European Case Law Identifier

Last updated April 13, 2024

The European Case Law Identifier (ECLI) is an identifier for court decisions in Europe. The identifier consists of five elements separated by colons: ECLI:[country code]:[court identifier]:[year of decision]:[specific identifier].^[1] The standard is laid down in the Council Conclusions inviting the introduction of the European Case Law Identifier (ECLI) and a minimum set of uniform metadata for case law of the European Union.^[2] The ECLI framework also contains a set of uniform metadata to improve search facilities for case law. Court decisions that have an ECLI assigned can be indexed by the ECLI Search Engine of the European e-Justice portal.

History

The concept of ECLI was first^[3] launched at the Legal Access Conference (Paris, December 2008)^[4] and at Jurix Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law in Florence (December 2008).^[5] Around the same time, the study by a task group of the EU Council Working Group on e-Law showed that accessibility of judicial decisions, both at the national and European level, was seriously hampered by the lack of standardised identifiers and metadata:

The task group suggested to establish a voluntary common identification system based on the European Case-Law Identifier (ECLI). ECLI as an identifier would be linked to an index with references. This would enable any citizen or legal practitioner to find any decision to which ECLI has been attributed from any public or private register or database in the EU. In addition a Dublin-core implementation for case-law should be established to facilitate searching case-law in different search engines.^[6]

Based on the report of this task group, the Council of Ministers agreed on the principles of ECLI and common metadata, and asked the EU Council Working Party on Legal Data Processing (e-Law) to elaborate the initial work.^[6] This continued work resulted in the Council Conclusion inviting the introduction of the European Case Law Identifier (ECLI) and a minimum set of uniform metadata for case law of the European Union,^[2] decided upon by the Council of Ministers on 22 December 2010. It was published in the Official Journal of 29 April 2011 (2011/C 127/01).

Identifier construction

ECLI does not primarily identify a paper or electronic document containing a judgment, but instead identifies the court decision at a more abstract level. In the terminology of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records on which it is based, ECLI is a work-level identifier. It is constructed with the intention to be meaningful, open, technological neutral, recognisable for both humans and computers, error-proof and interoperable with other identifiers.^[7] The formatting rules for ECLI are prescribed in detail in the Annex to the Council Conclusions. Summarized, an ECLI always consists of five parts, separated by a colon:

'ECLI' as a self-identifier;
The country code, prescribed by the interinstitutional style guide of the EU.^[8] The standard uses mostly ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes with the exception of the United Kingdom (UK) and Greece (EL). A special code for non-states can be assigned by the European Commission;
The court code, to be assigned by the national ECLI co-ordinator; it has a maximum length of seven positions;
The year the judgment is rendered, written in four digits;
A unique code to make an ECLI unique. The maximum length of this code is 25 characters. Only letters, digits and dots are to be used, other punctuation marks or whitespace are not allowed. Pre-existing national identifiers can be used for this fifth part, of which the date of judgment can be a part too. Also a serial number which is generated especially for ECLI is possible. It is up to the national ECLI co-ordinator to decide on the construction of this last part.

Only the Latin alphabet is to be used, and that ECLI is case-insensitive, although it is written preferably in capitals. An example of a case law identifier of the Dutch Supreme Court is ECLI:NL:HR:1841:1,^[9] which indicates a Dutch decision (NL) of 1841 of the Supreme Court (HR) with serial number 1.

ECLI website

According to paragraph 4 of the Annex to the Council Conclusions an ECLI website has to be set up, containing

general information on ECLI;
a list of participating countries, with, for each country:
- the court codes used;
- information on the formatting of the fifth part of the ECLI code;
- information on the national ECLI co-ordinator.

The ECLI website was set up within the frame work of the e-justice portal of the European Union.

ECLI search engine

According to paragraph 5 of the Annex to the Council Conclusions an ECLI Search Engine has to be set up, enabling search by ECLI and metadata. This ECLI search engine launched on 4 May 2016. It provides access to national and European case law, stored in whatever database. Searches are possible on the basis of the ECLI, its metadata as well as full-text.

As prescribed by the Council Conclusions a resolver is available at https://e-justice.europa.eu/ecli/; with an ECLI typed after it, this link with show all available information on this ECLI, from whatever indexed website. As an example: https://e-justice.europa.eu/ecli/ECLI:CZ:NS:2015:32.CDO.2051.2013.1 shows from ECLI:CZ:NS:2015:32.CDO.2051.2013.1, a decision from the Czech Supreme Court, the information from the website of that court as well as from the Jurifast database of the Association of Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the EU. The latter document also has English and French metadata.

Documents are indexed by the ECLI search engine in cooperation between the European Commission and data providers, using the sitemaps protocol and robots.txt.^[10]

Organisation

The Council of Ministers is responsible for any future changes in the standard, while the European Commission is responsible for the ECLI-website and the maintenance of the ECLI Search Engine.

National level

Every Member State (or other entity that wishes to participate in the ECLI system, including the EU itself) must have a national ECLI co-ordinator. The main responsibilities of this national ECLI co-ordinator are:

to decide on the court codes to be used (the third part of the ECLI);
to decide on the construction of the fifth part of ECLI;
to update the national information pages on the implementation of ECLI on the European e-justice portal;
to decide on specific language varieties of certain metadata.

Implementation in individual jurisdictions

According to the Council Conclusions, Member States are free to decide on their own implementation route. A big-bang scenario is possible, but also a step-by-step approach is allowed. International organizations may also participate and can request a "country code" from the European Commission.

The table below lists all EU Member States and their current state of ECLI implementation. Also relevant European organisations that have implemented ECLI are included.


EU Member State or European organisation	Implemented in public database	Year of ECLI going live	Coverage	National ECLI co-ordinator	Indexed by ECLI Search Engine	Number of decisions indexed (rounded, as of 30-05-2019)	Comments
Austria	Yes	2014	Federal administrative court, Federal financial court, administrative courts, Constitutional court, Data protection Authority, Supreme Court	Federal Chancellery.	No	0
Belgium	Yes	2017	Decisions in the internal database VAJA (all courts except administrative courts).		Yes	96.000	ECLI is not included in the public database Juridat. Hence, assigned ECLI codes can only be found via the ECLI Search Engine.
Bulgaria	Yes	2018	All decisions published by all courts in the national database.	Supreme Judicial Council	Yes	1.933.000
Croatia	Yes	2017	Most decisions from Supreme Court and other relevant decisions in the Croatian database.	Supreme Court	Yes	176.000
Cyprus	No			Department of Legal Publications	No	0
Czech Republic	Yes	2012	Decisions in the database of the Supreme Court (also from other courts).	Supreme Court	Yes	120.000
Denmark	No			Danish Court Administration	No	0	Implementation of ECLI is foreseen in a new database with court decisions.^[11]
Estonia	Yes	2017	All published decisions.		Yes	293.000
Finland	Yes	2016	Unknown.	Ministry of Justice	No	100	ECLI is only added in the open data portal, not on the Finlex public website. The Finnish decisions that can be found in the ECLI Search Engine are those included in the JuriFast database of ACA Europe.
France	Yes	2012	Decisions of Council of State (Conseil d'Etat), Supreme Court (Cour de cassation),^[12] Constitutional Council (Conseil Constitutionnel), Tribunal des conflits.	Office of Legal and Administrative Information	Yes	90.000
Germany	Yes	2013	Federal administrative court, Constitutional Court and the Federal Labour Court. ECLI is also available for 100 000 decisions of the courts of North Rhine-Westphalia.^[13]	Competence center for the federal legal information system of the Federal Office of Justice	Yes	49.000
Greece	Yes	2016	Council of State.		Yes	75.000
Hungary	No				No	0
Ireland	No			Department of Justice	No	0
Italy	Yes	2016	Supreme Court, Constitutional Court, Council of State, administrative courts, Court of auditors.	Ministry of Justice's Directorate‑General for Automated Information Systems (ad interim)	Yes	3.504.000
Latvia	Yes	2017	All decisions published in the national database.	Court administration	Yes	40.000	Implementation was realised in an EU co-funded project.^[14]
Lithuania	No			National Courts Administration	No	0
Luxembourg	No				No	0
Malta	No				No	0	ECLI has been introduced in December 2011 for all new court decisions, but the code is as still not visible to the public.^[15]
Netherlands	Yes	2013	ECLI has been assigned to all decisions published in public database of the judiciary, in internal databases as well as to (historic) decisions published by commercial publishers.		Yes	487.000	Only the (487.000) decisions that have been published (full-text) in the public database of the judiciary have been indexed by the ECLI Search Engine. Metadata about all other ECLIs (around 2 million) that have been assigned can be found in the Dutch public database as well.
Norway	No				No	0
Poland	No				No	0
Portugal	Yes	2017	All decisions published since 1932, accessible via the Portuguese ECLI search engine.	Judicial High Council	Yes	160.000	Implementation was realised in an EU co-funded project.^[16]
Romania	No			Ministry of Justice	No	0	ECLI has been introduced in the internal ECRIS database,^[17] but has not yet been included in the public ROLII database.
Slovenia	Yes	2011	All decisions in the public database.	Supreme Court	Yes	136.000	Slovenia was the first country to implement ECLI.
Slovakia	Yes	2012	All decisions delivered after 25 July 2011 have an ECLI assigned. If a decision from before this date is appealed after it, it has an ECLI assigned as well.	Informatics and Project Management Section of the Ministry of Justice	No	0
Spain	Yes	2014	All decisions published in the public database have an ECLI assigned.	Centre for Judicial Documentation (CENDOJ)	Yes	3.642.000
Sweden	No				No	0
United Kingdom	No				No	0
European Union	Yes	2014	ECLI is assigned to all decisions of the Court of Justice. These decisions are available in EUR-Lex as well in the database of the Court of Justice.	Court of Justice of the EU	Yes	36.000
Council of Europe	Yes	2015	ECLI is assigned to all decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the public HUDOC database.	European Court of Human Rights	No	0
European Patent Office	Yes	2013	ECLI is assigned to all decisions of the Boards of Appeal in the public database.	Publication Department of the European Patent Office.	Yes	36.000

