Jusletter IT

Introducing a European E-Legislation Index

  • Authors: Valerie Kainz / Sebastian Reimer
  • Category: Articles
  • Region: Austria
  • Field of law: E-Democracy
  • Collection: Conference Proceedings IRIS 2015
  • Citation: Valerie Kainz / Sebastian Reimer, Introducing a European E-Legislation Index, in: Jusletter IT 26 February 2015
To identify best practices in the digitalisation of legislative processes, an online survey was conducted in 35 European countries. The questionnaire should determine (1) the level of publicly available information, (2) the level of participation offered to citizens and (3) the level of digitalisation of legislative processes. On the one hand the survey showed, that the level of information is quite good among the 18 contributing countries whereas digitalisation of processes and participation of citizens need improvement. On the other hand the study revealed the top 3 countries in this area, which are: (1) Estonia, (2) Germany and (3) Portugal. Only Estonia can be regarded to handle law drafting in an integrated online process.

Table of contents

  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Methodology
  • 3. Availability of Information
  • 3.1. Legislation
  • 3.2. Jurisdiction
  • 4. Participation in Law Drafting Process
  • 4.1. Preparation
  • 4.2. Availability of the Results of Public Consultations
  • 5. Quality Aspects
  • 5.1. Impact Assessment for Drafts
  • 5.2. Software application and public availability
  • 6. Conclusions
  • 7. Acknowledgements

1.

Introduction ^

«The best weapon of dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of democracy should be the weapon of openness.»

(Niels Bohr)

[1]
Information and participation of people was a technically demanding task at the time western democracies emerged. Nowadays electronic means of communication dramatically simplify communication processes and make general participation in the legislative process a realistic goal. Communication obstacles between legislators and citizens are removed step by step.
[2]
This article shall deal with the question to which extent electronic means have already been implemented for the purposes of an even more participative legislation within Europe. Best practices as well as strengths and weaknesses of existing approaches in legislative processes are pointed out. To be able to identify best practices, the implementation of a European E-Legislation Index is proposed. This Index shall provide clear evidence of the achieved progress, like the quality of the publicly and electronically available legislative information, the electronic participation of citizens in the legislative process as well as the quality of the electronic law drafting process itself. Furthermore it shall identify the potentials for improvement and allow for objective comparison of different national approaches to track down best practices.

2.

Methodology ^

[3]
The ranking of electronic legislation in Europe is based on data collected from 22 European countries. To this end an online-survey had been conducted since November 2014, communicated to legislative bodies and universities in 35 European countries, including all member states of the European Union as well as Albania, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Norway, Serbia and Switzerland. Feedback could be collected from 22 countries, of which 18 countries1 answered more than the required minimum of 50 percent2 of the questions.

Figure 1: European E-Legislation Index 2015

[4]
The survey3 consists of three main sections, focusing on aspects of
  • Information4 (I),
  • Participation5 (P) and
  • Quality6 (Q) of the law drafting process.

Figure 2: Structure and Score of the E-Legislation Index 2015

[5]
The information part allows for a maximum of 37 points and aims at the evaluation of the available online resources with regard to legislation, as for example access to consolidated versions of legislation, jurisdiction and legislative history. A maximum of 25 points can be achieved at the participation part of the questionnaire, which focuses on the initiation and public consultation of law drafts. Last but not least the quality part of the questionnaire allows for a maximum of 22 points and describes the extent to which law drafting can be done in an automated and digital manner. In total a maximum of 84 points can be rewarded for the «perfect digital legislation approach».
[6]
The detailed data regarding the achieved points and rank per country are as follows:

Table 1: The E-Legislation Index 2015 (by country)

[7]
Ordered by rank, the collected data reveals the following ranking, whereas T-RANK refers to the rank regarding the totally achieved points, I-RANK refers to the points rewarded for the information part, P-RANK refers to the points rewarded for the participation part and Q-RANK refers to the points rewarded for the digitalisation and quality of the online processes in legislation:

Table 2: The E-Legislation Index 2015 (by total rank)

3.

