Use of technology in procedural compliance
Overview: Use of Technology in Procedural Compliance
What is Procedural Compliance?
Procedural compliance means that legal procedures — such as notifications, hearings, evidence submissions, decision-making timelines, and appeals — are followed properly to ensure fairness, transparency, and legality.
Role of Technology in Procedural Compliance
Technology improves procedural compliance by:
Ensuring timely notifications and communications (e.g., electronic service of documents).
Facilitating electronic filing and case management systems.
Allowing remote hearings and virtual courtrooms.
Enhancing access to case documents and transparency through online portals.
Automating deadlines and reminders to reduce errors.
Supporting evidence handling, like digital evidence submissions.
Technology helps meet legal procedural requirements efficiently while safeguarding fundamental rights such as the right to be heard and access to justice.
Case Law Illustrating Technology and Procedural Compliance
Case 1: KHO 2020:14 – Electronic Service of Administrative Decisions
Facts:
An administrative authority used electronic means (email) to notify a party of a decision. The party claimed the notification was not properly received, affecting appeal deadlines.
Issue:
Whether electronic service met legal requirements for notification and started the appeal period.
Court’s Analysis:
The Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) held that electronic service is valid if it is reliable and the recipient has consented or been properly informed about electronic communication. The court emphasized that technology can be used if it ensures effective delivery and opportunity to respond.
Impact:
Validates electronic notification as part of procedural compliance.
Stresses need for ensuring receipt and awareness by recipients.
Case 2: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Ruiz Torija v. Spain (1994)
Facts:
The applicant alleged lack of effective access to court documents during proceedings.
Issue:
Whether procedural rights were violated due to restricted access to case files.
Court’s Analysis:
The ECtHR stressed the importance of procedural fairness and access to documents, recognizing that technological tools can facilitate transparency and access. Though this case pre-dates widespread digitalization, it laid groundwork for later recognition of technology’s role.
Impact:
Underlines technology as a tool to fulfill the right to a fair trial and procedural access.
Case 3: KHO 2017:91 – Use of Digital Evidence in Administrative Proceedings
Facts:
A dispute arose concerning the validity of digital evidence submitted electronically in an environmental permit appeal.
Issue:
Whether the administrative court could rely on digital evidence, given concerns about authenticity and procedural fairness.
Court’s Analysis:
The KHO accepted digital evidence if proper safeguards ensure authenticity and integrity, such as verified digital signatures or secure transmission. Procedural rules must adapt to technological means while preserving fairness.
Impact:
Confirms digital evidence admissibility, with procedural safeguards, in administrative courts.
Case 4: CJEU, Tele2 Sverige AB v. Post- och telestyrelsen (C-203/15), 2016
Facts:
This EU case concerned data retention laws and the legality of telecommunication data collection, including procedural safeguards in electronic surveillance.
Issue:
Whether procedural rules governing data retention complied with legality and proportionality principles.
Court’s Analysis:
The CJEU held that technology-based measures (data retention) must comply with strict procedural safeguards to protect fundamental rights, including clear rules on access, review, and oversight.
Impact:
Highlights the need for procedural compliance in technologically complex contexts.
Case 5: KHO 2019:53 – Remote Hearings and Procedural Fairness
Facts:
Due to exceptional circumstances, an administrative hearing was held remotely via videoconference.
Issue:
Whether the remote hearing respected procedural rights, including the right to be heard and equality of arms.
Court’s Analysis:
The KHO held that remote hearings are permissible if they ensure effective participation and guarantee parties' rights. Technical reliability, ability to present evidence, and fair communication must be secured.
Impact:
Endorses remote hearings as compliant with procedural fairness, given proper safeguards.
Summary
Technology plays an increasingly vital role in ensuring procedural compliance in administrative and judicial processes by:
Enabling electronic notifications and document service.
Allowing digital evidence to be submitted and examined.
Facilitating remote hearings and increasing access.
Ensuring transparency and effective communication.
Automating procedural safeguards like deadlines.
Finnish courts (especially the Supreme Administrative Court) and European courts consistently emphasize that while technology is a valuable tool, fundamental procedural rights must be protected, including effective communication, access, and fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments