Digitalisation of child justice practices: An EU dashboard and country snapshots

European Union

Age of criminal responsibility

Across the jurisdictions considered, the ACR ranges from no fixed age to 12 to 17, with important variations.

Cross-EU theme

ACR varies, but all systems incorporate developmental and welfare considerations, and several allow continuity of young adults treated under child and youth justice systems. Several jurisdictions apply youth justice rules beyond 18, up to 21-23 years old, based on maturity.

Child Justice System

Despite legal diversity, EU child justice systems, in theory, share common foundations:

Rehabilitation, protection, and reintegration are preferred to punitive measures.
Specialised children’s courts/judges.
Privacy protections: Hearings are almost universally closed to the public.
Requirement for legal representation or assistance: All countries mandate defence counsel for minors.
Adapted language and procedures: Child-friendly communication is standard across systems.

Key differences include:

Models range from welfare-based (Netherlands, Belgium, France) to more offence-focused systems with flexibility for “adult treatment” (Poland, Hungary).
Some jurisdictions (France, Italy) have child-specific justice frameworks or criminal codes; others use hybrid systems where the general criminal code applies unless modified by particular provisions for children.

Introduction of remote hearings

Pre-pandemic

Most countries had limited remote hearing provisions, generally for witness hearings, appellate review, largely in exceptional circumstances only. Some have seen a recent resurgence of remote hearings, with new legislation and guidance in 2023-2024 reintroducing standards previously introduced during COVID as emergency measures.

COVID-19 as a universal catalyst

All countries expanded remote hearing capacity in response to pandemic restrictions, often under temporary emergency legislation, with several converting elements into permanent law:

France: Rapid emergency adoption in 2020; consolidated in 2024 guidance.
Italy: Emergency adoption in 2020; permanent legal basis via “Cartabia Reform” in 2022.
Poland: “Anti-Crisis Shields” (2020) strongly accelerated use.
Belgium: 2024 Flemish Videoconference Act introduced widespread permissions.
Germany: Remote hearings were introduced in 1998, but only for witnesses; main criminal hearings still require physical presence.
Sweden: Began experimenting with remote hearings in 1999; made permanent nationwide in 2008.
Netherlands & Italy: Saw large expansions during COVID‑19 through emergency legislation, later partially retained.
Greece: Introduced remote hearings only recently (2024–2025), with the first criminal remote hearing held in 2025.

Cross-EU trend: COVID-19 triggered the first truly widespread use of digital justice tools across all jurisdictions, but these practices persist in many jurisdictions as part of the growing digitisation of justice systems.

Legislation, Regulation and Guidance

National frameworks include:

Provisions within Codes of Criminal Procedure
Specialised Child Justice Codes/Acts/ Frameworks
Ministerial decrees or internal court guidance
Pandemic-driven emergency legislation
Technical standards for digital justice systems

EU Directive 2016/800 (Procedural Safeguards for Children)
Directive 2016/800 is a foundational layer influencing national interpretations of procedural rights in any format, including remote hearings. This Directive requires Member States to implement guarantees for children in criminal proceedings, including:

Right to information,
Mandatory legal assistance,
Audiovisual recording of questioning,
Child-appropriate procedures,
Protection of privacy and dignity.

Countries such as Netherlands, Hungary, Italy, Poland, France explicitly incorporated Directive-derived safeguards in digital and non-digital child justice settings.

Few jurisdictions have child-specific legislation or guidance concerning remote hearings.

Scope/Mandate for Remote Hearings

Overall pattern:

Remote hearings are not mandated for child defendants in any jurisdiction. In every country, remote formats are:

discretionary,
limited to specific procedural stages,
and rarely permitted for substantive hearings on guilt.

Key similarities:

Main trials or merits hearings for children are usually excluded (Germany, Croatia, Belgium-Flanders).
Courts must conduct case-by-case assessments of suitability.
Several systems place limits where remote hearings may violate immediacy (Germany, Netherlands) or fair trial rights.

Notable differences:

Croatia: main proceedings must be in person.
Belgium (Flanders): remote hearings allowed only for a limited list of non-merits hearings, subject to the child’s informed consent and judge approval.
France: remote prohibited for deciding child pre-trial detention (except in narrow exceptions).
Netherlands: Physical presence is the rule under Article 495a DCCP; remote hearings are discouraged for children.
Poland: remote hearings permitted but inconsistently applied and technically limited.

Safeguards

Common safeguards found across EU jurisdictions include:

Mandatory legal representation for children
Confidential communication with defence counsel
Requirement for suitable technical equipment
Judicial determination of best interests or equivalent
Protection of privacy (e.g., verifying no unauthorised persons present)
Ability to object or give consent.

Examples of more substantive safeguards:

Belgium (Flanders):
- Child’s written consent after consultation with a lawyer
- No recording
- Strong privacy checks and technical standards
- Presence of “stand-by lawyer” at the child’s location
France:
- Dedicated videoconference rooms for confidential prep
- Local IT technicians required in court
Netherlands:
- Hybrid only, guardian presence, secure platforms, assessment of the child’s best interests.
Germany/Croatia:
- Guarantee of in-person main trials as a structural safeguard
Italy/ Portugal:
General child justice safeguards apply, but no rules tailored to remote hearings

Cross-EU theme: Safeguards vary widely, but no jurisdiction has a comprehensive child-specific remote hearing framework.

Statistics and Evaluations

Data availability

There are extremely limited child-specific data across all jurisdictions.
Where statistics exist, they tend to concern all cases, not including or disaggregating for children.

Known insights:

Belgium (Flanders): published numbers (e.g., 545 in 2020 -> 215 in 2022).
Poland, Italy, Hungary: general commentary about digitalisation, but no child-focused numbers.
Netherlands: judges report juvenile remote hearings are “rare”.
Hungary: NGO reports identify infrastructural limits, but no age-disaggregated statistics

Cross-EU pattern: There is a widespread lack of systematic tracking and public reporting on the use of remote hearings in child justice systems, meaning the full picture and impact of remote hearings remains unclear.

Public Discourse

Recurring concerns

Loss of non-verbal communication and reduced assessment of credibility.
Risks to confidentiality and child-lawyer interaction.
Potential erosion of procedural fairness.
Digital hearings possibly undermining restorative or rehabilitative aims.
Technological failures affecting children, especially those in vulnerable situations. (Italy, Poland, Hungary).
Risks to privacy and unauthorised access (Belgium, Italy, France).

Positive narratives

Reduced transportation burdens (Netherlands, Belgium, Italy).
‘Speed and efficiency’
Reduced anxiety for some children (Netherlands).
Increased safety in high-risk situations.

Cross-EU theme: The child justice community is cautious; efficiency narratives compete with concerns around maintaining child-friendly justice proceedings, erosion of procedural fairness guarantees, and the protection of the right to a fair trial.

Legal Cases

Only limited litigation exists, mostly indirectly concerning children.

Examples:

France (Cour de cassation, 2024): remote hearing for a child who became an adult was upheld only where specific risk justifies its use.
Belgium (Constitutional Court, 2021): ruled that remote hearings for children do not violate defence rights if lawyer assistance is preserved.
Belgium (2018 case): hearing a juvenile by telephone deemed problematic (but not appealed).
Netherlands (Hoge Raad 2020 & 2024): emphasised need for safeguards, privacy, and reliability where children are involved.
Spain: Supreme Court annulled a trial due to evidentiary inequality in a remote hearing (not child-specific, but influential)

Overall

EU Directive 2016/800 provides a shared procedural foundation, but child‑specific remote hearing guidance, examinations, and public discourse are somewhat limited.

Technical and fairness concerns are prominent concerns, balanced against perceptions of efficiency gains.

Across Europe, remote hearings involving children remain the exception, not the norm.

Significant data gaps hinder evaluation of impact on children’s rights and justice outcomes.

Some promising practices exist, especially in ensuring consent, privacy protections, and judicial oversight.

The future of remote hearings for children is likely to remain cautious, limited, and slow-moving, with high scrutiny required.

Other Digital Justice Practices?

European-Level Trends and Context

Cross-Border Data Integration Prüm and Prüm II underpin automated cross-border searches of DNA, fingerprints, vehicle registration, and facial images across member states, with human verification required. Europol has expanded its role as a central analytical hub, using AI-assisted filtering and pattern analysis to shape operational priorities, though without holding direct policing powers.

Predictive Policing
Across Europe, member states are rebranding predictive policing tools as decision support, risk assessment, or intelligence-led policing systems. Several countries (Portugal, Greece, Croatia) remain at pre-deployment or research stage. Where systems exist, they are often framed as supporting allocation rather than automated enforcement, though in practice they still shape policing intensity and resource distribution.

Scale Back
The Netherlands, France, and Germany have paused, discontinued, or scaled back prominent predictive systems following findings of bias, lack of effectiveness, constitutional challenges, and data protection risks. The Dutch experience is particularly significant; national systems were withdrawn, but municipal-level experimentation continues, illustrating a shift from national to local governance of AI tools.

Risk Scoring
Despite policing retreats, risk assessment tools remain embedded in prison management (RisCANVI), youth justice (ProKid, SAVRY), counterterrorism (RADAR), and pre-trial and sentencing contexts (Cassandra). These systems blend automated scoring with professional judgement, but evaluations repeatedly spotlight high error rates, opaqueness, and disproportionate impact on marginalised population groups.

Facial Recognition
Live, real-time mass facial recognition is largely prohibited or constrained under the EU AI Act. Retrospective and forensic uses are widely permitted. Sweden’s 2026 proposal for limited real-time use represents an emerging Nordic divergence and a significant precedent.

The EU AI Act as a Turning Point
The AI Act classifies predictive policing, individual risk scoring, and biometric surveillance as high-risk, with some uses approaching prohibition. Compliant high-risk systems will require fundamental rights impact assessments, human oversight, transparency, and robust data governance. In response, member states are increasingly rebranding systems as analytical tools, keeping deployments at a pilot or local level, and pausing expansion pending clearer compliance pathways. Croatia’s pre-deployment stance and the discontinuations across the Netherlands, France, and Germany reflect anticipatory AI Act compliance.

Sources:

Riehle, C. (2024, May 23). Prüm II regulation enters into force. https://eucrim.eu/news/prum-ii-regulation-enters-into-force/
European Commission. (2026, February 26). ProtectEU: Commission presents new counterterrorism agenda. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/protecteu-commission-presents-new-counterterrorism-agenda-2026-02-26_en
Lazaro Cabrera, L. (2024, May 2). A series on the EU AI Act, Pt. 2: Privacy and surveillance. Center for Democracy & Technology. https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-05-02-CDTEU-DSA-blog-series-pt-2-privacy-final.pdf
EY Greece. (2025, February 4). AI Act: Prohibited AI practices become applicable. EY. https://www.ey.com/en_gr/technical/tax/tax-alerts/ai-act-prohibited-ai-practices-become-applicable

Belgium

Age of criminal responsibility

Belgium does not apply criminal responsibility to children under 18.

Children who commit acts that would be offences for adults are dealt with as “acts qualified as crimes” (AQC) within the child protection system, still referred to throughout here as the child justice system.

The Child Justice System

Since 2014, child justice has been a competence of the Belgian Community Governments, with variations across Flemish, French-speaking, and German-speaking communities.

General principles:

Focus on education, rehabilitation, and protection, not punishment.
Juvenile judges may impose measures such as supervision, educational programmes, community service, or placement in open/closed institutions.
Strong emphasis on maintaining regular, direct contact between the child and juvenile judge.
Flanders has more detailed rules for digital hearings, including informed consent and strict privacy safeguards.

Introduction of Remote Hearings

Wide-scale use of remote hearings in Belgium began with the 2024 Videoconference Act. In parallel, the judiciary developed JustCourt, a videoconferencing system enabling remote and hybrid hearings across Belgian courts.

The Videoconference Act aims to:

improve accessibility and efficiency of justice
reduce detainee movement to increase safety; and
permit mandatory videoconferencing in exceptional situations (e.g., pandemics or serious threats to public safety).
See Opinion of the Belgian High Council of Justice assessing effects of the Act.

Before 2024, remote hearings were used only in limited contexts:

Flemish Decision of 23 October 2020 (Flemish Juvenile Videoconference Decision) allowed digital hearings for certain child justice cases in Flanders.
Remote hearings were used temporarily during COVID-19 in civil cases.
Videoconferencing for suspects in preventive custody was allowed in 2016 but annulled by the Belgian Constitutional Court in 2018 for insufficient procedural safeguards.
Videoconference for witnesses and experts has been possible in exceptional cases since 2002.