Availability of Information ^

Figure 3: Information Ranking

[8]
Easy access to reliable legal information is a key asset in modern society. Therefore, the focus of our survey has been on this topic, with a total of 37 points (or 44%) of the survey’s maximum of 84 points. Germany’s top value of 29.3 points corresponds to an achievement of 79% with regard to this section.

3.1.

Legislation ^

[9]

Legislation is available online, in all of the 18 countries, namely: Austria7, Belgium8, Czech Republic9, Estonia10, Finland11, Germany12, Greece13, Iceland14, Ireland15, Italy16, Latvia17, Lithuania18, Norway19, Portugal20, Romania21, Slovakia22, Slovenia23 and Switzerland24.

[10]

Legislation on central as well as constitutional law level is available online in all contributing countries, while ordinances25 are in approximately two thirds and sub-constitutional law26 is in approximately 56% of the examined countries available. Legislation on a sub-regional level27, regional level28 as well as internal ordinances of public authorities, which only bind civil servants29 are available online in less than 30% of the countries. In Ireland acts and statutory instruments are available online mainly in their «as-enacted» form. In Switzerland, cantons set rules for the publication of their legislation30.

[11]
Legislative history on a central level31 is available online in more than 80% of contributing countries, while for constitutional law32 this rate is 66%, for sub-constitutional law33 it is approximately 45% and for ordinances34 the percentage is almost 39%.

3.2.

Jurisdiction ^

[12]
Jurisdiction is also online available in all countries but Slovakia, namely: Austria35, Belgium36, Czech Republic37, Estonia38, Finland39, Germany40, Greece41, Iceland42, Ireland43, Italy44, Latvia45, Lithuania46, Norway47, Portugal48, Romania49, Slovenia50 and Switzerland51.

4.

Participation in Law Drafting Process ^

Figure 4: Participation Ranking

[13]
The high-score in the participation section is set to 25 points and the best practice in this field is from Switzerland with a value of 14, which is a 56% fraction of the points achievable in this section.

4.1.

Preparation ^

[14]
Public authorities52 are entitled to prepare legislative drafts in 50% of the contributing countries. Furthermore in some countries particular public authorities53, representative bodies54, companies55, natural persons56, legal persons57 or even everyone58 gain an appropriate permission. In Finland even a group of 50 citizens is allowed to prepare legislative drafts, whereas in Iceland no rules on who may prepare drafts exist.

4.2.

Availability of the Results of Public Consultations ^

[15]
The vast majority of participating countries publishes the results of the review process59 and the statements of the public consultation60. Furthermore in some countries even details on how the statements have been considered61 are published. Easily comprehensible charts are only available in the Czech Republic, Estonia and Romania. In Ireland public consultation may be replaced by parliamentary hearings, provided that the transcripts of these hearings get published.

5.

Quality Aspects ^

[16]
Estonia achieved 14.8 points, which is the top value in this section and corresponds to a share of 67% of the achievable points.

Figure 5: Quality Ranking

5.1.

Impact Assessment for Drafts ^

[17]
According to the evaluated questionnaires, many impacts of legislative drafts are taken into account during the legislative processes. In almost all investigated countries financial impacts on public authorities62, on private companies63 and on private persons64 play a key role. Furthermore human rights65, environmental66, macroeconomic67, society68, consumer69 and gender70 impacts are assessed. Only impacts on privacy71 are rarely taken into consideration. In some countries further impacts are evaluated, like in Italy, the impacts on the legal system72, in Switzerland the impacts on future generations or in Estonia on national security and international relations, on regional development and the organisation of state agencies and local government agencies as well as on social (including demographic) issues. In Norway impact assessments are made pursuant to the instructions of official studies and reports73 while in Portugal other impacts are taken into account according to the matter of the law74.

5.2.