Metadata

Metadata are to be attached to documents containing a judicial decision. They can relate to the ECLI itself (on the bibliographic work level, e.g.: date of the decision), but also to a specific editorial version (the 'expression level', e.g. a summary). In the Council Conclusions nine mandatory and eight optional metadata are listed. All these are based on the Dublin Core metadata standard. The mandatory means that without these metadata, a document can not be indexed by the ECLI Search Engine.

Mandatory metadata

The mandatory metadata, as listed in the Annex to the Council Conclusions, are:

dcterms:identifier: a URL where the document is located;
dcterms:isVersionOf: the ECLI;
dcterms:creator: the name of the court;
dcterms:coverage: country or part thereof;
dcterms:date: the date of the decision;
dcterms:language: the language of the document;
dcterms:publisher: the organisation responsible for the publication of the current document;
dcterms:accessRights: either public or private;
dcterms:type: the type of decision. If none is specified it defaults to 'judicial decision'.

Optional metadata

The optional metadata, as listed in the Annex to the Council Conclusions, are:

dcterms:title; a Title field
dcterms:subject: the field of law; at least one value should be picked out of a controlled vocabulary;
dcterms:abstract: a summary or description;
dcterms:description: keywords or headnotes;
dcterms:contributor: judges, advocate-general or other staff;
dcterms:issued: the date of the current document (not necessarily the date of the decision);
dcterms:references: References to other case law (the use of CELEX-numbers or ECLI's is advised, but also other formats are allowed);
dcterms:isReplacedBy: ECLI by which the ECLI has been replaced (to guarantee persistency in case ECLI's are renumbered).