Legislation, Regulation and Guidance

The Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by the Videoconference Act, provides the legal basis for digital hearings in child justice proceedings. It also includes earlier rules (since 2002) allowing remote proceedings for witnesses and experts.

For children, the main additional framework is:

Flemish Juvenile Videoconference Decision (23 October 2020) – allows remote hearings in certain child justice cases under strict conditions (see Section 2.1).
Equivalent rules in the French-speaking or German-speaking communities are not known, creating regional disparities in safeguards.

Scope/Mandate for Remote Hearings

Remote hearings can be used for cases involving a child suspected or accused of an act qualified as a crime (“AQC”), though subject to strict safeguards.

In practice:

Flanders allows remote hearings for certain hearings only, subject to consent and judicial approval.
In the French-speaking and German-speaking communities, only the general safeguards of the Videoconference Act appear to apply.

Safeguards

There are strong safeguards in Flanders, and only general safeguards at the federal level and in the French-speaking and German-speaking communities.

Flemish Community – Flemish Juvenile Videoconference Decision

This is the most detailed child-specific framework in Belgium.

Remote hearings are permitted for a limited set of juvenile hearings, such as:

hearings on provisional placement
decisions on revision or extension of placement in open/closed educational institutions
hearings following risk assessments
hearings on secure guidance measures
appeals.

Remote hearings are not allowed for:

hearings on the merits
hearings on conditions or ambulatory measures
prolongations of pre-trial proceedings.

Key Flemish safeguards include:

Initial appearance must be in person; the child is informed of the option to use remote proceedings later.
Remote participation requires:
- consultation with a lawyer
- the child’s written consent
- approval of the juvenile judge.
Strict technical and procedural guarantees:
- real-time and unobstructed audio-visual communication
- confidential lawyer–child communication before, during, and after the hearing
- electronic sharing of documents
- prohibition on recording remote hearings
- presence of a stand-by lawyer when needed.

The Agency for Child Development (Agentschap Opgroeien) has also developed a protocol which recommends the lawyer sit next to the child in the child’s location, but participation from court or a cabinet office is also allowed.

2. Federal rules (general safeguards)

Federal law (Code of Criminal Procedure) contains no child-specific safeguards but provides general requirements:

Physical presence remains the default; remote hearings are the exception.
Remote appearance requires the consent of the person participating remotely (except in crisis circumstances).
Judges must perform a case-by-case assessment, considering:
- stage of proceedings
- number of parties
- complexity
- availability of legal assistance
- vulnerability of the participant
- technological capacity of facilities.
Videoconferencing systems must meet strict security and technical standards.
For hearings behind closed doors (common in child justice cases):
- the child or lawyer must confirm no unauthorised persons are present;
- courts may verify compliance using technical or organisational checks.

The French-speaking and German-speaking communities appear to rely solely on these federal rules. However, the French-speaking community provides the possibility for children accused and placed in a public institution to communicate with judges via remote hearing.

Statistics and Evaluation

Flanders reports that, despite a decrease in usage, videoconferencing for children in community institutions has become common practice:

2020: 545 digital hearings
2021: 341 digital hearings
2022: 215 digital hearings

French-speaking Community parliamentary debates (2016)

Highlighted contrasting views on the possibility of remote hearings, including and involving children.
Proponents emphasised potential efficiency gains, while opponents warned that digital hearings may undermine the child-centred, protective philosophy of child justice, which depends on regular in-person interaction between child and judge.

Flemish Lawyers’ Association (2021)

Criticised incomplete implementation of the Flemish Juvenile Videoconference Decision.
Opposed remote hearings in many cases, questioning whether they serve the child’s interests.
Emphasised the need for children to understand the disadvantages of digital participation.

Early evaluation of Flemish practice (2021)

Despite concerns, initial evaluations showed:

95% of children could see and hear clearly and were satisfied
69% consulted their lawyer before the session
66% had a parent present
15% reported difficulty consulting their lawyer.

Legal Challenges & Complaints

Juvenile Court of West-Flanders, 2018

Please note: this predates entry into force of the Flemish Juvenile Videoconference Decision.

The Juvenile Court of West-Flanders prolonged the placement of a child in detention after a hearing conducted over the phone.
While the child should have been heard in person, the police had invoked force majeur and as a result, they could not be safely transferred from detention to court. While the child was present via phone, the child’s lawyer, father, and social counsellor were present in court.
While the judgement was not appealed, the decision has been reported to constitute an infringement of the child’s procedural rights.

Belgian Constitutional Court, 2021

In 2021, the Belgian Constitutional Court dismissed a request to partially annul the Flemish Decree on Juvenile Delinquency. Article 15 of the Decree requires that children accused be heard personally by the youth judge, either in person or via videoconference. Exceptions apply when (i) the child cannot be located, (ii) health issues prevent attendance, or (iii) the child refuses to appear.
The plaintiffs argued that the provision violated children’s defence rights because, in their view, a child who did not appear in person would lose the right to legal assistance. The Constitutional Court rejected this interpretation and held that the provision explicitly confirms the child’s right to legal assistance, including where the child is not physically present.

Other Digital Justice Practices?

Electronic Monitoring (GPS Ankle Bracelets)

GPS ankle bracelets are used across pre-trial detention, sentence execution, and early release. Newer systems incorporate geofencing, curfew enforcement, and victim-alert apps that notify victims when the person under electronic monitoring measures breaches exclusion zones.

In 2024, the Flemish government launched an ankle monitor pilot project for young people in conflict with the law, to be tested by the Antwerp Juvenile Court. Judges may impose electronic monitoring for at least three and up to six months on children in conflict with the law aged between 12 and 18. This pilot has reportedly since been expanded.

Human Rights Concerns: Electronic monitoring has been criticised as extended surveillance rather than a genuine alternative to incarceration, with limited public transparency about how placement decisions are made and an emphasis on compliance over rehabilitation.

Child-Specific Safeguards: Electronic monitoring now explicitly applies to young people but is not available for children and young people accused of violent harm. Importantly, electronic monitoring must happen concurrently with traditional counselling and support services for young people and their families.

Additional Sources: Van Biervliet, D. (2023). Electronic monitoring of juveniles in Flanders (Belgium): Lessons drawn from Western European countries. Youth Justice, 24(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/14732254231184774

Facial Recognition / Video Analysis

Facial recognition is permitted only for retrospective use within a specific judicial investigation. Live and mass identification in public spaces is prohibited, as is internet image scraping (e.g. Clearview AI). Video-analysis software (BriefCam) is used to filter CCTV footage by non-biometric characteristics, such as type/colour of clothing.

Human Rights Concerns: Belgian Federal Police were found to have unlawfully used Clearview AI, resulting in formal reprimands. Concerns persist around scope creep between permitted and prohibited use, and the boundary between biometric and non-biometric analysis (BriefCam) remains contested.

Child-Specific Safeguards: None documented. There are no heightened restrictions when children are subjects of facial recognition investigations.

Current Status: Live – restricted to retrospective use. Clearview AI use ceased following reprimands.

Sources:

Data & Society Knowledge Centre. (2022, April 4). Belgium – unlawful use of facial recognition by federal police. https://data-en-maatschappij.ai/en/publications/belgium-unlawful-use-of-facial-recognition-by-federal-police
The Brussels Times. (2021, October 11). Belgian police illegally used facial recognition software. https://www.brusselstimes.com/188743/belgian-police-illegally-used-facial-recognition-software

Statewatch. (2025, April 15). Belgium: New report calls for a ban on ‘predictive’ policing technologies. https://www.statewatch.org/news/2025/april/belgium-new-report-calls-for-a-ban-on-predictive-policing-technologies/

Croatia

Age of criminal responsibility

The Age of Criminal Responsibility in Croatia is 14 years old.

The Child Justice System

Children 14-18 are considered under child justice laws. Children 14-16 may only receive educational measures, while those 16-18 may face stricter, yet still rehabilitative, sanctions. Young adults aged 18-21 may still go through the youth justice system rather than face adult justice system sanctions.

Introduction of Remote Hearings

Croatia had legal provisions allowing the use of video equipment and video transmission before the COVID-19 pandemic, although remote hearings were rarely used in practice. Their use increased significantly during the pandemic, which prompted further regulatory development. Subsequent amendments expanded the circumstances under which remote hearings could take place, particularly in early procedural stages, though use remains limited.

Legislation, Regulation and Guidance

The principal legislation governing criminal proceedings involving children is the Juvenile Courts Act. When it does not regulate a specific issue, the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) applies.

Because the Juvenile Courts Act does not regulate remote hearings, the CPA governs this area.

Prior to 2022, Croatian law allowed digital hearings primarily for:
- appellate tribunal proceedings, and
- remote evidentiary hearings (e.g., when a witness might later become unable to testify due to age or illness).
The CPA was amended in 2022 to extend the use of remote hearings to additional phases of criminal procedure (e.g., preliminary hearings and indictment tribunal sessions).
However, main proceedings (i.e., the discussion of the merits) may not be conducted remotely – physical presence remains mandatory.

Scope/Mandate for Remote Hearings

Remote hearings are not mandatory in any criminal proceedings, including cases involving a child.

Under the Criminal Procedure Act:

Remote hearings may be used only in specific, limited stages of proceedings.
Even where legally permitted, usage is rare and entirely at the judge’s discretion.
Courts are particularly reluctant to use remote hearings for cases involving children, prioritising full protection of the child’s defence rights and procedural guarantees.

Safeguards

There are no child-specific safeguards relating directly to remote hearings. However, all safeguards that apply generally to criminal proceedings involving children continue to apply when a remote element is used. These include:

A child must have a defence attorney from the first action taken.
A child cannot be tried in absentia—they must be present.
When questioning a child or conducting proceedings in their presence, authorities must proceed cautiously to avoid psychological harm, taking account of the child’s maturity and personal characteristics.

Statistics and Evaluation

N/A

Public Discourse

N/A

Legal Challenges & Complaints

N/A

Other Digital Justice Practices?

Predictive Policing / AI Policing Tools

No predictive policing system has been deployed in Croatia. A 2024 European Network Against Racism (ENAR) national roundtable confirmed the country is at a pre-deployment stage, with national discussion focused on preventing adoption without adequate safeguards. Transparency around police data systems generally remains limited.

Human Rights Concerns: ENAR raised concerns about the absence of legal frameworks or impact assessments ahead of any potential adoption. Civil society monitoring capacity in Croatia is relatively limited.

Child-Specific Safeguards: None applicable. Child-specific considerations have not been publicly addressed in preventive discussions.

Current Status: Pre-deployment – no system in use.

Sources:
European Network Against Racism (ENAR). (2024). ‘AI and policing in Croatia: National roundtable report’. https://www.enar-eu.org/croatia-ai-and-law-enforcement/

France

Age of criminal responsibility

France does not set a fixed age of criminal responsibility. Instead, liability is based on "discernment" – the child’s capacity to understand the meaning of their acts.

Children under 13 are presumed not to have discernment in practice. Children 13–17 may be held criminally responsible but always under the child justice framework.

The Child Justice System

The French child justice system is governed by the Code of Juvenile Criminal Justice, emphasising education, protection, and reintegration.

Introduction of Remote Hearings

Digital court hearings were introduced as part of a broad modernisation of the French judiciary. Their use expanded rapidly from March 2020, when COVID-19 emergency legislation authorised videoconferencing to ensure courts could continue operating during lockdowns. Since then, remote hearings have gradually expanded and improved.

Legislation, Regulation and Guidance

The framework is dispersed across multiple instruments, including legislation and guidelines:

The Code of Criminal Procedure (in particular Articles 706-71, 706-71-1 and R.53-33 to R.53-39-1)
The Code of Juvenile Criminal Justice (in particular Articles L.334-6 and L.413-10)
Ministry of Justice guidelines and protocols on criminal proceedings involving children (including the Circular on the Use of Videoconferencing in Criminal Matters of August 2024 and the Guide on Juvenile Justice of March 2023).

Scope/Mandate for Remote Hearings

Judges typically have discretion over the appropriateness of remote hearings in criminal proceedings for both children and adults, including decisions on which stage of proceedings remote hearings may be used – including investigation, inquiry, trial, or all of the above.

