2.97 |
1.333 |
|
Valid N (listwise) |
200 |
||||
|
Correlations |
|||||||
|
Claim Amount (€) |
Processing Time (Days) |
Blockchain Integration |
Security Incidents Reported |
Resolution Success |
Stakeholder Satisfaction (1-5) |
||
|
Claim Amount (€) |
Pearson |
1 |
-.032 |
-.113 |
-.029 |
-.043 |
-.018 |
|
Sig. |
.650 |
.111 |
.687 |
.547 |
.795 |
||
|
Processing Time (Days) |
Pearson |
-.032 |
1 |
.111 |
.080 |
-.073 |
-.101 |
|
Sig. |
.650 |
.118 |
.259 |
.307 |
.153 |
||
|
Blockchain Integration |
Pearson |
-.113 |
.111 |
1 |
.018 |
.020 |
.030 |
|
Sig. |
.111 |
.118 |
.803 |
.775 |
.670 |
||
|
Security Incidents Reported |
Pearson |
-.029 |
.080 |
.018 |
1 |
-.095 |
.139 |
|
Sig. |
.687 |
.259 |
.803 |
.182 |
.050 |
||
|
Resolution Success |
Pearson |
-.043 |
-.073 |
.020 |
-.095 |
1 |
-.016 |
|
Sig. |
.547 |
.307 |
.775 |
.182 |
.825 |
||
|
Stakeholder Satisfaction (1-5) |
Pearson |
-.018 |
-.101 |
.030 |
.139 |
-.016 |
1 |
|
Sig. |
.795 |
.153 |
.670 |
.050 |
.825 |
||
|
Model Summary |
||||
|
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std. Error of the Estimate |
|
1 |
.180a |
.032 |
.017 |
1.322 |
|
a. Predictors: (Constant), Security Incidents Reported, Claim Amount (€), Processing Time (Days) |
||||
|
ANOVAa |
||||||
|
Model |
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean |
F |
Sig. |
|
|
1 |
Regression |
11.415 |
3 |
3.805 |
2.178 |
.092b |
|
Residual |
342.405 |
196 |
1.747 |
|||
|
Total |
353.820 |
199 |
||||
|
a. Dependent Variable: Stakeholder Satisfaction (1-5) |
||||||
|
b. Predictors: (Constant), Security Incidents Reported, Claim Amount (€), Processing Time (Days) |
||||||
|
Coefficientsa |
||||||
|
Model B |
Unstandardized |
Standardized |
t |
Sig. |
||
|
Std. Error |
Beta |
|||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
2.988 |
.295 |
10.124 |
.000 |
|
|
Claim Amount (€) |
-1.729E-5 |
.000 |
-.018 |
-.255 |
.799 |
|
|
Processing Time (Days) |
-.009 |
.005 |
-.114 |
-1.614 |
.108 |
|
|
Security Incidents Reported |
.116 |
.056 |
.147 |
2.086 |
.038 |
|
|
a. Dependent Variable: Stakeholder Satisfaction (1-5) |
||||||
|
Independent Samples Test |
||||||||||
|
F |
Levene’s Test |
t-test for Equality of Means |
||||||||
|
Sig. |
t |
df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
Mean |
Std. Error Difference |
95% Confidence Interval |
||||
|
Lower |
Upper |
|||||||||
|
Processing Time (Days) |
Equal variances assumed |
6.287 |
.013 |
-1.572 |
198 |
.118 |
-3.845 |
2.446 |
-8.670 |
.979 |
|
Equal variances not assumed |
-1.569 |
189.833 |
.118 |
-3.845 |
2.451 |
-8.680 |
.989 |
|||
|
Stakeholder Satisfaction (1-5) |
Equal variances assumed |
1.638 |
.202 |
-.427 |
198 |
.670 |
-.081 |
.189 |
-.453 |
.292 |
|
Equal |
-.426 |
196.169 |
.670 |
-.081 |
.189 |
-.454 |
.292 |
|||
|
Chi-Square Tests |
|||||
|
Value |
df |
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) |
Exact Sig. (2-sided) |
Exact Sig. |
|
|
Pearson Chi-Square |
.083a |
1 |
.774 |
||
|
Continuity |
.021 |
1 |
.884 |
||
|
Likelihood Ratio |
.083 |
1 |
.774 |
||
|
Fisher’s Exact Test |
.779 |
.442 |
|||
|
Linear-by-Linear |
.082 |
1 |
.774 |
||
|
N of Valid Cases |
200 |
||||
|
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 48.02. |
|||||
|
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table |
|||||
* Marco Giacalone, Research Professor, Co-Director of the Digitalisation and Access to justice Research Group (DIKE), Private and Economic Law Department (PREC), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium.
** Gioia Arnone, Researcher of the Digitalisation and Access to justice Research Group (DIKE), Private and Economic Law Department (PREC), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium.
1 Giacalone, M., Abignente, I., & Salehi, S. S. (2021). Small in value, important in essence: lessons learnt from a decade of implementing the European Small Claims Procedure in Italy and Belgium. Journal of Private International Law, 17(2), 308-333.
2 Agbo, C. C., Mahmoud, Q. H., & Eklund, J. M. (2019, April). Blockchain technology in healthcare: a systematic review. In Healthcare (Vol. 7, No. 2, p. 56). MDPI.
3 Boshkov, T. (2018). Blockchain and digital currency in the world of finance. Blockchain and cryptocurrencies.
4 Buccafurri, F., Lax, G., Russo, A., & Zunino, G. (2018). Integrating digital identity and blockchain. In On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems. OTM 2018 Conferences: Confederated International Conferences: CoopIS, C&TC, and ODBASE 2018, Valletta, Malta, October 22-26, 2018, Proceedings, Part I (pp. 568-585). Springer International Publishing.