Related Research Articles

The European patent with unitary effect, also known as the unitary patent, is a European patent which benefits from unitary effect in the 17 participating member states of the European Union. Unitary effect may be requested by the proprietor within one month of grant of a European patent, replacing validation of the European patent in the individual countries concerned. Infringement and revocation proceedings are conducted before the Unified Patent Court (UPC), which decisions have a uniform effect for the unitary patent in the participating member states as a whole rather than in each country individually. The unitary patent may be only limited, transferred or revoked, or lapse, in respect of all the participating Member States. Licensing is however possible for part of the unitary territory. The unitary patent may coexist with nationally enforceable patents in the non-participating states. The unitary patent's stated aims are to make access to the patent system "easier, less costly and legally secure within the European Union" and "the creation of uniform patent protection throughout the Union".

The European Court of Justice (ECJ), formally just the Court of Justice, is the supreme court of the European Union in matters of European Union law. As a part of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is tasked with interpreting EU law and ensuring its uniform application across all EU member states under Article 263 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

Eur-Lex is an official website of European Union law and other public documents of the European Union (EU), published in 24 official languages of the EU. The Official Journal (OJ) of the European Union is also published on EUR-Lex. Users can access EUR-Lex free of charge and also register for a free account, which offers extra features.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union</span> Group of rights of the European Union

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) enshrines certain political, social, and economic rights for European Union (EU) citizens and residents into EU law. It was drafted by the European Convention and solemnly proclaimed on 7 December 2000 by the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. However, its then legal status was uncertain and it did not have full legal effect until the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009.

The rule of reason is a legal doctrine used to interpret the Sherman Antitrust Act, one of the cornerstones of United States antitrust law. While some actions like price-fixing are considered illegal per se, other actions, such as possession of a monopoly, must be analyzed under the rule of reason and are only considered illegal when their effect is to unreasonablyrestrain trade. William Howard Taft, then Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, first developed the doctrine in a ruling on Addyston Pipe and Steel Co. v. United States, which was affirmed in 1899 by the Supreme Court. The doctrine also played a major role in the 1911 Supreme Court case Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States.

The Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases is a directive of the European Union in the field of copyright law, made under the internal market provisions of the Treaty of Rome. It harmonises the treatment of databases under copyright law and the sui generis right for the creators of databases which do not qualify for copyright.

Data retention defines the policies of persistent data and records management for meeting legal and business data archival requirements. Although sometimes interchangeable, it is not to be confused with the Data Protection Act 1998.

The freedom of movement for workers is a policy chapter of the acquis communautaire of the European Union. The free movement of workers means that nationals of any member state of the European Union can take up an employment in another member state on the same conditions as the nationals of that particular member state. In particular, no discrimination based on nationality is allowed. It is part of the free movement of persons and one of the four economic freedoms: free movement of goods, services, labour and capital. Article 45 TFEU states that:

Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community.
Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:
The provisions of this article shall not apply to employment in the public service.

Source protection, sometimes also referred to as source confidentiality or in the U.S. as the reporter's privilege, is a right accorded to journalists under the laws of many countries, as well as under international law. It prohibits authorities, including the courts, from compelling a journalist to reveal the identity of an anonymous source for a story. The right is based on a recognition that without a strong guarantee of anonymity, many would be deterred from coming forward and sharing information of public interests with journalists.

The visa policy of the Schengen Area is a component within the wider area of freedom, security and justice policy of the European Union. It applies to the Schengen Area and to other EU member states except Ireland. The visa policy allows nationals of certain countries to enter the Schengen Area via air, land or sea without a visa for up to 90 days within any 180-day period. Nationals of certain other countries are required to have a visa to enter and, in some cases, transit through the Schengen area.

The Schengen Area is an area encompassing 29 European countries that have officially abolished border controls at their mutual borders. Being an element within the wider area of freedom, security and justice policy of the European Union (EU), it mostly functions as a single jurisdiction under a common visa policy for international travel purposes. The area is named after the 1985 Schengen Agreement and the 1990 Schengen Convention, both signed in Schengen, Luxembourg.