In some circumstances, remote hearings can be prohibited via examinations of doctors or psychologists.

Individuals cannot challenge a judge’s decision to conduct a remote hearing, except where a hearing concerns placement in pre-trial detention or the extension of detention, or where a person transitions from childhood to adulthood over the course of proceedings.

There are a few child-specific provisions:

Remote hearings can never be used to decide on (i) the placement of a minor in pre-trial detention or (ii) the extension of such detention, unless it is deemed necessary to avoid their transport due to serious risks of public disorder or the potential for escape, as outlined in Article L.334-6 of the Code of Juvenile Criminal Justice.
The hearing for the extension of the detention of a child under 16 may be conducted remotely if the offence is punishable by a sentence of five or more years’ imprisonment, in accordance with the provisions of Article 706-71 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Article L.413-10 of the Code of Juvenile Criminal Justice).

For all other child criminal proceedings, the Code of Criminal Procedure applies:

Judges are not legally obligated to consider a child’s age, maturity, or the nature of the case, deciding on a case-by-case basis.
Remote hearings are encouraged for procedural steps that do not require discussion of the charges or situations where transporting the child would create significant risk.

Safeguards

France has no child-specific safeguards for remote hearings beyond the detention-related prohibitions above.

The safeguards outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure Article 706-71 and the 2024 Circular on the Use of Videoconferencing in Criminal Matters apply equally to adults and children. Key safeguards include:

Remote hearings must be justified by the proper administration of justice, assessed on a case-by-case basis.
If the child becomes an adult during proceedings, a remote hearing is allowed unless the person objects.
Confidential communication between the child and lawyer must be ensured.
The child’s lawyer or interpreter may participate in either:
- with the court; or
- alongside the child (with full access to the case file if the child is detained).
Courts must ensure:
- videoconference-equipped rooms for lawyers to consult with clients before hearings;
- availability of local IT technicians to prevent and quickly resolve technical failures.
Conditions must preserve the child’s right to present observations.

Additional child-specific protections (not limited to digital hearings):

Under Articles L.311 and seq, Code of Juvenile Criminal Justice, the child’s legal representatives should attend hearings; if not possible, another appropriate adult must be designated.
The Guide on Juvenile Justice recommends child-friendly language, adapted procedures, and supportive environments to reduce stress and intimidation.

Statistics and Evaluation

N/A

Public Discourse

N/A

Legal Challenges & Complaints

Cour de cassation, 16 October 2024, No. 24-84.966:

A hearing concerning pretrial detention of a child who becomes an adult mid-proceedings may be remote only if there is a serious public-order or escape risk under the Juvenile Criminal Justice Code.
If the now-adult, with assistance from a lawyer, does not oppose the remote hearing, they are deemed to have waived the right to contest this procedural irregularity.

Other Digital Justice Practices?

Risk Terrain Modelling (RTM)

Used by Paris Police to identify intervention zones through geographic risk modelling based on environmental and spatial factors.

Human Rights Concerns: La Quadrature du Net (May 2025) called for a full ban on predictive policing in France, citing opacity and discrimination; Statewatch (May 2025) documented the ‘flaws and injustices’ of predictive policing, including RTM. French civil society broadly opposes all predictive policing tools on grounds of discriminatory enforcement and lack of democratic accountability.

Child-Specific Safeguards: None documented.

Current Status: Live – in use by Paris Police.

M-Pulse (Marseille) / Smart Police Edicia

Municipal-level predictive policing tools in active use: M-Pulse in Marseille and Smart Police Edicia across other municipal forces. Both continue to operate while national-level projects stall.

Human Rights Concerns: Cited by La Quadrature du Net and Statewatch as part of France’s broader pattern of opaque, discriminatory predictive policing with insufficient governance.

Child-Specific Safeguards: None documented.

Current Status: Live – active at the municipal level.

Sources (all tools):
La Quadrature du Net. (2025, May 6). ‘Predictive policing in France: Against opacity and discrimination, the need for a ban’. https://www.laquadrature.net/en/2025/05/06/predictive-policing-in-france-against-opacity-and-discrimination-the-need-for-a-ban/

Germany

Age of criminal responsibility

Germany sets the age of criminal responsibility at 14 years, as defined in Section 19 of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB).

Children under 14 are considered incapable of guilt (schuldunfähig) and cannot be prosecuted. Individuals aged 14–17 are categorised as children and fall under the Youth Courts Act (Jugendgerichtsgesetz, JGG). Individuals under 21 may be treated as young adults under the JGG if, based on their maturity and development, they are assessed as being similar to children (Section 105 JGG). This allows the court to apply sanctions similar to those aged 14-17 instead of adult criminal penalties.

The Child Justice System

The German child justice system is governed primarily by the Youth Courts Act (Jugendgerichtsgesetz, JGG), which emphasises education, development, and reintegration, rather than punishment.

Introduction of Remote Hearings

Remote hearings for criminal proceedings were introduced in 1998, with the primary aim of protecting the safety and wellbeing of witnesses.

This approach is distinct from other European countries, as it permits only witnesses to be heard remotely during criminal cases. Despite the legal framework being established under Section 247a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung), remote hearings were infrequently utilised before their widespread adoption as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.

For civil proceedings, remote hearings were introduced in 2002, citing potential benefits of improved efficiency and cost reduction. Despite early introduction, widespread adoption faced obstacles due to technical limitations (i.e. courts not being connected to the internet) and resistance from judges who preferred traditional methods. While the Covid-19 pandemic also accelerated the use of remote hearings in civil proceedings, judges’ authority to order remote hearings was strengthened by a 2024 amendment to the Civil Procedure Code.

Legislation, Regulation and Guidance

Main criminal proceedings require the physical presence of all essential participants – the judge, public prosecutor, defendant, and, where mandatory, defence counsel – under Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung). This reflects the immediacy principle (Unmittelbarkeitsgrundsatz), a core principle of German criminal procedure. As a result, there is currently no central legal basis permitting regular remote hearings.

However, there are some recent amendments:

Section 247a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced through the Witness Protection Act (Zeugenschutzgesetz), permits remote hearings for witnesses, where appearing in person would create a serious risk to their wellbeing. This provision applies exclusively to witnesses.
In July 2025, the Act for Further Digitalisation (Gesetz zur weiteren Digitalisierung der Justiz) came into force. The Act’s amendment to Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure introduces the possibility for remote hearings in appeal proceedings, allowing defendants, their legal representatives, defence lawyers, public prosecutors, and other participants to join from another location upon request. Under Section 350(3), hearings must be transmitted in video and audio to both the remote locations and the courtroom. Participation is permitted from an official room or a lawyer’s office. Because the defendant has already appeared in person in the lower court, and because appeal courts primarily review legal errors, the immediacy principle is considered preserved. Remote participation is therefore seen as a means of increasing efficiency, especially for detained defendants.
Additionally, since 2021, Section 463e of the Code of Criminal Procedure has allowed oral hearings following the main procedure (e.g., decisions after sentencing) to be conducted via a remote hearing. The goal is to reduce risks during transport and to improve the efficiency and safety of such hearings. This provision applies to both adults and children.

Scope/Mandate for Remote Hearings

In Germany, remote hearings are not mandated for any criminal cases, including those including or involving children.

Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung) states that the main hearing must take place with the uninterrupted presence of all individuals necessary for delivering a judgement. This presence has been interpreted in German law to mean physical presence, i.e. in the courtroom.
However, Section 70c of the Youth Courts Act (Jugendgerichtgesetz, JGG) requires that interviews or interrogations of a child be conducted in a manner appropriate to the child’s age, developmental stage, and level of education. This applies to children aged 14-18 and young people under 21. Section 70c also permits audio-visual recording of interviews or interrogations conducted outside the main trial and mandates audio-visual recordings where legal counsel are not present.
Section 70c was adopted in direct response to EU Directive 2016/800 which requires EU Member States to establish procedural safeguards for children, including (but not mandating) the possibility of remote hearings.

Safeguards

The Youth Courts Act is the primary legislation governing the child justice system in Germany. The Act does not provide any specific safeguards for children involved or included in remote hearings, largely as remote hearings are not conducted in main proceedings.

However, the Youth Courts Act does set out general safeguards for children. These safeguards include strict confidentiality requirements to protect the identity and privacy of the children involved, including Section 48 of the Youth Courts Act which mandates that hearings and announcements of decisions must not be open to the public.

Statistics and Evaluation

Currently, Germany does not publish official statistics on the use of remote hearings in cases including or involving children.

This is partly as the full implementation and tracking of Section 70c of the Youth Courts Act has not yet been fully realised.

In addition, Germany’s judiciary operates with a high degree of judicial independence, meaning decisions on the application of remote hearings can vary. This decentralised approach can result in inconsistent practices across courts and prevents the collection of system-wide data.

Public Discourse

The introduction of Section 350 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure allowing for remote hearings in appeal proceedings has sparked discussions on the benefits and appropriateness of remote hearings in legal literature. Criticisms include challenging the prioritisation of speed and efficiency in court proceedings over careful deliberation and fairness.

In addition, experts have raised concerns about maintaining children’s privacy, as mandated by Section 48 of the Youth Courts Act, highlighting challenges in the potential for unauthorised access to remote proceedings which pose a significant risk to the confidentiality and integrity of the judicial process and undermine the protective measures in place for children.

Legal Challenges & Complaints

To date, no cases have been brought before German courts, nor have there been any reports covering similar incidents.

Other Digital Justice Practices?

SKALA and Similar Geographic Crime Prediction Systems

SKALA has been used in North Rhine-Westphalia since 2015–17 to predict residential burglary and car theft, implemented across 16 police departments. Comparable tools operate across other states: PRECOBS (Bavaria), PREAMP (Lower Saxony), KBL-Operative (Hessen), KrimPro and kbO (Berlin). All are place-based tools focused primarily on property crime.

Human Rights Concerns: Multiple tools have faced constitutional complaints and court scrutiny. AlgorithmWatch (2025) documents concerns about bias, legal basis, and discriminatory enforcement; Statewatch (June 2025) describes German predictive policing as contributing to ‘police racism and criminalisation across Europe’. Geographic tools risk amplifying existing over-policing of low-income and minority communities.

Child-Specific Safeguards: None documented.

Current Status: Live – in active use across several German states.

Sources:
AlgorithmWatch. (2025, March). ‘Automating injustice: Predictive policing and criminal prediction and profiling systems’. https://algorithmwatch.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AlgorithmWatch_Report-Predictive-Policing.pdf
Statewatch. (2025, June 30). ‘New technology, old injustice: Data-driven discrimination and profiling in police and prisons in Europe’. https://www.statewatch.org/publications/reports-and-books/new-technology-old-injustice-data-driven-discrimination-and-profiling-in-police-and-prisons-in-europe/

Palantir Gotham / hessenDATA

Large-scale data integration and profiling platform used in Bavaria, Hesse, and North Rhine-Westphalia, combining police databases, intelligence reports, and investigation metadata for intelligence-led policing. More comprehensive than geographic prediction tools, as it operates as a cross-database individual profiling system. Federal-level use ceased in 2023; state-level deployment continues and is reportedly expanding.

Human Rights Concerns: Constitutional complaints have been filed against its use. Concerns centre on the scope of data integration, mass profiling of individuals not suspected of any offence, and data protection concerns.

Child-Specific Safeguards: None documented. Given the scale of data integration, the system likely processes data relating to children, but no child-specific protections are recorded.

Current Status: Live at state level – federal use ceased in 2023; state use in Bavaria, Hesse, and North Rhine-Westphalia continuing and reportedly expanding.

Sources:
AlgorithmWatch. (2025, March). ‘Automating injustice: Predictive policing and criminal prediction and profiling systems’. https://algorithmwatch.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AlgorithmWatch_Report-Predictive-Policing.pdf
Statewatch. (2025, June 30). ‘New technology, old injustice: Data-driven discrimination and profiling in police and prisons in Europe’. https://www.statewatch.org/publications/reports-and-books/new-technology-old-injustice-data-driven-discrimination-and-profiling-in-police-and-prisons-in-europe/

RADAR-iTE and RADAR-Haft

Two individual risk assessment tools operated by the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA). RADAR-iTE (launched 2017) assesses violent offending risk for individuals suspected or convicted of ‘Islamist terrorism’; RADAR-Haft focuses on those in pre-trial detention or serving custodial sentences. Both inform decisions on surveillance, detention, and release.

