The UK Ministry of Justice has conducted user surveys on digital court proceedings. The User Satisfaction Surveys capture how citizens assess the fairness, comprehensibility, and accessibility of digital civil, family, and immigration tribunals. The data feeds into platform development. Germany has introduced the electronic court file since 2018; video hearings have been legally permitted and technically available since 2020. A systematic survey of trust in these digital procedures does not exist.
The Gap Between Implementation and Evaluation
German justice is digitizing. The Act on the Introduction of the Electronic File in Justice required all courts to transition to the electronic file by January 2026. Video hearings have been embedded in all procedural codes since the pandemic. The federal states are investing in infrastructure, training, and software platforms. The efficiency gains are expected: file shipping is largely eliminated, case duration is expected to drop, capacity can be relieved. What is missing is the second measurement: Do citizens trust the new procedures? Do they perceive digital hearings as fair? Do they understand the processes? Do they feel heard?
The UK asked these questions from the start. The Ministry of Justice has introduced User Satisfaction Surveys alongside digital tribunal reforms. The surveys capture not only satisfaction but specifically trust and fairness perception. The results show: Digital procedures are mostly rated as efficient, but are only perceived as fair when users understand the process and feel adequately informed. This insight led to adjustments in user guidance, simpler forms, and additional explainer videos. The structure is straightforward: Every major platform is evaluated annually, the data is public, and the justice system responds to weaknesses.
Germany lacks this feedback loop. The introduction of the electronic file is managed by state justice ministries, implementation lies with the courts, evaluation with no one. There is no federal requirement to survey users about their experience. There is no central body collecting trust data. There is no structure deriving adjustments from feedback. The result: The justice system knows how many files are managed digitally, but not whether citizens trust digital proceedings.
Trust as an Enforcement Condition
Trust in justice is not a soft category. It is an enforcement condition. Those who do not trust a procedure do not accept the verdict. Those who do not understand the process doubt its fairness. Those who do not feel heard in a video hearing lose trust in the institution. The UK surveys show: Digital procedures can strengthen trust when well designed, or weaken it when perceived as opaque or distant. The question is not whether to digitize, but how, and whether the justice system measures what lands.
Germany has built the technical infrastructure but not the evaluation structure. Responsibility is fragmented: The states introduce the electronic file, the federal government regulates procedural codes, the courts decide on the use of video hearings. No one is explicitly responsible for measuring user trust. State justice ministries could conduct surveys but do not do so systematically. The federal legislator could introduce an evaluation requirement but has not. Courts could voluntarily solicit feedback but have neither resources nor incentives to do so.
The UK structure is different: The Ministry of Justice is responsible not only for introducing digital procedures but also for evaluating them. The User Satisfaction Surveys are part of the reform program, not downstream. The data is published, weaknesses are addressed, adjustments are documented. The structure creates accountability: Those who digitize must measure whether it works. Germany lacks this coupling.
Blueprint
The next step is a nationwide evaluation requirement for digital justice procedures. State justice ministries introduce annual user surveys capturing trust, fairness perception, and comprehensibility of digital proceedings. The surveys follow a uniform questionnaire, results are collected centrally and made publicly accessible. A federal-state working group evaluates the data and derives adjustments. The model exists: The UK has shown that systematic user surveys are feasible and lead to better procedures.
Implementation requires three elements. First: A legal basis. The federal government can anchor an evaluation requirement in justice modernization legislation; states can incorporate it into their digitization strategies. Second: Central coordination. A unit at the Federal Ministry of Justice or at the Federal-State Commission for Information Technology in Justice collects the data, develops the questionnaire, and ensures comparability. Third: A feedback loop. Results feed into platform development, weaknesses are addressed, improvements are documented.
The pitfalls are known. Surveys cost resources that are scarce in the justice system. Response rates can be low if users are not motivated. The data can reveal uncomfortable truths that are politically difficult to communicate. But the alternative is riskier: Those who accelerate procedures without measuring whether they are perceived as fair risk acceptance. Those who digitize without evaluating build infrastructure whose impact remains unknown.
The opportunity lies in the simplicity of the instrument. User surveys are not new technology but established practice in many administrative areas. The UK surveys show they are feasible with manageable effort and enable concrete improvements. Germany has begun the technical digitization of justice. The next step is to measure whether it lands.
Band 1 "Freistaat" analyzes why Germany creates structures but does not systematically evaluate their impact, and how trust becomes a measurable enforcement condition.