The area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) of the European Union (EU) is a policy domain concerning home affairs and migration, justice as well as fundamental rights, developed to address the challenges posed to internal security by collateral effects of the free movement of people and goods in the absence of border controls or customs inspection throughout the Schengen Area, as well as to safeguard adherence to the common European values through ensuring that the fundamental rights of people are respected across the EU.

Lex is a URN namespace, a type of Uniform Resource Name (URN), that allows accurate identification of laws and other legal norms.

LGBT rights in the European Union are protected under the European Union's (EU) treaties and law. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in all EU member states and discrimination in employment has been banned since 2000. However, EU states have different laws when it comes to any greater protection, same-sex civil union, same-sex marriage, and adoption by same-sex couples.

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is a common patent court of 17 countries of the European Union, which opened on 1 June 2023.

The European Legislation Identifier (ELI) ontology is a vocabulary for representing metadata about national and European Union (EU) legislation. It is designed to provide a standardized way to identify and describe the context and content of national or EU legislation, including its purpose, scope, relationships with other legislations and legal basis. This will guarantee easier identification, access, exchange and reuse of legislation for public authorities, professional users, academics and citizens. ELI paves the way for knowledge graphs, based on semantic web standards, of legal gazettes and official journals.

The right to be forgotten (RTBF) is the right to have private information about a person be removed from Internet searches and other directories under some circumstances. The issue has arisen from desires of individuals to "determine the development of their life in an autonomous way, without being perpetually or periodically stigmatized as a consequence of a specific action performed in the past". The right entitles a person to have data about them deleted so that it can no longer be discovered by third parties, particularly through search engines.

In decisions in the cases C-146/13 and C-147/13 issued in May 2015, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rejected two challenges by Spain against the legality of both unitary patent regulations. The decisions are significant because these legal challenges were regarded as "the last serious obstacle to the Unitary Patent Package being implemented", "provided the necessary number of ratifications of the Unified Patent Court Agreement occur ."

Commission v Italy (1972) Case 39/72, ECLI:EU:C:1973:13 is an EU law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law.

SeriesYonkis is a case in Spanish criminal law. The four former website operators of the site SeriesYonkis, and the sister sites PeliculasYonkis and VideosYonkis, were charged with copyright infringement due to the provision of hyperlinks to cyberlockers where users could access TV series and movies. The defendants faced up to 4 years in prison and over 550 million euros in damages. The case called into question whether the activity of the webmasters constituted an act of communication to the public, following the requirement of the Spanish Criminal Code within the meaning of the Information Society Directive.

References

↑ "European Case Law Identifier: Indispensable Asset for Legal Information Retrieval" (PDF). Marc van Opijnen. Retrieved 15 May 2014.
1 2 Council conclusions inviting the introduction of the European Case Law Identifier (ECLI) and a minimum set of uniform metadata for case law
↑ Cottin, Stéphane (2011). La gestion de la documentation juridique. Paris: L.G.D.J. p. 67 (footnote 113). ISBN 978-2-275-03534-5.
↑ van Opijnen, Marc (2008). "Identifiers, Metadata and Document Structures: Essential Ingredients for Inter-European Case Law Search". European Legal Access Conference, Paris 10–12 December.
↑ van Opijnen, Marc (2008). "Finding Case Law on a European Scale – Current Practice and Future Work". Legal Knowledge and Information Systems – JURIX 2008: The Twenty-First Annual Conference. IOS Press: 43–52. SSRN 2046266.
1 2 EU Working Party on Legal Data Processing (e-Law) (2009). Draft Conclusions of the Council on European Case-Law Identifier (ECLI) (PDF). Retrieved 27 January 2013.
↑ van Opijnen, Marc (2011). Biasiotti, M.A.; Faro, S. (eds.). "European Case Law Identifier: indispensable asset for legal information retrieval". From Information to Knowledge. Online Access to Legal Information: Methodologies, Trends and Perspectives. IOS Press: 91–104. SSRN 2046160.
↑ Publications Office of the EU. Interinstitutional Style Guide.
↑ Hoge Raad, 28 January 1841, ECLI:NL:HR:1841:1
↑ van Opijnen, Marc; Ivantchev, Alexander (2015). "Implementation of ECLI - State of Play". Legal Knowledge and Information Systems – JURIX 2015: The Twenty-Eighth Annual Conference. IOS Press. SSRN 2706768.
↑ "Forslag til Lov om ændring af retsplejeloven, lov om Domstolsstyrelsen og lov om retsafgifter". 10 August 2015.
↑ "L'identifiant ECLI sur les décisions du Conseil d'Etat et de la Cour de cassation". Données juridiques. 11 September 2012. Retrieved 27 January 2013.
↑ "Rechtsprechung Nordrhein-Westfalen, Search Engine". Justice portal of North Rhine-Westphalia. Retrieved 26 February 2017.
↑ "News page of Court Administration".
↑ "The inclusion of European Case Law Identifier (ECLI) code in Malta". 1 February 2012. Retrieved 2 July 2013.
↑ "Overview EU co-funded projects in Portugal".
↑ "ECLI website on e-Justice portal".