Human Rights Concerns: The explicit focus on terrorism has raised concerns about religious profiling. Independent evaluation of accuracy or bias is limited. Both tools have been flagged by Statewatch and AlgorithmWatch as raising due process and liberty concerns and are subject to ongoing constitutional scrutiny.

Child-Specific Safeguards: Not documented.

Current Status: Live – operational.

Sources:
AlgorithmWatch. (2025, March). ‘Automating injustice: Predictive policing and criminal prediction and profiling systems’. https://algorithmwatch.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AlgorithmWatch_Report-Predictive-Policing.pdf

Greece

Age of criminal responsibility

Greece sets the age of criminal responsibility at 15.

Children under 15 cannot be criminally punished but may be subject to educational measures. 15–17-year-olds can receive either educational or correctional measures. Custodial sanctions are typically avoided for children under 18 except for serious offences.

The Child Justice System

Juvenile cases are handled by specialised juvenile courts and juvenile prosecutors.
The system emphasises rehabilitation, with a focus on:

Educational measures (community service, programmes, supervision).
Psychological support and social services involvement.
Adapted communication to children’s developmental level.

Introduction of Remote Hearings

Remote hearings were introduced in Greece in 2024 through Law 5090/2024, which amended the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code, citing aims of increased efficiency in the criminal justice system.

In March 2025, the Ministry of Justice announced that the first remote hearing in a criminal trial had taken place.

Legislation, Regulation and Guidance

Remote hearings were introduced through Article 82 of Law 5090/2024, which added Article 238A to the Criminal Procedure Code. Article 238A permits testimony, expert evidence, support-person statements, suspect explanations, and a defendant’s plea to be conducted remotely where:

There is a serious impediment to physical appearance,
Delay would pose a risk, or
Remote participation is needed for safety or orderly procedure.

Key features of Article 238A include:

Remote hearings may occur ex officio or at the request of the person examined.
A defendant’s plea may occur remotely only if the defendant or their lawyer does not object.
For multi-person, organised crime, or other cases with serious social impact, the presiding judge may order a remote hearing; this decision may be appealed.
Remote proceedings must take place in a designated office which meets technical standards, under the supervision of an investigating officer or court secretary.
The system must ensure that the defendant can follow proceedings continuously and communicate effectively and confidentially with their lawyer.

Further procedural detail is provided in Joint Ministerial Decision 262/10 March 2025, which regulates Article 238A(4). This Decision does not contain child-specific provisions.

Scope/Mandate for Remote Hearings

Remote hearings are not mandated for criminal cases, including those including or involving a child.

Article 238A of the Criminal Procedure Code allows:

a person under examination to request a remote hearing;
a defendant or their lawyer to object if the court proposes a remote hearing.

While there are no provisions specific to children, Greece has expressed a general commitment to a child-friendly approach in criminal proceedings involving children. Remote hearings must therefore be applied in a way that respects this principle.

Safeguards

Although Article 238A and Joint Ministerial Decision 262/2025 do not include child-specific procedural safeguards, several protections apply in practice:

A child defendant may object to the use of remote technologies.
A defendant may appeal the presiding judge’s decision to exclude their physical presence in court.
Effective legal representation must be ensured, including confidential communication during a remote hearing.

These safeguards are general and not tailored specifically to children, and Greece has not yet developed additional child-specific protections for remote hearings.

Statistics and Evaluation

No official statistics currently exist. Because the legal framework for remote hearings is new and developing, and the first criminal remote hearing took place only in 2025, the practice – both generally and within the child justice system – remains in its early stages.

Public Discourse

The framework for remote hearings is very new, and no public reviews, commentary, or evaluations have been identified regarding their use or impact – generally or specifically within the child justice system.

Legal Challenges & Complaints

No legal cases, complaints, or media reports have been identified concerning infringements of a child’s procedural rights arising from the use of remote hearings. This absence likely reflects the recent adoption of the possibility of remote proceedings, rather than established practice.

Other Digital Justice Practices?

Smart Policing

The Smart Policing system developed for the Hellenic Police was a mobile AI-supported policing tool which combined biometric identification (including facial recognition), document verification, and real-time database access. The data-driven decision-making and risk-based profiling system connected to broader police analytics such as crime pattern analysis and identity checks.

Human rights concerns: The Greek Data Protection Authority found the system lacked a valid legal basis and posed serious proportionality risks and concerns of mass biometric surveillance. This included the unacceptable risk of intrusive identity checks, the risk of discriminatory profiling, and the erosion of privacy rights during the use of real-time biometric identification technologies.

Child-specific safeguards: No child-specific safeguards were documented. As a general policing and identification tool, it could apply to without differentiated protections for children and young people

Status: Suspended/blocked by the Greek Data Protection Authority.

Sources:
Hellenic Data Protection Authority. (2022). Decision on the “Smart Policing” system. https://www.dpa.gr/
European Digital Rights. (2023). Smart policing and biometric surveillance in Greece. https://edri.org/

Hungary

Age of criminal responsibility

Hungary sets the general age of criminal responsibility at 14, but for certain serious offences, children may be held responsible from 12.

The Child Justice System

The Hungarian Criminal Code and Criminal Procedures Act apply to both adults and children, though both contain specific provisions for children in conflict with the law.

For children above the age of criminal responsibility (typically 14-18), the law emphasises education and child protection measures. However, punitive measures are also in effect and children may be held in juvenile detention centres.

Introduction of Remote Hearings

Remote hearings were first enabled in 2003 following legislative reform, mainly to support witness protection. Their use remained minimal because the legislation was rigid and technical infrastructure was lacking.

A major reform occurred with the new Criminal Procedure Act 2017. Roll-out began in 2018, and remote hearings quickly became the primary method for securing the presence of persons in detention.

The COVID-19 pandemic further accelerated digitalisation. Government Decree 74/2020 (III. 31.), effective 1 April 2020, introduced special procedural rules enabling remote hearings due to the state of emergency.

Legislation, Regulation and Guidance

The legal framework for remote hearings is distributed across several instruments, some of which are no longer in force.

Legislation and guidelines include:

Act XC of 2017 on the Code of Criminal Procedure
Introduced detailed rules on the use of electronic communication in criminal proceedings and permits remote hearings where in-person attendance is impractical or unnecessary.

Decree No. 12/2018 (VI. 12.) of the Ministry of Justice
regulates the use of telecommunication equipment and the recording of procedural acts.
Decree No. 14/2002 (VIII.1) IM of the Minister of Justice on the Rules of Court Procedure
Contains provisions on reviewing visual/audio recordings, remote provision of information by means of a hearing, and making copies thereof.

Judicial Guidelines and Internal Regulations
The National Office for the Judiciary (OBH) issued internal protocols on technical standards, data protection, and procedural safeguards.
One of the key guidelines is the President of the OBH’s Recommendation 6/2015. (X. 5.), which sets recommendations for digital communications in court procedures (and is updated regularly).

These instruments apply to all defendants, including children, though none contain child-specific provisions regarding remote hearings.

Scope/Mandate for Remote Hearings

The Act XC of 2017 allows remote hearings in certain circumstances but does not require digital proceedings for children.
In practice, courts prefer the child’s in-person participation, given the emphasis on effective engagement, safeguarding rights, and strong legal representation. Hungarian courts assess each child’s individual needs, and remote hearings are used only in exceptional circumstances.
Concerns exist around potential fair-trial implications for vulnerable groups, including children – especially regarding technical quality, ability to follow proceedings, interpretation, and confidential access to counsel.
The Hungarian approach is intended to be consistent with international human rights standards, including those issued by the Committee on the Rights of the Child.

Safeguards

Hungary has no child-specific safeguards tailored exclusively to remote hearings.

However, several protections exist within the broader child justice system:

The ‘Child-centred Justice’ programme of the National Office for the Judiciary promotes child-sensitive procedures and specialised training for judges.
EU Directive 2016/800 has been fully implemented into Act XC of 2017, providing procedural safeguards for children in all criminal proceedings, including remote hearings.
Cases are handled only by judges specialised in child justice matters, including when remote hearings occur.

Practical considerations emphasised in Hungary include:

Remote hearings involving children should use only the secure ViaVideo system, not platforms such as Skype for Business.
Courts must ensure children can express themselves freely and observe non-verbal cues, which may require in-person or carefully supervised remote hearings.
Courts must adapt to digital evidence (Messenger, SMS, Facebook posts, TikTok videos) and use child-friendly communication.

Statistics and Evaluation

Research reports highlight the rapid digitalisation of legal processes but do not include any specifics relating to children.

Research, including the “Justice on Screen” report by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC), indicates:

Remote hearings were rarely used in Hungary before COVID-19.
After 2020, use increased significantly, but infrastructure was inadequate.
- In 2021, only 63 devices were available across the penitentiary system (approx. 18,000 detainees).
- No remote hearing endpoints existed in police jails.
- Between 2018–2021, no remote hearings occurred in police detention facilities.
While not child-specific, these findings strongly suggest that remote hearings for child defendants remain very limited.

Concerns persist regarding the ability of defendants – especially children – to follow proceedings, consult confidentially with defence counsel, and receive a fair trial in remote formats.

Public Discourse

No formal reviews exist specifically on remote hearings in the child justice system.

However, broader literature identifies significant issues regarding remote hearings in Hungary:

The Hungarian Helsinki Committee found that remote hearings can reduce delays but may undermine fair-trial guarantees when connectivity is poor or audio-only participation occurs.
Defendants are not always able to request in-person hearings, raising concerns about autonomy and procedural fairness.
Another study published in the Prison Review noted that remote hearings reduce transport costs and security risks for detained persons but cannot replace the value of in-person engagement—particularly important for children.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has highlighted that reduced face-to-face interaction may weaken rehabilitative and restorative justice outcomes for children.

Legal Challenges & Complaints

There are no known legal cases, complaints, or media reports indicating infringements of procedural rights of child defendants due to remote hearings.

Reviews of Hungarian legal databases, NGO publications (including the Hungarian Helsinki Committee), and recent research identify no documented disputes specifically concerning children.

Other Digital Justice Practices?

Crime Hotspot Analysis

Hungary uses data-driven crime analysis tools to identify crime hotspots and forecast areas of increased criminal risk. These tools draw on historical police data such as location, time, and offence type to support resource allocation and patrol planning.

Human rights concerns: Predictive hotspot policing raises concerns about indirect discrimination, as reliance on historical crime data can reinforce existing socio-economic or geographic biases. Limited transparency about methodologies and lack of public scrutiny further raises accountability issues.

Child-specific safeguards: No child-specific safeguards are documented. While the system does not target individuals directly, it may disproportionately affect areas with higher youth populations.

Status: Live

Sources:
Kovács, G. (2020). Application of computational intelligence in crime prediction. Hungarian Law Enforcement Review.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2022). Artificial intelligence and policing in Europe. https://fra.europa.eu/

Italy

Age of criminal responsibility

Italy sets the age of criminal responsibility at 14, with children under that age considered legally incapable of guilt.

The Child Justice System

Governed by Presidential Decree No. 448/1988, Italy’s juvenile justice model is designed to be child-centred, emphasising rehabilitation and minimal intervention.

Key features:

Specialised juvenile courts handle all child cases.
The system prioritises diversion, such as probation, social services programmes, suspension with testing, or placement.
Hearings are adapted to the child’s personality, educational needs, and vulnerabilities.
Custodial measures are used as a last resort and must be proportionate and rehabilitative.

Introduction of Remote Hearings

Remote hearings were first introduced in 2020 through emergency legislation responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Italy’s broader digitalisation process began earlier in 2012 under a process called Processo Civile Telematico.
Following the pandemic, remote hearing measures were made permanent through legislation adopted in 2022.

Legislation, Regulation and Guidance

Digital hearings in criminal cases were introduced permanently in 2022 by the so-called “Cartabia Reform” and further legislation in 2024, which amended the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Key provisions include:

Article 133-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure – general provision for remote hearings.
Article 133-ter of the Code of Criminal Procedure – regulates the methods and procedural guarantees of remote participation.

These provisions apply to all defendants, including children. No child-specific rules on remote hearings exist in the criminal context.

