ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
AI and digital justice in EU labor law. A comparative study on predictive tools and judicial transformation.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper examines how artificial intelligence (AI) and digital tools are reshaping European labor law litigation, particularly in redundancy disputes. Conducted within the I-Tools To Design And Enhance Access To Justice (IDEA) project, it draws on a comparative survey across six Member States-Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Italy, and Lithuania-to identify best practices in digitalized court systems. The findings point to uneven digital maturity: Estonia and Lithuania lead in digital development (8.4/10; 8.0/10) and show more favorable attitudes toward predictive justice (6.0/10; 5.8/10); whereas Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, and Italy, despite having digital tools, struggle to integrate them into routine legal workflows, reinforcing greater resistance to predictive justice. Although digital justice can improve access and efficiency, concerns persist around fairness, judicial trust, and ethical safeguards. Progress, the study suggests, depends on participatory governance, clear regulation, and the careful integration of technology into procedural frameworks. Building on these insights, the current phase of IDEA positions AI as a regulatory instrument that structures access to justice and guides user behavior. The consortium is developing a legal chatbot to guide workers and employers toward the most suitable resolution pathway-negotiation, mediation, or litigation-based on context, cost, and procedural guarantees. The chatbot tailors its responses in accordance with prevailing legal trends and the reasoning behind case law. A pilot in three Member States (MSs) will test its potential to enhance transparency, empower users, and promote proportional, informed dispute resolution within European labor justice. Against this backdrop, the chapter conceptualizes AI-operating through structured information, triage, and explainability-as a regulatory instrument that can steer behavior ex ante and support compliance ex post in redundancy disputes, complementing adjudication without displacing judicial authority.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.