Núm. 1 (2026): From Gavel to Grid: Reimagining Civil Justice in the Digital Era
Artículos

Artificial Intelligence and Fundamental Procedural Principles in Civil Justice

PDF (Inglés) HTML (Inglés)

Publicado 2026-06-29

Palabras clave

  • Artificial Intelligence,
  • Civil Procedure,
  • Fundamental Principles Digitalisation of Courts,
  • Procedural Fairness

Derechos de autor 2026 Konstantinos Papachristou-Dimitras

Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.

Cómo citar

Artificial Intelligence and Fundamental Procedural Principles in Civil Justice. (2026). Revista Ítalo-española De Derecho Procesal, 1, 137-155. https://doi.org/10.37417/rivitsproc/3320

Resumen

This article examines the impact of artificial intelligence on the fundamental principles of civil procedure, focusing on judicial impartiality, due process, and effective access to justice. It analyses how AI-driven tools are reshaping decision-making and procedural guarantees, arguing that their integration must be accompanied by robust legal safeguards to preserve fairness, transparency, and human oversight in digitalised civil justice systems.

PDF (Inglés) HTML (Inglés)

Descargas

Los datos de descarga todavía no están disponibles.

Referencias

  1. Amariles, D., & Baquero, C. (2023). Promises and limits of law for a human-centric artificial intelligence. Computer Law & Security Review, 105795. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105795
  2. Apalagaki, X. (1989). The right to be heard of the parties in civil proceedings.
  3. Bell, F., Moses, L., Legg, M., Silove, M., & Zalnieriute, M. (2023). AI decision-making and the courts. Oxford University Press.
  4. Bench-Capon, T., Araszkiewicz, M., Ashley, K., Atkinson, K., Bex, F., Borges, F.,… & Wyner, A. (2012). A history of AI and law in 50 papers: 25 years of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20, 215–252. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-012-9131-x
  5. Bryson, J., & Theodorou, A. (2019). How society can maintain human-centric artificial intelligence. In P. Toivonen & I. Saari (Eds.), Human-centered digitalization and services (pp. 305–318). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7725-9_16
  6. Cheong, M. (2023). Transparency and accountability in AI systems: Safeguarding wellbeing in the age of algorithmic decision-making. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.109592
  7. Christodoulou, P. (2025). Electronic filing of pleadings under the Greek Code of Civil Procedure.
  8. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2018). European ethical charter on the use of artificial intelligence in judicial systems. Council of Europe.
  9. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2021). Guidelines on electronic court filing and digitalisation of courts.
  10. Dagtoglou, P. (2012). Constitutional law: Individual rights (4th ed.).
  11. Davidovic, J. (2023). On the purpose of meaningful human control of AI. Frontiers in Big Data, 6, 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2022.1017677
  12. Delikostopoulos, S. (1965). The autonomy of private will in civil procedure.
  13. Demetzou, M. (2025). Risk to a right under the GDPR.
  14. Diamantopoulos, G. (2023). The fundamental procedural principles in the case law of the Plenary of the Supreme Civil and Criminal Court of Greece. Eranismoi & Antapodoseis Themis, V, 1–20.
  15. Diamantopoulos, G. (2025). Contradictory conduct of the parties in civil proceedings.
  16. Edwards, L. (2022). Regulating AI in Europe: Four problems and four solutions. Ada Lovelace Institute.
  17. Eliot, L. (2020). An impact model of AI on the principles of justice. https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.12615
  18. European Commission. (2025). EU Justice Scoreboard (COM(2025) 375 final).
  19. EU Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2022). Bias in algorithms: Artificial intelligence and discrimination.
  20. EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). (2025). Digitalising justice: A fundamental rights-based approach. Publications Office of the European Union.
  21. Gadamer, H.-G. (1972). Truth and method (3rd ed.). Sheed & Ward.
  22. Gaul, H. (1968). Zur Frage nach dem Zweck des Zivilprozesses. Archiv für die civilistische Praxis, 168, 27–58.
  23. Gesiou-Falstsi, P. (1987). Fundamental principles of enforcement proceedings. D, 641–670.
  24. Gesiou-Falstsi, P. (1995). General procedural principles under Greek law. In The procedural legal order II (pp. 129–155).
  25. Gutiérrez, M. (2023). AI technologies in the judiciary. In Handbook on public policy and AI.
  26. Helberger, N. (2025). The rise of technology courts. Computer Law & Security Review, 106–118.
  27. Henckel, W. (1988). Prozessrecht und materielles Recht. Tübingen.
  28. Ho-Dac, M. (2025). The EU AI Act and the challenge of protecting fundamental rights. Common Market Law Review, 62, 1299–1330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2025096
  29. Jacobs, R. (2005). Der Gegenstand des Feststellungsverfahrens. Tübingen.
  30. Jauernig, O. (1971). Materielles Recht und Prozessrecht. Juristische Schulung, 329–335.
  31. Jougleux, P. (2025). European artificial intelligence law. Paris.
  32. Kaisis, A. (2007). The impact of informatics on civil procedure. Arm, 1025–1050.
  33. Kargados, P. (1980). Reflections on the principle of orality. In Festschrift in honour of A. Tsirintanis (pp. 233–260).
  34. Kargados, P. (1987). The fundamental principles of civil procedure. In Tribute to G. Michaelidis-Nouaros (Vol. I, pp. 465–490).
  35. Larsson, S., & Heintz, F. (2020). Transparency in artificial intelligence. Internet Policy Review, 9(2), 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.2.1469
  36. Laux, J. (2023). Institutionalised distrust and human oversight of artificial intelligence. AI & Society, 38, 2853–2868. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01777-z
  37. Lopes, R. (2025). Bias in adjudication and the promise of AI: Challenges to procedural fairness. Law, Technology and Humans, 7(1), 47–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.3812
  38. Lütz, S. (2024). The AI Act, gender equality and non-discrimination. ERA Forum, 25(1), 79–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-024-00785-w
  39. Malgieri, G., & Santos, C. (2025). Assessing the (severity of) impacts on fundamental rights. Computer Law & Security Review. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106113
  40. McCarty, T. (1977). Reflections on TAXMAN. An experiment in artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. Harvard Law Review, 90, 837–893. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1340132
  41. Mittelstadt, B., Russell, C., & Wachter, S. (2019). Explaining explanations in AI. In Proceedings of FAT (pp. 279–288). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287574
  42. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society. Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674736061
  43. Re, R., & Niederman, S. (2019). Developing artificially intelligent justice. Stanford Technology Law Review, 22, 242–289.
  44. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (4th ed.). Pearson.
  45. Selçuk, S., Konca, N., & Kaya, S. (2025). AI-Driven Civil Litigation: Navigating the Right to a Fair Trial. Computer Law & Security Review, 106–136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106136
  46. Shi, C., Sourdin, T., & Li, B. (2021). The smart court – A new pathway to justice in China? International Journal for Court Administration. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.367
  47. Sorabji, J. (2024). A model civil procedure code for England and Wales. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192848680.001.0001
  48. Sourdin, T. (2021). Judges, technology and artificial intelligence: The artificial judge. Edward Elgar. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788978262.00005
  49. Strong, S. (2026). Artificial intelligence in civil justice systems. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, advance online publication.
  50. Wang, Y. (2024). Do not go gentle into that good night: The European Union’s and China’s different approaches to the extraterritorial application of artificial intelligence laws and regulations. Computer Law & Security Review, 53, Article 105965. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2024.105965

Update cookies preferences