Scope/Mandate for Remote Hearings

Remote hearings are not mandatory. Judges have discretion to order them in cases including or involving children.
Where remote hearings are used, Article 133-ter sets out generally applicable safeguards.

Safeguards

There are no child-specific provisions on remote hearings in criminal cases.

Instead, two frameworks apply:

A. General safeguards under Article 133-ter of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Article 133-ter provides key protections for all remote hearings, including:

Remote hearings have to guarantee the defence counsel the exercise of relevant rights.
Technical standards – the connection and location of the remote hearing must be of a manner suitable to safeguard the judicial process and the effective participation of all parties. In case of public hearings, adequate publicity must be maintained. A recording must always be made.
Suitable locations – the judicial authority designates spaces with proper equipment.
- Detained persons participate from their place of detention.
- Defence lawyers may connect from their offices or another suitable location.
- Defence lawyers must be able to be physically present with their client and have confidential communication.
Judicial officer supervision – a judicial (or judicial police) officer must be present at the remote location to verify identity and ensure compliance with safeguards. This person must also draft a report on the proceedings to confirm safeguards have been followed and the exercise of relevant rights has not been impeded.

B. General safeguards for children

Criminal cases including or involving a child are heard before the Court for Persons, Minors, and Families, governed by provisions set out in Presidential Decree No. 448/1998. This Decree does not specifically include remote hearings, and so the Code of Criminal Procedure applies.

The 1998 Presidential Decree introduced an autonomous framework for proceedings including children, separate from the adult justice system, respecting constitutional principles established for the protection of children. These include:

Communication between a judge and child must be adequate for the child’s personality and educational needs.
Those involved should be specialised in the area of child justice, including using specific child justice bodies.
The trial process should be specific and adapted to be suitable for the child and free of punitive and stigmatising sanctions (in favour of rehabilitation and education).
The process should respect the child’s fundamental rights.

Statistics and Evaluation

There are no available statistics on the use of remote hearings in criminal cases, including or involving a child.

Public Discourse

The introduction of remote hearings into the child justice system has faced significant challenges.

Key issues identified include:

Technical and infrastructure problems: The transition to the new digital platform (Sicid) has been fraught with technical difficulties, disrupting court operations. Judges and court staff have reported system malfunctions and inefficiencies handling electronic filings. The previous system, Sigma, was outdated but provided a level of functionality, especially regarding features tailored for child justice.
Training and preparation: Court staff received inadequate training for the new system, leading to inefficiencies. This has exacerbated the standing inefficiencies noted in remote hearing proceedings.
Increased administrative burden: Digitalisation has increased workloads significantly, especially in urgent child justice cases, leading to some professionals reverting to paper submissions. Courts must now manage documents electronically while facing issues in data migration and system integration.
Legal Procedures and system adaptation: Legal professionals, including lawyers and judges, have encountered substantial difficulties in electronic submissions, with some courts reverting to paper-based processes as temporary solutions. The challenges have drawn interventions from judicial leadership, with calls for a reconsideration of the wholesale digital transition approach, emphasising the need for a more gradual and strategic implementation process.
Institutional Awareness: Judicial bodies recognise the need for improvements, acknowledging debates over privacy and transparency concerns, particularly impacting minors.
Impact of COVID-19 Regulations: While digital processes ensured continuity, they also challenged procedural fairness, especially critical in child-related cases.
Child Participation and Privacy: There’s a balance required between children’s agency to choose remote hearings and ensuring they understand proceedings. Privacy concerns about maintaining confidentiality for children are also prominent.
International Standards: There’s some advocacy for maintaining the child’s best interests using a hybrid approach to balance digital and in-person elements.
Communication Challenges: Digital hearings complicate communication between children and lawyers, potentially hindering a child’s understanding of legal processes. They can result in children feeling disengaged and overwhelmed, thereby affecting the fairness of the proceedings.

From a procedural rights perspective, concerns have been raised regarding:

Rights of Defence and Procedural Integrity:
The move to virtual formats may compromise trial fairness and the adversarial process, essential under Italian constitutional and procedural law. Concerns focus on how these practices might weaken children’s rights, particularly impacting the quality and effectiveness of defence.
Publicity of Trials:
Using platforms like Microsoft Teams, which aren’t universally accessible, could compromise the openness of trials, a fundamental component of public sovereignty in the justice system.
Quality of Cross-Examinations and Adversarial Process:
Virtual hearings could dilute the effectiveness of cross-examinations, a crucial element in the Italian confrontation-based legal tradition. The immediacy and orality of hearings are pivotal to maintaining the adversarial nature crucial to fair trials.
Ensuring Fair Trials:
Critics argue that remote participation might weaken the perception of defendants, witnesses, and their interactions, affecting decisions such as whether to intensify questioning during cross-examinations.

Legal Challenges & Complaints

There are no known legal cases, complaints, or news reports regarding violations of a child’s procedural rights during remote hearings in Italy.

Other Digital Justice Practices?

Delia (formerly KeyCrime)

Developed in 2008 in conjunction with Milan Police, Delia analyses sequences of crimes to build individual profiles and predict where crimes will occur. It processes approximately 1.5 million variables – including date, time, location, vehicle used, CCTV footage, and suspect physical descriptions drawn from witness interviews (age, height, skin colour, hair, eye colour, and accent) – to generate both geographic predictions and individual suspect profiles.

Human Rights Concerns: The encoding of physical characteristics – particularly skin colour and accent – into predictive profiles raises significant concerns about racial and ethnic profiling. Witness descriptions, which can be evidentially unreliable, are treated as data inputs without documented accuracy checks. No independent audit of the tool’s bias or accuracy is on record. The combination of individual profiling with geographic prediction makes this more concerning than area-based tools alone.

Child-Specific Safeguards: None documented. Witness descriptions used as inputs could include descriptions of young people, but no safeguards governing the profiling of children and young people are recorded.

Current Status: Live – originated in Milan, now in expanded use.

Sources:
Agenfor International. (2020). ‘Crime Prevention and Predictive Analysis: The Italian Case’. https://www.agenformedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Technology1_VCinelli.pdf

The Netherlands

Age of criminal responsibility

The minimum age of criminal responsibility is 12.

Children 12–17 fall under the child justice framework. Young adults 18–23 may be sentenced under the Adolescent Criminal Law when developmentally appropriate.

The Child Justice System

The Dutch child justice model aims to be rehabilitative and welfare-orientated.

Key elements:

Specialised youth prosecutors and judges.
Strong emphasis on education, social support, and behavioural interventions.
Child-appropriate communication and mandatory involvement of guardians.
Measures range from behavioural orders to child and youth detention for the most serious crimes.

Introduction of Remote Hearings

Remote hearings were introduced in 2007 through the Besluit videoconferentie (Videoconferencing Decree), based on 2005 legislation. The aim was to modernise judicial procedures by enabling videoconferencing technology.
Remote hearings expanded substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Emergency legislation, particularly the Tijdelijke wet COVID-19 Justitie en Veiligheid (Temporary COVID-19 Act on Justice and Security), allowed hearings to proceed remotely to avoid delays and protect public health.
The Temporary COVID-19 Act expired on 1 September 2023, but the pandemic prompted ongoing debate about permanently embedding remote hearings into the Dutch justice system.

Legislation, Regulation and Guidance

Two key legal provisions allow for remote hearings. These provisions allow individuals to be questioned, examined, or heard by remote hearing, provided a real-time audio-visual connection is available.

Detailed procedural rules and exceptions are set out in the Videoconferencing Decree, which specifies when remote hearings may or may not be used.

Scope/Mandate for Remote Hearings

Remote hearings are not mandatory in criminal cases including or involving children.

Under Article 495a DCCP, the general principle is that a child accused must be physically present at the court hearing. However, remote hearings may be used at the court’s discretion if appropriate to the child’s best interests, the nature of the hearing, or the child’s ability to participate effectively.

Under the Videoconferencing Decree:

Remote hearings cannot be used for certain hearings (e.g., pre-trial detention or substantive hearings) without the child’s or lawyer’s consent, unless exceptional circumstances justify it (e.g., security risks).
Even after the COVID-19 amendments, the explanatory note to the 2020 Decree states that a suspect being a child is a contraindication against the use of a remote hearing.
Before COVID-19 amendments, the Videoconferencing Decree prohibited the use of remote hearings entirely for children accused from the moment they were taken into custody. This prohibition was removed during the pandemic to allow remote hearings in exceptional cases.

Safeguards

Generally in the Netherlands:

The judiciary (rechterlijke macht) must always be physically present. The Supreme Court does not allow criminal court cases to take place entirely online. Fully digital hearings therefore do not occur in criminal proceedings, only hybrid hearings. The reference to digital hearings in criminal cases below is therefore in fact a reference to a hybrid hearing.
The safeguards determined in the DCCP are applicable to (i) both pre-trial hearings and trial hearings in court; (ii) children accused; and (iii) cases to be determined in council, hearing, examining or questioning by remote hearing.

The EU Directive 2016/800 entered into force in the Netherlands in 2019. Following this, several safeguards for children have been implemented in the DCCP, including:

Presence of legal guardians: ensuring that children have the support and guidance of their legal guardians during (remote) hearings.
Use of child-appropriate language: adapting communication to be understandable and appropriate for children, taking into account their age and cognitive development.
Secure digital platforms: utilising secure and reliable digital platforms to protect the privacy and integrity of the proceedings.
Interest of the suspect: the court must on a case-by-case basis determine whether the use of a remote hearing is in the best interest of the child and whether it will not hinder the search for the truth.
Similar protection as in physical hearings: unless a treaty says otherwise, the rules of the DCCP about questioning a child accused by the examining magistrate also apply to questioning remotely.
Additional measures: if necessary, the competent authorities and the examining magistrate may agree on additional measures to protect the child to be questioned, i.e. ensuring that children have access to their legal representatives and can communicate privately with them during a remote hearing.

Statistics and Evaluation

No publicly accessible or detailed statistics exist regarding the use of remote hearings in criminal cases involving children.

Public Discourse

Dutch Council for the Judiciary (Raad voor de Rechtspraak) Report (2024)

A 2024 report indicated that remote hearings, including or involving children, are rare in criminal cases. Seven out of ten judges indicated a preference for a physical hearing. Comments made by judges in response to the survey questions show that physical presence remains preferable, especially for overcoming communicative and emotional barriers and ensuring good procedural dynamics.

Though findings vary among judges, the report’s survey of 123 criminal judges found:

Advantages:

Remote hearings as an efficient solution, especially for non-substantive hearings, where those in detention do not have to be transported to court (saving travel time, expenses and the inconvenience and/or emotional strain for children due to the transport)
Increasing the accessibility of the justice system – hearings do not have to be postponed as often when people are unexpectedly unable to attend, which benefits the progress of the legal process; and
Digital hearings can reduce the anxiety that children can experience when appearing in a physical courtroom.

Disadvantages:

Remote hearings make it more difficult to fully perceive a person’s physical reactions. This could result in a greater sense of distance and sometimes making those accused feel less heard
Technical problems, such as faltering connections, poor sound quality or delays in image and sound, may not only lead to frustration among all involved, but could also cause delays and disruptions in the hearing
Lawyers finding it difficult to consult with their clients during remote hearings
Remote hearings have additional limitations with suspects who may be vulnerable, because of the lack of physical proximity, which makes it more difficult to recognise emotions and respond properly
Judges indicated that the presence in a physical courtroom brings more decorum and has a greater impact on children accused.

Advisory Report Federal Institute for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (2023)

In January 2023, the Federal Institute for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (FIRM) (Federaal Instituut voor de bevordering en de bescherming van de Rechten van de Mens) published an advisory report that addressed the (at that time) draft of the Videoconferencing Decree.

The report advised:

The best interests of the child should always be paramount
Physical participation should be prioritised for children to ensure their effective involvement, in line with the guarantees set out in the UNCRC on children’s active and meaningful participation.
The vulnerable situation of children is key when deciding whether to use remote hearings, where children require special consideration.
Remote hearings must not hinder a child’s effective participation in the judicial process. Physical presence should be the norm to avoid any negative impact on children’s ability to engage fully in proceedings.