Software application and public availability ^

[18]
For law-drafting most of the investigated countries are using an offline, closed source product, like MS Office75. Other countries use an offline, in-house development software76, an online, in-house developed software77 or an online, closed source product78.
[19]

Law drafts are publicly available online in Austria79, Czech Republic80, Estonia81, Germany82, Iceland83, Italy84, Latvia85, Lithuania86, Portugal87, Romania88 and Slovenia89, whereas online comments can be made in Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania and Slovenia.

6.

Conclusions ^

[20]
Information has been implemented best, with a top-score of 79% (DE), then quality of legislative processes, with a top-score of 67% (EE), followed by participation, with a top-score of only 56% (CH). In 2015 the top-3-countries («best practices») are with regard to digital legislation processes: Estonia as number one, Germany as number two and Portugal as number three of the first ELegislation Index.

7.

Acknowledgements ^

[21]
We would like to express our special thanks to Marek Antos (Charles University Prague, Faculty of Law, CZ), Inge Lorange Backer (Department of Public and International Law, University of Oslo, NO), Eglė Bilevičiūtė (Mykolas Romeris University, LT), Christopher Brosch (Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz, DE), Cosmin Dariescu (Universitatea Alexandru Ioan Cuza Iasi, Law Department, RO), Jan Filip (Masaryk University, Faculty of Law, CZ), Mascha Glomb (AT), Edita Gruodyte (Vytautas Magnus University, LT), Sif Guðjónsdóttir (Legal Advisor, Office of the Prime Minister, IS), Angelika Hable (AT), Brian Hunt (IE), Anna Hyvärinen (University of Turku, FI), Zoi Kolitsi (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, GR), Heikki Kulla (University of Turku, FI), Kristine Kuprijanova (Ministry of Justice, LV), Laura Laurinaviciene (LT), Markus Matt (Government Office, EE), Ana-Raquel G. Moniz (University of Coimbra, Faculty of Law, PT), Edmondo Mostacci (Bocconi University, IT), Yannis Naziris (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, GR), Janez Pogorelec (Service for legislation, SI), Taina Riihinen (Ministry of Justice, FI), Bastian Rothe (Bundesministerium des Inneren, DE), Dag Wiese Schartum (University of Oslo, NO), Ivan Šimko (SK), Roxana Oana Stoica (University of Bucharest, RO), Laura Sukelyte (LT), Snejana Sulima (Universitatea Alexandru Ioan Cuza, RO) and Martin Wyss (Bundesamt für Justiz, CH).

 

Valerie Kainz, Scientific Assistant, Intelligent Law & Internet Applications

 

Sebastian Reimer, CEO, Intelligent Law & Internet Applications, Lerchenfelderstraße 124-126/1/19, 1080 Wien, AT, office@crystal-law.at; http://www.crystal-law.at