External links

"European Case Law Identifier (ECLI)". European e-Justice Portal.

"European Case Law Identifier (ECLI) search engine". European e-Justice Portal.

"Eur-Lex website".

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] "European Case Law Identifier: Indispensable Asset for Legal Information Retrieval" (PDF). Marc van Opijnen. Retrieved 15 May 2014.

[r1-2] 1 2 Council conclusions inviting the introduction of the European Case Law Identifier (ECLI) and a minimum set of uniform metadata for case law

[r2-3] Cottin, Stéphane (2011). La gestion de la documentation juridique. Paris: L.G.D.J. p. 67 (footnote 113). ISBN 978-2-275-03534-5.

[r3-4] van Opijnen, Marc (2008). "Identifiers, Metadata and Document Structures: Essential Ingredients for Inter-European Case Law Search". European Legal Access Conference, Paris 10–12 December.

[r4-5] van Opijnen, Marc (2008). "Finding Case Law on a European Scale – Current Practice and Future Work". Legal Knowledge and Information Systems – JURIX 2008: The Twenty-First Annual Conference. IOS Press: 43–52. SSRN 2046266.

[r5-6] 1 2 EU Working Party on Legal Data Processing (e-Law) (2009). Draft Conclusions of the Council on European Case-Law Identifier (ECLI) (PDF). Retrieved 27 January 2013.

[r8-7] van Opijnen, Marc (2011). Biasiotti, M.A.; Faro, S. (eds.). "European Case Law Identifier: indispensable asset for legal information retrieval". From Information to Knowledge. Online Access to Legal Information: Methodologies, Trends and Perspectives. IOS Press: 91–104. SSRN 2046160.

[r9-8] Publications Office of the EU. Interinstitutional Style Guide.

[9] Hoge Raad, 28 January 1841, ECLI:NL:HR:1841:1

[10] van Opijnen, Marc; Ivantchev, Alexander (2015). "Implementation of ECLI - State of Play". Legal Knowledge and Information Systems – JURIX 2015: The Twenty-Eighth Annual Conference. IOS Press. SSRN 2706768.

[11] "Forslag til Lov om ændring af retsplejeloven, lov om Domstolsstyrelsen og lov om retsafgifter". 10 August 2015.

[12] "L'identifiant ECLI sur les décisions du Conseil d'Etat et de la Cour de cassation". Données juridiques. 11 September 2012. Retrieved 27 January 2013.

[13] "Rechtsprechung Nordrhein-Westfalen, Search Engine". Justice portal of North Rhine-Westphalia. Retrieved 26 February 2017.

[14] "News page of Court Administration".

[15] "The inclusion of European Case Law Identifier (ECLI) code in Malta". 1 February 2012. Retrieved 2 July 2013.

[16] "Overview EU co-funded projects in Portugal".

[17] "ECLI website on e-Justice portal".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]