Legal Challenges & Complaints

Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), 15 December 2020:

The central legal issue was whether a decision made via remote hearing adheres to the statutory requirements for judicial decision-making, especially in the sensitive context of child criminal proceedings. The Dutch Supreme Court considered (i) that the law does not explicitly require the physical presence of all litigants during decision-making; (ii) the Court acknowledges the advancements in technology and societal changes that facilitate remote decision-making, provided procedural safeguards are maintained; and (iii) special attention is given to the unique aspects of child criminal cases, emphasising the need for transparency, fairness, and the ability of all parties, including the child accused, to fully participate in the proceedings.

Supreme Court Hoge, 3 December 2024:

The case revolved around the decision to utilise remote legal proceedings. The Supreme Court evaluated its implications and appropriateness, especially in cases involving children. The court’s decision highlights the following critical aspects: impact on children, the need for specific safeguards and protocols (including ensuring that technology is reliable and the privacy and security of children are maintained), best interests of the child (the decision to use remote hearings must prioritise the welfare and rights of the child) and practical considerations (such as the availability of the technology and training of legal professions). The Supreme Court concluded that while remote hearings can be a valuable tool in legal proceedings, its use, particularly in cases involving children, must be carefully regulated and monitored. The decision mandates the implementation of robust safeguards to protect the interests and rights of children, ensuring that their participation in the judicial process is fair, supportive, and respectful of their unique needs.

Other Digital Justice Practices?

Crime Anticipation System (CAS)

A geographic crime prediction system has been used by Dutch police since 2017, drawing on previous crime data, location data, and socio-economic indicators including income, entitlement to benefits, family size, and population density. An explicit ‘non-Western’ ethnicity variable was removed in 2017 following criticism. However, the remaining socio-economic variables are widely described as ethnicity proxies.

Human Rights Concerns: Multiple audits found the system biased, of unclear value, and legally precarious. AlgorithmWatch and Statewatch documented systemic accountability failures; Erasmus University Rotterdam described AI policing in the Netherlands at the time as operating in a legal ‘no-man’s land’.

Child-Specific Safeguards: None documented. Use of family size and parental characteristics as risk variables has direct implications for how children in flagged households may be treated by police.

Current Status: Ceased – discontinued in February 2026 following an audit.

Sources:

NL Times. (2026, February 27). Dutch police discontinue controversial crime-predicting algorithm CAS. https://nltimes.nl/2026/02/27/dutch-police-discontinue-controversial-crime-predicting-algorithm-cas
Erasmus University Rotterdam. (2025, April 28). The limits of predictive policing: “Human behaviour is not as predictable as people think.” https://www.eur.nl/en/news/limits-predictive-policing-human-behaviour-not-predictable-people-think
AlgorithmWatch. (2025, March). ‘Automating injustice: Predictive policing and criminal prediction and profiling systems’. https://algorithmwatch.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AlgorithmWatch_Report-Predictive-Policing.pdf

ProKid (ProKid 12-SI / ProKid 12-18 / ProKid 23)

Child-specific risk assessment tool in use since 2011, assessing likelihood of future violent and property offending behaviour (first for those under 12, then those under 18, most recently deployed for those under 23). It draws on criminal records, a ‘criminal opinion’ database of officer observations, parental criminal history, and police contact as a victim or witness. A ProKid assessment triggers police registration and referrals to youth and child protection services.

Human Rights Concerns: Approximately one third of high-risk assessments were incorrect (1,542 correct out of 2,444). Children are profiled as potential “offenders” on the basis of being victims or witnesses of crime. Parental criminal records – which ordinarily would have been erased under Dutch data retention rules – were effectively reactivated through correlation with children’s profiles. Algorithmically triggered referrals to child protection services, rather than professional assessment, raise concerns about children’s safety and privacy.

Child-Specific Safeguards: Despite being explicitly child-focused, the tool lacks safeguards proportionate to that focus. Children as young as under 12 are assessed despite having no criminal responsibility. No independent review or right to challenge a risk score is documented. The use of parental criminal history as a proxy for children’s likelihood of interaction with the justice system is particularly concerning.

Current Status: Unclear – no formal discontinuation announced.

Sources:
AlgorithmWatch. (2025, March). ‘Automating injustice: Predictive policing and criminal prediction and profiling systems’. https://algorithmwatch.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AlgorithmWatch_Report-Predictive-Policing.pdf

Top600 / Top400

Top600 (introduced 2012) profiles individuals over 16 deemed at risk of committing High Impact Crime; inclusion triggers heightened policing, surveillance, asset confiscation, and regular home checks. Top400 (2015) extends the model to children under 16, using ProKid as a component assessment. Top 400 criteria include school absence, multiple school changes, and involvement in domestic violence as a victim or witness. Inclusion lasts a minimum of two years.

Human Rights Concerns: Both systems impose punitive consequences – surveillance, home checks, harsher penalties – based on risk scores rather than proven offending. Top 400 treats victimisation and welfare indicators (domestic violence, school exclusion) as proxies for future criminality, effectively criminalising adversity. No review or appeal mechanism is documented. Two-year minimum inclusion with no exit route has been criticised as disproportionate. In addition, scientific research and evaluations of Top400/600 and similar programmes demonstrate how predictive identification systems ‘disproportionately target the most marginalised in society, limit or obstruct access to justice and redress, and reinforce structural discrimination.’

Child-Specific Safeguards: Top400 targets children under 16 but operates as a surveillance mechanism rather than a welfare one. Children and families are informed of inclusion by letter; this does not constitute meaningful participation or due process. Criteria that would ordinarily trigger child protection responses are instead used to flag children for criminal risk profiling.

Current Status: Announced that it would be ceased and replaced in December 2025.

Sources:
AlgorithmWatch. (2025, March). ‘Automating injustice: Predictive policing and criminal prediction and profiling systems’. https://algorithmwatch.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AlgorithmWatch_Report-Predictive-Policing.pdf
Center for Race and Technology. (2026, February 9). ‘The end of the Top400/600: What will come next?’ https://racismandtechnology.center/2026/02/09/the-end-of-the-top400-600-what-will-come-next/

Poland

Age of criminal responsibility

Children under 17 are generally not criminally liable.

However, for certain serious offences, children 15–17 may be tried under adult criminal law.

The Child Justice System

Poland’s juvenile system is regulated by the Juvenile Act and emphasises educational and protective measures.

Features:

Family courts handle most youth cases.
Measures include counselling, supervision, and placement in educational or care centres.
Children under 18 must have legal representation.
Hearings must reflect the child’s age, health, and mental development.

Introduction of Remote Hearings

Poland permitted the use of remote hearing tools in criminal and civil proceedings even before the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, the COVID-19 pandemic triggered major procedural change. Lockdowns prevented in-person hearings, and remote hearings became a regular mode of proceeding. Temporary emergency legislation (the “Anti-Crisis Shields”) enabled courts to continue functioning digitally, and the experience of this period prompted broader legislative reform and discussions about long-term digitalisation.

Legislation, Regulation and Guidance

The framework for remote hearings is spread across multiple instruments.

There are no specific regulations on digital court hearings for children accused of a crime. There are some provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the use of technical devices in criminal cases which only cover children as witnesses/victims, as well as specific rules for individuals (adults and children accused in circumstances where they are tried in the adult justice system).
COVID-19 emergency legislation/‘Anti-Crisis Shields’: Included provisions to allow remote hearings in criminal procedures and amended the Code of Criminal Procedure to allow a person accused to attend an entirely remote trial.
2023 Amendments: Amendments to the Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code to allow for remote hearings in some circumstances, following procedural regulations.

There have been various regulations and guidance on upholding the technical standards of remote hearings. For example, hardware standards for remote hearings, entrusting Court of Appeal directors with tasks relating to the digitisation of the court IT system, and guidelines for practical implementation.

Scope/Mandate for Remote Hearings

Digital court hearings are not mandated for any types of courts or matters in Poland. Further, the Polish Court has found that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not exclude in advance any categories of cases in which remote hearings would be prohibited (if they meet statutory requirements).

For criminal cases generally:

The presiding judge decides whether a remote hearing is appropriate, considering technical feasibility.
Remote questioning may be used if the presence of the accused could inhibit co-accused or witness testimony.
A remote hearing may be ordered ex officio or upon request.
Specifically for children, there are a few special procedures which apply to remote hearings under the Criminal Procedure Code:
- A child witness who is at least 15 or older (but under 18) at the time of questioning shall be questioned remotely if there is a justified concern that their physical presence could have a constraining influence on their testimony or a negative influence on them psychologically. In these circumstances, remote questioning is mandatory but does not apply if the witness is co-accused.
- For provisional detention proceedings, the physical presence of a child accused cannot be waived for a remote hearing if the child has certain disabilities, such as if they are deaf, non-verbal, and/or blind.

Safeguards

In Poland there are no specific legal safeguards applicable to remote hearings in criminal cases involving children.

General safeguards apply where remote hearings are used in all cases, and these apply to children held criminally responsible and navigate the adult justice system. These include where a judge waives the obligation to be physically present. In this case, an alternative party, such as a lawyer, assistant judge, etc. – but must be physically present.

There are also safeguards which apply to children accused, though these are not specific to remote hearings. The Code of Criminal Procedure includes specific measures for the treatment of children in criminal cases, ensuring:

Proceedings must be adapted to reflect children’s age, health, and mental capacity.
Defence counsel is mandatory for children accused who are under 18 years old.
When a person under 18 is questioned, procedural actions must occur in the presence of a statutory representative, guardian, or adult trusted by the child.

The Minister of Justice has also issued guidelines on safeguards for children, which include guidance on processes and methodologies for questioning children and how to explain children’s rights and obligations to them in an appropriate manner.

Statistics and Evaluation

N/A

Public Discourse

There are no public statistics available to provide an understanding of how widespread the use of digital court hearings is for criminal matters involving children. However, there are some general commentaries available:

“E-TRIALS IN POLISH COURTS: How Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Affected the Work of Polish Courts?”

This report includes responses to survey forms sent to the courts of appeal, the regional courts and select district courts in Poland and includes commentary on the use of remote hearings generally.

“Poland among the European leaders in the digitization of the judiciary”

This article notes that Poland is ranked third in the use of digital tools in criminal cases within the EU. Regarding criminal cases generally, 85% of arrest cases and 78% of cases conducted in Regional Prosecutor’s Offices were already in digital written form (i.e., digital files and records etc.).

No legal cases, complaints, media reports, or academic publications have been found regarding procedural rights violations of children due to remote hearings in Poland.

Predictive Policing System (MIM Solutions / Polish Police)

Built specifically for the Polish Police by AI contractor MIM Solutions, the system uses machine-learning models inspired by PredPol to predict the place, time, and type of criminal events and to suggest patrol deployment. It draws on historical police data (time, location, and offence type) and is framed as decision support rather than automated enforcement.

Human Rights Concerns: PredPol-inspired systems have been extensively criticised internationally for encoding racial and socio-economic bias through historical crime data. Independent civil society scrutiny in Poland is limited. The legal framework is not publicly detailed, raising questions about compatibility with Polish constitutional rights and EU AI Act obligations. Poland’s expansion of AI surveillance powers was reported by Central European Times (2025).

Child-Specific Safeguards: None documented. As a patrol deployment tool, outputs may affect policing intensity in areas with high youth populations.

Current Status: Live and operational.

Sources:
MIM Solutions. Predictive policing system for the Polish police. https://www.mim.ai/predictive-policing-system-for-the-polish-police/
Nolan, D. (2025, May 27). Polish government expands AI surveillance powers. Central European Times. https://centraleuropeantimes.com/polish-govt-expands-ai-surveillance-powers-2/

Portugal

Age of criminal responsibility

In Portugal, the age of criminal responsibility is typically 16 years old.

However, the Portuguese system has specialised measures for those accused under the age of 16. Under 12, the state intervenes through a ‘Promotion and Protection’ system, rather than the justice system. Aged 12-16, children go through an ‘Educational Guardianship’ system, focused on educational and preventive measures. However, this system does include 6 educational detention centres. (Criminal Code, Article 19; Lei Tutelar Educativa 1999 (Guardianship and Education Law), Articles 1 and 4).

The Child Justice System

The child justice system is designed not to have a punitive or retributive purpose. Instead, it is designed to be focused on addressing the behaviour in a manner appropriate to the young person’s development. Rehabilitation is based on children’s and young people’s needs and fundamental values for living and playing a constructive role in society.

Introduction of Remote Hearings

Prior to COVID-19, Portugal permitted use of remote hearings in both civil and criminal proceedings. However, their adoption was limited.

