From Court Closures to Digital Justice: The Global Push for Judicial Map Reform

The World Bank’s publication authored by Sayed Madadi, Svetozara Petkova, and Zoran Skopljak, and informed by earlier work from the Sciences Po Strasbourg Consulting group and the Analytical Center of the Slovakian Ministry of Justice, offers a compelling look at how governments across the world are redrawing their judicial boundaries to better serve citizens. Backed by the World Bank’s practical experiences, including projects in Greece and Morocco, the paper lays out a blueprint for understanding and executing judicial map reforms in a rapidly changing world.

A New Era for Court Distribution

The concept of a judicial map encompasses the physical location, jurisdiction, and size of courts within a country. As populations migrate and urbanize, the traditional layouts of courts often become outdated and inefficient. Judicial map reform aims to realign these court systems with demographic and infrastructural realities, ensuring that justice is accessible, efficient, and equitable. Importantly, these reforms are not about reducing the number of courts indiscriminately but about distributing them more rationally. In some high-income countries like Portugal, this has meant consolidating courts in underused areas and reinforcing those in high-demand urban centers. In contrast, lower-income countries such as Senegal and Togo have opted to expand their networks by opening new courts to meet growing demands in rural or previously underserved regions. These efforts reflect not only changes in population but also the increasing complexity of legal systems and the pressures on existing judicial resources.

Bridging Gaps with Data and Criteria

A critical element of judicial map reform is the use of accurate, disaggregated data to diagnose existing problems and inform solutions. Courts with too few judges or excessive caseloads suffer from inefficiencies and delays. For example, a World Bank-supported review in Greece found that some magistrate courts had 22 times more cases per judge than others. In Denmark, single-judge courts reported that judges spent almost a quarter of their time on administrative duties, while overly large courts in Italy struggled with complex operations. These disparities underscore the importance of measuring court performance through indicators like caseload per judge, case disposition times, and resource allocation. The Greek model categorized courts as underutilized, overextended, struggling, or underperforming, offering a nuanced framework for decision-making. The report also highlights travel time, population density, and digital infrastructure as key factors for determining where to locate or relocate courts. For instance, Norway’s reforms ensured that no more than five percent of its citizens would have to travel more than two hours to reach a court, while France used a one-hour travel limit between court locations as a guiding principle.

Digital Justice Gains Momentum

One of the most transformative elements of judicial reform is the adoption of digital technologies. Countries like Azerbaijan, Estonia, and Poland have pioneered the use of e-Court systems that handle everything from case filing to virtual hearings. Azerbaijan’s Electronic Court Information System, supported by the World Bank, enables judges to resolve small claims cases without physical hearings, tripling productivity while cutting costs and improving accessibility. Croatia and Poland went a step further by introducing universal jurisdiction, where certain types of cases, such as appeals or online payment disputes, are automatically distributed to courts nationwide using algorithms. This decentralizes caseloads and removes local political influences, ensuring fairer and faster judgments. However, the report cautions that digitalization must be aligned with the realities on the ground. In countries with low internet penetration or poor digital literacy, such as those in fragile or conflict-affected regions, technology may initially deepen access gaps rather than bridge them. Mobile courts, used in countries like India, Kenya, and Bangladesh, offer a hybrid solution by bringing legal services directly to communities while avoiding costly permanent infrastructure.

Reforms with Sensitivity and Flexibility

Despite their promise, judicial map reforms are not without controversy. Relocating or consolidating courts can have significant political and social repercussions. Residents often view court closures as a loss of public service or status, while legal professionals may resist relocation due to personal or logistical reasons. The report stresses the importance of communicating the rationale and benefits of reforms clearly to all stakeholders, judges, lawyers, court staff, and citizens. In countries like France and Germany, public consultations and media campaigns have been used to manage expectations and build consensus. Legal and bureaucratic frameworks can also pose barriers. Some systems may restrict the mobility of judges or require courts to keep physical records, making digitization or relocation logistically difficult. Moreover, reforms need to be implemented gradually. Case studies from France, Spain, and Italy show that successful reforms are usually phased over several years, allowing stakeholders to adapt and ensuring institutional continuity.

A Blueprint for Equitable Justice

The World Bank’s findings underscore that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Judicial map reforms must be tailored to each country’s legal, demographic, and technological landscape. However, a few universal principles stand out. First, reforms must be data-driven, context-sensitive, and flexible. Second, they must be phased in carefully and supported by robust communication strategies. Third, digital technologies, while powerful, must be deployed judiciously and inclusively. Finally, impact evaluations conducted several years after implementation are vital to measure success and guide future adjustments. The ultimate goal is to create a justice system that is efficient, fair, and accessible to all, whether in a bustling metropolis or a remote rural village. By smartly reorganizing the judicial map, countries can unlock the potential of their legal systems to serve their populations better in an era of rapid change.