The development of modern technologies in the judiciary has brought about a positive transformation of work processes, including faster case processing, more transparent business operations and improved accessibility of judicial services. In light of the advantages highlighted above, it is also crucial to mention the increase in operational efficiency, which represents a key element in ensuring the rule of law and strengthening public trust in the judiciary.
The purpose of this thesis is to examine the impact of digitalization on operational efficiency and to present findings regarding how digitalization affects employees at the selected court. This thesis examines the significance and role of digitalization, including an overview of the principles for the lawful implementation of digitalization in the judicial workflow. The thesis also identifies new opportunities brought about by the development of advanced solutions, specifically artificial intelligence tools. The core of the thesis consists of an analysis of findings confirming that digitalization is among the key factors contributing to increased efficiency in the judiciary.
The empirical section of the thesis examines the impact of digitalization on employees. The findings in this section provide a clear picture of how digitalization positively affects employees by increasing work productivity, simplifying work processes, and reducing administrative burdens. Alongside these positive effects on employees, an obstacle to the full implementation of digitalization was identified; according to employees, this is an excessive financial burden. Employees perceive the implementation of digitalization as an essential measure for achieving an adequate level of efficiency in the judicial work process.
The study highlights the important role of digitalization in improving operational efficiency and its positive impact on judicial employees. At the same time, it represents an important step toward a better understanding of this field. A key limitation of the study is that it was conducted at only one judicial institution, which limits the generalizability of the findings.
|