With the onset of COVID, special and emergency legislation was passed to allow and regulate remote hearings. However, remote hearings were not possible in all circumstances, for example, collecting statements from those accused or parties bringing civil proceedings or for witnesses in criminal proceedings. This legislation has since been revoked, and Portugal has returned to pre-COVID rules.

Legislation, Regulation and Guidance

The framework for remote hearings is spread across several instruments of legislation and guidance:

Portuguese Criminal Procedure Code:

Allows, in exceptional circumstances, the remote hearing of an ‘assistant’ (normally a person assisting in bringing a victim’s case), civil parties, witnesses, experts or technical consultants.
This is permissible where certain conditions are met – (i) the residence of the person is outside the municipality of the court, (ii) there is no reason to believe that a person’s physical presence is essential to the truth, and (iii) there may be serious difficulties or inconveniences in the movement of such persons. Remote hearings may also be permissible for those resident in foreign countries or for expert statements.
The Portuguese Criminal Procedure Code does not specifically cover the use of remote hearings for those accused, including children. Such possibility has, however, been suggested by case law.

Case Law

Courts have allowed remote hearings for those accused, at their request, subject to pre-existing cooperation rules.
In 2023, the Court of Appeal of Coimbra (Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra) interpreted a remote hearing as a ‘hearing in person’ as there was no relevant difference so long as the hearing is conducted with the use of digital means that allow sound, visual and audio communication. In 2024, the Court of Appeal of Porto (Tribunal da Relação do Porto) noted also that while there is no rule providing for remote hearings for those accused (unlike assistants, witnesses, experts, etc.), no rule expressly prevents this either. As a result, the possibility should not be ruled out where weighty reasons justify it and as long as the court does not consider physical presence necessary for the discovery of the truth.
There is no case law on whether a court would allow remote hearings specifically in relation to a child.

Directions and Guidelines by the Higher Judicial Council (Conselho Superior da Magistratura) and Institute for Financial Management and Justice Equipment (Instituto de Gestão Financeira e Equipamentos da Justiça)

During COVID-19, further to the emergency and special legislation, the Higher Judicial Council provided guidelines on remote hearings – including technical requirements, best practices, and types of act that could be implemented remotely. See here and here.
The Institute for Financial Management and Justice Equipment provided several training sessions to judges, lawyers, and judicial employees in relation to the use of remote hearings and has a special team dedicated to remote hearings.

Scope/Mandate for Remote Hearings

The legislation and guidelines noted above apply to all. Children (as accused, victims, witnesses, or civil parties) therefore enjoy the same rights as those already granted by general legislation on remote hearings and the rights applied by general legislation to children under criminal procedures.

There are no specific rules in relation to remote hearings where a child is accused of a crime.

If a remote hearing occurs, safeguards are to be put in place to protect the child’s rights and welfare.

Safeguards

In Portugal, children’s rights are proclaimed, legislated, and regulated through various sources of law – both nationally and internationally.

No specific guidelines are available that articulate safeguards for children involved in remote hearings. However, general safeguards apply to all children involved in any proceedings.

The Portuguese Constitution (Article 69) sets the right to the full development of the child, enshrined in the Portuguese legal system – through the Portuguese Civil Code, the Criminal Code, the Criminal Procedural Code, alongside obligations from EU law. In addition the two main legislative acts regarding the protection of children are the Law for the Protection of Children and Young People in Danger and the Educational Guardianship Law.

Safeguards for children participating in criminal proceedings:

The Law for the Protection of Children and Young People at Risk provides a framework for safeguarding children’s rights, outlining principles for their treatment during legal proceedings, including guiding principles outlined in Article 4:

The best interests of the child, privacy, early intervention, minimum intervention, proportionality and up-to-dateness, parental responsibility, the obligation to inform, participation and the obligation to hear.

The Education Guardianship Law also sets out several measures to ensure speedy proceedings concerning a child placed under protective custody or in a detention setting. These include the ability to determine proceedings as urgent or allow them to be conducted during judicial holidays.

The right to be heard:

In Portugal, children’s right to participate and be heard in legal proceedings concerning them is enshrined in national legislation, affirming their status as ‘subjects of rights’.
The Education Guardianship Law (Article 45) established the right of a child to participate in any proceedings, even if they are in detention or custody, in a manner where the child feels free and as much ease as possible.
In particular, at any stage of proceedings and subject to the exceptions of the law, a child has the right to be accompanied by a parent, legal representative, or other who has de facto custody of them. The child may be accompanied by another suitable person indicated by them and accepted by the judicial authority.

Statistics and Evaluation

N/A

Public Discourse

Scholars have argued that remote hearings pose challenges in ensuring the formality and privacy of hearings and the authenticity of testimonies.

Technical assurances have been sought, including calls for:

A dual camera system, with one camera showing the person and another showing their location.
Assurances over the size of screens used and standard of internet connection.

Evidence suggests a general preference for physical hearings amongst judges. The President of the Supreme Court publicly stated that remote hearings, although useful during COVID-19, should remain a solution for exceptional circumstances. In addition, hearings including or involving children in Portugal are generally considered quite flawed due to a lack of available and accessible specialist training and inadequate conditions of court facilities or rooms.

Particularly concerning children, many have argued that despite progress, investment is necessary to develop dedicated spaces where children’s hearings take place and specialist training on child rights.

In response, the Portuguese government are currently investing in improved infrastructure, including child-specific hearing rooms and childcare facilities, which feature:

Installed videoconferencing equipment (laptops, speakers, headphones, amplifiers, cameras and microphones).
Age-appropriate furniture, as well as play and educational equipment.
The ability to record children’s statements via the Citius system, enabling secure storage and communication within the court.

Legal Challenges & Complaints

N/A

Other Digital Justice Practices?

Crime Prediction and Analytical Policing

Portugal has developed machine-learning crime prediction models primarily in research and pilot contexts, including university-led projects. Portuguese police have also participated in EU-funded projects applying advanced analytics to child exploitation detection systems.

Human rights concerns: Concerns relate to the opacity of algorithmic models, potential biases in historical crime data, and the absence of a clear legal framework governing predictive policing. There is also concern that research tools may transition into operational use without adequate safeguards.

Child-specific safeguards: No child-specific safeguards documented. Tools are primarily location-based and indirect but may affect children’s privacy, especially in pilots related to child exploitation

Status: Pilot / research stage.

Sources:
Camacho-Collados, M., et al. (2019). Crime prediction using machine learning in urban environments. University of Porto.
European Commission. (2021). Horizon 2020 projects in security and policing. https://ec.europa.eu/

Slovenia

Age of criminal responsibility

In Slovenia, the age of criminal responsibility is 14 years old.

The Child Justice System

Age 14-15: Children can be found criminally responsible but can only receive educational measures, not punitive sanctions.
Age 15-18: Children can be found criminally responsible, though they still typically receive educational measures. Children can be faced with punitive sanctions, such as fines or juvenile detention.
Age 18-21: Young people are tried under juvenile justice provisions where the court sees this as appropriate, with more focus on educational and preventive measures than the adult justice system.

Introduction of Remote Hearings

Remote hearings were introduced in Slovenia in 2020, in response to COVID-19. Since then, remote hearings have been rare, but there is growing exploration of their introduction for children involved in civil or criminal proceedings.

Legislation, Regulation and Guidance

Remote hearings were initially permissible through an amendment by the president of the Supreme Court in Slovenia to the COVID-19 Measures Act in April 2020.

Remote hearings are primarily regulated by the Rules on Electronic Operations in Civil Procedures and Criminal Procedure.

Post-COVID-19, the use of remote hearings is infrequent. This is often due to technical limitations, judges’ reluctance, and the requirement for mutual consent from all involved parties. Whilst rare, Slovenia is exploring remote hearings for children, including the use of videoconferencing for children’s testimonies, from a remote location such as a child advocacy centre or at home.

Scope/Mandate for Remote Hearings

Remote hearings are not mandated for all criminal proceedings involving children but can be utilised under certain conditions relating to factors such as the nature of the case, the rights of the child and technical availability.

Safeguards

General safeguards are informed by EU Directive 2016/800 on procedural safeguards for children accused in criminal proceedings, including:

The presence of a legal guardian or children’s advocate
Communication methods sensitive to the child’s age and capacity.

Where remote hearings take place, the judge must ensure the child understands the proceedings, a lawyer or legal guardian must be present, and the child must be able to communicate freely with their legal representatives.

In addition, it is often the case that a psychologist or social worker is present also, especially where a child is especially young or in a vulnerable situation.

Statistics and Evaluation

While remote hearings are rare for children and are generally only considered in exceptional circumstances, some reports are available from the Statistical Office of Slovenia, such as a 2020 report on Decisions of Prosecutors and Courts in Criminal Matters.

In addition, a 2023 joint EU-Council of Europe project – Protecting the rights of the child in civil proceedings in Slovenia – offers recommendations on:

Improving the protection of children’s rights in civil proceedings
Assessing how children are heard in court, and
Recommending reforms, including digital solutions to facilitate safer, child-friendly testimony (which may include remote testimony or hearings).

Public Discourse

N/A

Legal Challenges & Complaints

N/A

Other Digital Justice Practices?

N/A

Spain

Age of criminal responsibility

In Spain, the age of criminal responsibility is 14.

The Child Justice System

Children accused between the ages of 14 and 17 go through a specialised juvenile court process and may face rehabilitative or educational penalties rather than adult prison sentences. Children under 14 cannot be prosecuted but may be subject to social or educational protection measures by public authorities.

Introduction of Remote Hearings

Remote hearings were formally introduced in Spain in 2020 through emergency COVID-19 legislation (no longer in force). However, the groundwork for remote hearings had been laid as early as 2003 through an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act to allow remote hearings for certain proceedings, such as witness testimonies, where physical presence was impractical.

Since 2024, the Royal Decree-Law 6/2023 provides a comprehensive legal framework for the use of remote hearings, including proceedings involving children.

Legislation, Regulation and Guidance

The legal framework is contained across numerous instruments:

Criminal Procedure Act

Article 325: Allows judicial proceedings to be conducted remotely when the physical presence of the parties would be burdensome or harmful.
Article 731 bis: Specifically addresses the participation of children in criminal proceedings, allowing for the use of videoconferencing or similar systems when their physical presence would be burdensome or harmful.
Article 258 bis (introduced by Royal Decree-Law 6/2023): Grants individuals, including children, the right to choose between physical or remote presence in legal proceedings. However, judges retain the authority to override this choice based on reasoned decisions.

Organic Law 6/1985 of the Judiciary

Article 229.3: Reiterates that judicial proceedings, such as interrogations and declarations, may be conducted remotely.

Organic Law 1/1996 on the Legal Protection of Minors

Article 9: Establishes the right of children to be heard in all proceedings in which they are affected and ensures they receive the information in an understandable and accessible format.

Guidelines for the Conduct of Telematic Judicial Proceedings

These provide procedural and technical standards for conducting remote hearings, ensuring compliance with fundamental rights and procedural guarantees.

Organic Law 5/2000, on the Criminal Responsibility of Minors

Regulates the criminal responsibility of children and young people aged 14 to 18, as those under 14 are not held criminally responsible under Spanish law. While this law does not explicitly reference digital hearings for children suspected or accused of a crime, Article 4 mandates the use of remote hearings where children are victims of gender violence, sexual violence, human trafficking, or other serious offences.

Scope/Mandate for Remote Hearings

Remote hearings are not universally mandated in Spain, with their use subject to regulations and specific provisions, particularly in proceedings involving or including children.

The Criminal Procedure Act provides for a right to choose remote participation where appropriate, provided the necessary technical resources are available. However, judges retain the discretion to require physical presence if they deem it necessary. This decision must be justified in a court order.

In all cases, remote hearings must comply with safe access protocols to ensure integrity and confidentiality. Those accused must be informed of the option for remote proceedings at least 5 days in advance. If proceedings are remote, their defence lawyer must also be present – either alongside them remotely or at the court.

Safeguards

There are no specific safeguards for children involved or included in remote hearings.

General Safeguards

Several legal provisions and protections extend to remote proceedings and settings.