  1. 1 These countries are: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Italia, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Switzerland.
  2. 2 To guarantee a minimum of relevancy, only replies with at least 50 percent of the questions answered were taken into account.
  3. 3 http://www.crystal-law.at/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/e_legislation_survey.pdf (5 February 2015).
  4. 4 This section consists of questions 7, 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 17, 19, 21 and 27 with a maximum of 37 points.
  5. 5 This section consists of questions 5, 22, 23 and 24 with a maximum of 25 points.
  6. 6 This section consists of questions 6, 20 and 25 with a maximum of 22 points.
  7. 7 http://www.ris.bka.gv.at (9 February 2015).
  8. 8 http://www.staatsblad.be (9 February 2015).
  9. 9 http://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/?path=/portal/obcan (10 January 2015).
  10. 10 Legislation from 1995 on, is available at: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en (10 January 2015).
  11. 11 Legislation from 1926 on, is available at: http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki (10 January 2015).
  12. 12 http://www.juris.de (10 January 2015).
  13. 13 http://www.parliament.gr/en/Nomothetiko-Ergo/Psifisthenta-Nomoschedia (10. February 2015).
  14. 14 http://www.althingi.is (10 January 2015); http://www.reglugerd.is (10 January 2015); http://www.stjornartidindi.is (10 January 2015).
  15. 15 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/home.html (10 January 2015), since 1781.
  16. 16 http://www.normattiva.it (10 January 2015); http://www.camera.it (10 January 2015); http://www.governo.it (10 January 2015).
  17. 17 https://www.vestnesis.lv (10 January 2015); consolidated versions of legislation from 1993 on, are available at: http://likumi.lv (10 January 2015).
  18. 18 Legislation as of 2013 is available at: http://www.eteismas.lt (10 February 2015).
  19. 19 https://lovdata.no/register/lover (11 January 2015).
  20. 20 Legislation from 1910 on, is available at: http://www.dre.pt (10 January 2015).
  21. 21 Legislation from 1995 on, is available at: http://www.lege-online.ro/legislatie-romaneasca (10 January 2015).
  22. 22 https://lt.justice.gov.sk/Public/AllMaterialsList.aspx (10 January 2015).
  23. 23 Legislation from 1991 on, is available at: http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pravniRedRS (10 January 2015).
  24. 24 http://www.admin.ch/bundesrecht/00566/index.html?lang=de (10 January 2015); Legislation from 1998 on, is available at: http://www.admin.ch/bundesrecht/00567/index.html?lang=de (10 January 2015).
  25. 25 Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Switzerland (12/18).
  26. 26 Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Lithuania, Slovenia and Switzerland (10/18).
  27. 27 Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Romania and Slovenia (10/18).
  28. 28 Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Switzerland (8/18).
  29. 29 Austria, Finland, Germany, Lithuania and Switzerland (5/18).
  30. 30 http://www.lexfind.ch (10 January 2015).
  31. 31 Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Switzerland (15/18).
  32. 32 Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Switzerland (12/18).
  33. 33 Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Slovenia and Switzerland (8/18).
  34. 34 Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia and Switzerland (7/18).
  35. 35 http://alex.onb.ac.at/zeitlichegliederung.htm (11 February 2015).
  36. 36 http://www.staatsblad.be (11 February 2015).
  37. 37 Supreme Court Jurisdiction as from 2003 is available at: http://www.nsoud.cz/JudikaturaNS_new/ns_web.nsf/WebSpreadSearch (11 January 2015); jurisdiction of the Supreme Administrative Court (from 2003 on) is available at: http://www.nssoud.cz/main0col.aspx?cls=JudikaturaBasicSearch&pageSource=0 (11 January 2015); jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court (since 1993) is available at: http://nalus.usoud.cz/Search/Search.aspx (11 January 2015).
  38. 38 https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en (5 February 2015).
  39. 39 http://www.finlex.fi/fi/oikeus (10 January 2015).
  40. 40 http://www.juris.de (10 January 2015).
  41. 41 Paid services only.
  42. 42 Jurisdiction from 1999 on, is available at: http://www.haestirettur.is (10 January 2015); http://www.domstolar.is (10 January 2015); http://www.fonsjuris.is (10 January 2015).
  43. 43 Jurisdiction as from 2001 (Supreme Court) and 2004 (High Court) is available at: http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/FrmJudgmentsByCourtAll?OpenForm&l=en (10 January 2015).