5 Cagigas, D., Clifton, J., Diaz-Fuentes, D., & Fernández-Gutiérrez, M. (2021). Blockchain for public services: A systematic literature review. IEEE Access, 9, 13904-13921.
6 Aleksei, G. (2020). Crowd arbitration: Blockchain dispute resolution. Legal Issues in the digital Age, (3), 59-77.
7 Temte, M. N. (2019). Blockchain challenges traditional contract law: Just how smart are smart contracts. Wyo. L. Rev., 19, 87.
8 Chang, S. E., Chen, Y. C., & Wu, T. C. (2019). Exploring blockchain technology in international trade: Business process re-engineering for letter of credit. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 119(8), 1712-1733.
9 Evans, T. M. (2019). Role of International Rules in Blockchain-Based Cross-Border Commercial Disputes. Wayne L. Rev., 65, 1.
10 Gikay, A. A. (2019). European consumer law and blockchain based financial services: a functional approach against the rhetoric of regulatory uncertainty.
11 Gürkaynak, G., Yılmaz, I., Yeşilaltay, B., & Bengi, B. (2018). Intellectual property law and practice in the blockchain realm. Computer law & security review, 34(4), 847-862.
12 Haque, A. B., Islam, A. N., Hyrynsalmi, S., Naqvi, B., & Smolander, K. (2021). GDPR compliant blockchains–a systematic literature review. IEEE Access, 9, 50593-50606.
13 Hari, O., & DuPasquier, U. (2018). Blockchain and distributed ledger technology (DLT): academic overview of the technical and legal framework and challenges for lawyers. Int’l Bus. LJ, 423.
14 Hassani, H., Huang, X., & Silva, E. (2018). Banking with blockchain-ed big data. Journal of Management Analytics, 5(4), 256-275.
15 Jiménez-Serranía, V., Parra-Domínguez, J., De La Prieta, F., & Corchado, J. M. (2021, September). Cryptocurrencies Impact on Financial Markets: Some Insights on Its Regulation and Economic and Accounting Implications. In International Congress on Blockchain and Applications (pp. 292-299). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
16 Kaczorowska, M. (2019). Blockchain-based land registration: Possibilities and challenges. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 13(2), 339-360.
17 Komalavalli, C., Saxena, D., & Laroiya, C. (2020). Overview of blockchain technology concepts. In Handbook of research on blockchain technology (pp. 349-371). Academic Press.
18 MacDonald-Korth, Duncan, Vili Lehdonvirta, and Eric Meyer. “The art market 2.0: Blockchain and financialisation in visual arts.” (2018).
19 Nolan, L., & Wright, S. (2018). Blockchain in Insurance Law. Insurance Law Journal, 34(3), 150-167.
20 Ortolani, P. (2019). The impact of blockchain technologies and smart contracts on dispute resolution: arbitration and court litigation at the crossroads. Uniform law review, 24(2), 430-448.
21 Peláez-Repiso, A., Sánchez-Núñez, P., & García Calvente, Y. (2021). Tax regulation on blockchain and cryptocurrency: The implications for open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1), 98.
22 Queiroz, M. M., Telles, R., & Bonilla, S. H. (2020). Blockchain and supply chain management integration: a systematic review of the literature. Supply chain management: An international journal, 25(2), 241-254.
23 Reyes, C. L. (2018). Cryptolaw For Distributed Ledger Technologies. Jurimetrics, 58(3), 283-302.
24 Giacalone, M., Gioia, G., Van der Borght, K., & Salehi, S. S. (2023). Navigating Small Claims: Justice For Consumers, in The EU Digital Market in Small Claims, Digitalisation, and EU Market, ASP, 11-30.
25 Rodrigues, U. R. (2018). Law and the Blockchain. Iowa L. Rev., 104, 679.
26 Savelyev, A. (2018). Copyright in the blockchain era: Promises and challenges. Computer law & security review, 34(3), 550-561.
27 Steiu, M. F. (2020). Blockchain in education: Opportunities, applications, and challenges. First Monday.
28 Sulkowski, A. (2018). Blockchain, business supply chains, sustainability, and law: The future of governance, legal frameworks, and lawyers. Del. J. Corp. L., 43, 303.
29 Tang, Y., Xiong, J., Becerril-Arreola, R., & Iyer, L. (2019, June). Blockchain ethics research: a conceptual model. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Computers and People Research Conference (pp. 43-49).
30 Wei, P., Wang, D., Zhao, Y., Tyagi, S. K. S., & Kumar, N. (2020). Blockchain data-based cloud data integrity protection mechanism. Future Generation Computer Systems, 102, 902-911.
31 Wouda, H. P., & Opdenakker, R. (2019). Blockchain technology in commercial real estate transactions. Journal of property investment & Finance, 37(6), 570-579.
32 Giacalone, M., Gioia, G., Van der Borght, K., & Salehi, S. S. (2023). Navigating Small Claims: Justice for consumers in the EU Digital Market in Small Claims, Digitalisation, and EU Market, ASP, 11-30.
33 Wright, A. J. (2021). The rise of decentralized autonomous organizations: Opportunities and challenges.
34 Zhang, X., Aranguiz, M., Xu, D., Zhang, X., & Xu, X. (2018). Utilizing blockchain for better enforcement of green finance law and regulations. In Transforming climate finance and green investment with blockchains (pp. 289-301). Academic Press.
35 Giacalone, M., & Sajedeh Salehi, S. (2020). The European Small Claims Procedure: Implementation and Enforcement Revisited in Italy and Belgium. J. Eur. Consumer & Mkt. L., 9, 181.