Organic Law 1/1996 on the Legal Protection of Minors (Articles 9-12): Establishes the fundamental right of children to be heard in all proceedings in which they are affected. Mandates that children receive clear, understandable and accessible information, ensures children can effectively understand and engage in legal proceedings, physically or remotely, and requires courts to ensure children receive support from qualified professionals where necessary.
Criminal Procedure Act (Article 449 ter): Considers the safeguarding of children as witnesses, particularly those under the age of 14, in serious criminal proceedings. Mandates the use of pre-recorded evidence in the presence of psychosocial teams.
Article 26 of the Law 4/2015 (Statute of the Victim): Reinforces protections for victims in situations of vulnerability, including children, by providing procedural measures. Includes the possibility of remote hearing as part of measures to prevent secondary victimisation. Explicitly seeks to minimise stress and harm during legal proceedings.

Procedural Fairness in Remote Proceedings

Within the above provisions, additional procedural safeguards protect the rights of children participating in remote hearings:

Right to effective legal representation: A child participating in remote hearings must have their defence lawyer present – either with the child or at the court.
Judicial discretion: Judges have the authority to determine if a child’s physical presence is necessary, based on the child’s age, maturity, and the complexity of the case. Conversely, courts may prioritise remote participation where a child’s emotional well-being or physical safety could be at risk during in-person proceedings.
Notification: 5 days notice must be given prior to a remote hearing.
Technical safeguards: Strict security protocols apply to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and procedural fairness. Courts are responsible for guaranteeing that remote hearing systems are reliable and all participants can engage effectively.

Statistics and Evaluation

N/A

Public Discourse

Chronicle of the foreseen denial of telematic trials

This article discusses civil proceedings, where in-person proceedings remain prevalent due to inadequate infrastructure, traditional culture in judicial practices, and concerns around legal certainty and effective hearings due to technical issues.
This article also suggests a hybrid approach, digital elements complimenting face-to-face interactions, as a way to mitigate risks and a balanced embrace of modernisation.

Legal Challenges & Complaints

While there are no legal challenges or complaints about the impact on the procedural rights of children, the evidence below articulates some risks.

The Supreme Court warns of evidentiary issues in telematic trials and The telematic conduct of an oral trial for one party cannot undermine the procedural guarantees of the other

The Supreme Court of Spain annulled a trial due to violations of procedural guarantees during a remote hearing.
The core issue was that the person accused, attending the trial online, could not access evidence presented physically. This failure to provide access to evidence prevented the person accused from contesting its authenticity, compromising the fairness and integrity of the trial.
The Court emphasised that remote proceedings should not undermine essential procedural rights, including the right to a proper defence and equality of arms. As a result, the trial was void and required a new proceeding.

Other Digital Justice Practices?

N/A

Sweden

Age of criminal responsibility

Chapter 1, Section 6 of the Swedish Criminal Code provides that no sanction may be imposed for offending behaviour committed before the age of 15. However, under certain conditions, the prosecutor shall request the court to examine whether an offence has been committed by way of evidentiary proceedings (Section 38, Swedish Act).

Recent legislative debates almost saw the ACR in Sweden lowered to 13. However, this stalled in Parliament after heavy criticism and opposition. However, plans remain to reduce the age to 14 for cases involving serious harm.

The Child Justice System

Sweden does not have specialised courts for children and young people. Children accused between 15 and 17 years old are subject to the general court system, though specialised legal representation is often mandated.

It is rare for those under 21 to receive custodial sentences in Sweden. However, social welfare measures may include placing children and young people in specialised youth homes.

Introduction of Remote Hearings

• In 1998, the Swedish government proposed introducing remote hearings on an experimental basis, while maintaining physical proceedings as the general rule.
• The aim was to test digital technology and assess whether it could be used permanently in Swedish courts.
• This led to the Act on Experimental Remote Hearings in Court (1999:613), in force from 1999 to 2008.
• The pilot applied to both criminal and civil proceedings and covered all types of hearings.
• In criminal proceedings, there were restrictions on participation via remote hearings – those accused could not appear remotely where more serious penalties than minor fines, short imprisonment (up to three months), probation, or suspended sentences were possible.
• In 2004, the government proposed making remote hearings permanent and applicable to all general courts.
• The reform aimed to modernise court proceedings while ensuring legal certainty, efficiency and effectiveness.
• Permanent rules on remote hearings were incorporated into the Code of Judicial Procedure and entered into force on 1 November 2008.
• The use of remote hearings has increased significantly in recent years, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Legislation, Regulation and Guidance

Participation in proceedings and participation in remote proceedings are regulated by the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure. A permanent provision regarding remote hearings (Chapter 5, Section 10) entered into force in 2008.

Scope/Mandate for Remote Hearings

Remote hearings are not mandated for criminal proceedings involving children.

The Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (Chapter 5, Section 10) states any person required to attend a hearing shall appear in the courtroom. The court may decide that participation can be carried out by audio transmission or audio and video transmission. In assessing grounds for remote participation, particular account should be given to (i) the costs or inconvenience caused if physical presence were required, (ii) if the person involved in proceedings is afraid to be physically present, (iii) if the person involved in proceedings is under pressure, and (iv) if necessary for security reasons. Remote hearings are not permissible if it is inappropriate in view of the purpose of the person’s appearance and other circumstances.

Safeguards

Other than the regulations set out above from the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (Chapter 5, Section 10), there are no safeguards specifically related to children involved or included in remote hearings.

The Swedish Act contains specific provisions for children accused that specifically address the procedural rights of children and young people, alongside EU Directive 2016/800 on procedural safeguards for children, which is implemented in Swedish law.

Statistics and Evaluation

General statistics show the use of remote hearings is increasing.

Public Discourse

The use of remote hearings has been discussed by various judges and judicial authorities:

Lena Egelin, judge in Solna District Court, has stated more generally that digital hearings have facilitated hearings during the pandemic.
Erik Graeske, judge in Luleå District Court, clarified that the mechanism is also beneficial in the context of environmental resources and efficiency of the courts (Nekham, Video gör rättegångar möjliga – trots corona, Svenska Dagbladet, 18 May 2020).
Johan Allthin, Head of Technical Services at the Swedish National Courts Administration, has noted that videoconferencing technology is costly but that there are also benefits and savings in other ways, such as reduced environmental impact, as transport to and from the courts is minimised.
Niklas Lind, judge in Luleå District Court, has stated that videoconferencing works in all types of hearings, but that it of course also depends on the circumstances, and that videoconferencing during the pandemic made it possible to participate even if parties had symptoms or confirmed infection, which saved time and money

Legal Challenges & Complaints

N/A

Other Digital Justice Practices?

Proposed Live Facial Recognition Law (Proposition 2025/26:150)

Submitted to parliament in March 2026, this proposition would authorise real-time facial recognition by police in public spaces for serious violent crime, terrorism, and missing persons investigations. Deployment would require prior prosecutorial approval, reporting to the Swedish Privacy Protection Authority (IMY), and proportionality assessments. This would make Sweden the first EU country to explicitly legislate for live biometric surveillance by law enforcement.

Human Rights Concerns: Civil liberties organisations have raised concerns about real-time mass biometric surveillance in public spaces. Prosecutorial approval provides limited oversight but does not address the potential of chilling effects on lawful assembly. Scope and mission creep have been flagged by State of Surveillance (2026) and Biometric Update (2025).

Child-Specific Safeguards: None documented. Real-time facial recognition in public spaces would scan all individuals, including children, without consent or awareness. The missing persons use case could apply to children, but no child-specific framework is described.

Current Status: Proposed – under parliamentary scrutiny, not yet enacted.

Sources:

State of Surveillance. (2026, March 3). Sweden proposes the first EU law for live police facial recognition. https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/sweden-live-facial-recognition-police-law-riksdag-2026/
Borak, M. (2025, March 21). Sweden proposes a law on live facial recognition to curb gang violence. Biometric Update. https://www.biometricupdate.com/202503/sweden-proposes-law-on-live-facial-recognition-to-curb-gang-violence

Electronic Monitoring and Surveillance Powers

In May 2026, Sweden announced plans for the use of electronic monitoring devices for children as young as 13 who are assessed to be at risk of exploitation into criminal gangs, even where no crime has been committed.

The devices are designed to resemble watches or bracelets, not ankle monitors, citing stigma reduction. Monitoring would primarily enforce curfews and movement restrictions, based on limitations set by social services. Authorisation would occur through administrative rather than criminal courts, cited to ensure a welfare-based rather than punitive approach. However, the targeting of a population at-risk is a significant departure from pre-trial or post-detention monitoring.

This coincides with broader surveillance expansion in Sweden, including permissible wiretapping of children under 15 (since October 2025), and calls for the reduction of the age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 13 for children accused of violent harm (expected July 2026).

Human Rights Concerns: Significant concerns have been raised about monitoring based on risk assessment rather than conduct. The use of wrist devices may instead be more visible and stigmatising compared to traditional ankle monitoring devices. The changes signal a broader scope of surveillance over children, highlighting concerns over freedom of association, movement, and privacy. Critiques have raised concerns over creep, where monitoring could be extended further and amount to intrusive monitoring.

Child-Specific Safeguards: The proposal is explicitly targeted at children yet lacks safeguards. There is some mitigation through the administrative rather than criminal justice pathway, but it overall represents sweeping changes to surveillance powers. There are risks concerning data protection, access to appeal rights or routes to accountability where risk assessments wrongfully profile children, or clear information on independent oversight mechanisms.

Status: Electronic monitoring expected in 2027; additional surveillance measures became live in October 2025, with several amendments temporary until September 2028/September 2030.

Sources:

Ankle Monitor Industry Report. (2026, May 9). Sweden plans electronic bracelets for children at risk of gang recruitment: A radical departure in juvenile monitoring. https://www.ankle-monitor.org/2026/05/09/sweden-electronic-bracelet-children-gang-recruitment-juvenile-monitoring-2026/
Blackburn, G. (2026, May 7). Sweden plans electronic bracelets to monitor children at risk of gang recruitment*. Euronews. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/05/07/sweden-plans-electronic-bracelets-to-monitor-children-at-risk-of-gang-recruitment
Swedish Parliament. (2025, September 17). Secret and preventive coercive measures to be permitted when children under the age of 15 commit crimes. https://www.riksdagen.se/en/news/articles/2025/sep/17/secret-and-preventive-coercive-measures-to-be_cms8feeb4e4-624c-4af8-a693-784ae0563d72en/

Digitalisation of child justice practices: An EU dashboard and country snapshots

Purpose and Scope

Methodology

Member countries

Despite legal diversity, EU child justice systems, in theory, share common foundations:

Key differences include:

Pre-pandemic

COVID-19 as a universal catalyst

National frameworks include:

Overall pattern:

Key similarities:

Notable differences:

Common safeguards found across EU jurisdictions include:

Examples of more substantive safeguards:

Data availability

Known insights:

Recurring concerns

Positive narratives

European-Level Trends and Context

Sources:

Flemish Community – Flemish Juvenile Videoconference Decision

2. Federal rules (general safeguards)

Predictive Policing / AI Policing Tools

Risk Terrain Modelling (RTM)

M-Pulse (Marseille) / Smart Police Edicia

SKALA and Similar Geographic Crime Prediction Systems

Palantir Gotham / hessenDATA

RADAR-iTE and RADAR-Haft

Smart Policing

Crime Hotspot Analysis

B. General safeguards for children

Delia (formerly KeyCrime)

Generally in the Netherlands:

The EU Directive 2016/800 entered into force in the Netherlands in 2019. Following this, several safeguards for children have been implemented in the DCCP, including:

Advisory Report Federal Institute for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (2023)

Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), 15 December 2020:

Supreme Court Hoge, 3 December 2024:

Crime Anticipation System (CAS)

ProKid (ProKid 12-SI / ProKid 12-18 / ProKid 23)

Top600 / Top400

“E-TRIALS IN POLISH COURTS: How Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Affected the Work of Polish Courts?”

Predictive Policing System (MIM Solutions / Polish Police)

Case Law

Directions and Guidelines by the Higher Judicial Council (Conselho Superior da Magistratura) and Institute for Financial Management and Justice Equipment (Instituto de Gestão Financeira e Equipamentos da Justiça)

Crime Prediction and Analytical Policing

General safeguards are informed by EU Directive 2016/800 on procedural safeguards for children accused in criminal proceedings, including:

General Safeguards

Procedural Fairness in Remote Proceedings

Proposed Live Facial Recognition Law (Proposition 2025/26:150)

Electronic Monitoring and Surveillance Powers