  44. 44 http://www.cortecostituzionale.it (10 January 2015); jurisdiction from 1956 on, is available at: http://www.giustizia-amministrativa.it (10 January 2015).
  45. 45 http://www.tiesas.lv/tiesu-nolemumi (10 January 2015); http://at.gov.lv/lv/judikatura/judikaturas-nolemumu-arhivs/ (10 January 2015); jurisdiction from 2007 on, is available at: http://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/?lang=1&mid=19&smode=1 (10 January 2015).
  46. 46 http://liteko.teismai.lt/viesasprendimupaieska/detalipaieska.aspx?detali=2 (10 January 2015).
  47. 47 Jurisdiction from 1836 on, is available at: https://lovdata.no/register/dommer (11 January 2015).
  48. 48 http://www.dgsi.pt (10 January 2015); http://www.tribunalconstitucional.pt (10 January 2015).
  49. 49 Jurisdiction from 2008 on, is available at: http://www.jurisprudenta.org/Search.aspx (10 January 2015).
  50. 50 http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/sodnaPraksaRS (10 January 2015).
  51. 51 http://www.eidgenoessischegerichte.ch (10 January 2015).
  52. 52 Belgium, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland (9/18).
  53. 53 Austria, Czech Republic, Greece, Latvia, Norway, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Switzerland (9/18).
  54. 54 Austria, Romania and Slovenia (3/18).
  55. 55 Latvia (1/18).
  56. 56 Norway, Portugal and Slovenia (3/18).
  57. 57 Romania (1/18).
  58. 58 Lithuania (1/18).
  59. 59 Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Portugal and Romania (13/18).
  60. 60 Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Slovenia and Switzerland (9/18).
  61. 61 Czech Republic, Estonia, Norway, Slovenia and Switzerland (5/18).
  62. 62 Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland (16/18).
  63. 63 Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Norway, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia and Switzerland (14/18).
  64. 64 Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Norway, Slovenia, Romania and Switzerland (12/18).
  65. 65 Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Norway, Slovenia, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland (13/18).
  66. 66 Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Norway, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland (13/18).
  67. 67 Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland (12/18).
  68. 68 Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland (13/18).
  69. 69 Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Norway, Romania and Switzerland (11/18).
  70. 70 Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland (10/18).
  71. 71 Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Norway, Romania and Slovenia (7/18).
  72. 72 So-called «Analisi tecnico-normative», http://www.camera.it/temiap/temi16/DIR_PCM_10_09_2008.pdf (10 January 2015); «Analisi di Impatto della Regolazione», http://www.camera.it/temiap/temi16/DPCM_170_2008.pdf (10 January 2015).
  73. 73 These studies also aim at regional impacts, impacts on health of the population and consequences with regard to the objective of obtaining simpler regulations and less complex public administration. In practice, the extent of the impact assessments vary considerably.
  74. 74 Like environmental impacts, impacts on consumer, privacy impacts and other financial impacts (besides financial impacts on public authorities).
  75. 75 Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Romania and Switzerland (11/18).
  76. 76 Germany and Italy (2/18).
  77. 77 Ireland (1/18).
  78. 78 Lithuania and Portugal (2/18).
  79. 79 https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Begut (10 January 2015).
  80. 80 https://apps.odok.cz/ (10 January 2015); http://www.psp.cz/en/sqw/sntisk.sqw?F=N (10 January 2015).
  81. 81 http://eelnoud.valitsus.ee (10 January 2015).
  82. 82 http://dip.bundestag.de (10 January 2015).
  83. 83 http://www.innanrikisraduneyti.is/sam/drogtilumsagnar (10 January 2015).
  84. 84 http://www.camera.it (10 January 2015); http://www.senato.it (10 January 2015).
  85. 85 http://tap.mk.gov.lv/mk/tap/search (10 February 2015); http://titania.saeima.lv/LIVS12/saeimalivs12.nsf/webAll?OpenView (10 February 2015).
  86. 86 http://www.lrs.lt (10 February 2015); http://www3.lrs.lt/dokpaieska/forma_l.htm (10 February 2015).
  87. 87 http://debates.parlamento.pt (10 January 2015).
  88. 88 http://www.cdep.ro/pls/proiecte/upl_pck.lista?std=DZ (10 January 2015); http://www.senat.ro/LegiProiect.aspx (10 January 2015).
  89. 89 http://e-uprava.gov.si/e-uprava/edemokracija.euprava (10 January 2015).

Lawjobs

        There are currently no records for specified RSS feed.

News@Weblaw

Per§onalia