Building Information Infrastructures for Smart Cities: The e-CODEX Infrastructure and API for Justice Project Experiences

  • Marco VelicognaEmail author
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 35)


The case of the Digital Service Infrastructure, developed by the European Union and its Member States to enable the deployment of trans-European digital judicial services, provides the occasion to investigate from a theoretical and empirical perspective the complex features that pertain the creation of the infrastructures that enable the rise of smart cities. The case explores the heterogeneous nature and emergent, non-linear evolution of large-scale information infrastructures. It helps develop a better understanding of the infrastructural components and dynamics that allow to integrate fast evolving technology into everyday people living environment providing new and smart services and to foster public value creation in Smart Cities. Finally, it exposes the relevance of legal components, helping reflecting on their role in addition to that of the technological, human and governance ones already identified by the smart cities literature.


Information infrastructure Digital Service Infrastructure (DSI) e-Justice e-CODEX Application Programming Interface (API) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) 


  1. Avison, D. E., Lau, F., Myers, M. D., & Nielsen, P. A. (1999). Action research. Communications of the ACM, 42(1), 94–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borsari, G., Velicogna, M., Boersma, R., Kolitsi, Z., & Wigard, S. (2011). D7.1 Governance and Guidelines Definition. V.1. e-CODEX project Deliverable.Google Scholar
  3. Borsari, G., Velicogna, M., Ferrand, L., Murie, C., Moelker, H., Weber, A., … Pellet, J.-M. (2012). D7.2 Requirements Finalisation & D3.2 Described Test Scenarios. V.1.1.rev. e-CODEX project Deliverable.Google Scholar
  4. Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. (2003). Why action research? Action Research, 1(1), 9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carboni, N., & Velicogna, M. (2012). Electronic data exchange within European Justice: e-CODEX challenges, threats and opportunities. International Journal for Court Administration, 1, 1–17.Google Scholar
  6. Chang, W. (2015). Growing pains: The role of regulation in the collaborative economy. Intersect, 9(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  7. Contini, F., & Lanzara, G.F. (2014). The circulation of agency in E-Justice: Interoperability and infrastructures for European transborder judicial proceedings (Vol. 13). Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  8. e-CODEX. (2015). e-CODEX achievements, use cases and technical building blocks.Google Scholar
  9. EU Council. (2009). Multi-annual European e-Justice action plan 2009–2013. OJ C 75, 31.3.2009.Google Scholar
  10. EU Council. (2015). Roadmap on the sustainability of e-CODEX. 14208/15 EJUSTICE 150 COPEN 313 JUSTCIV 269.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission. (2018). The GDPR: New opportunities, new obligations. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  12. Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
  13. Habermas, J. (1973). Theory and practice. London: Polity Press, op. cit. in Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Hanseth, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). Design theory for dynamic complexity in information infrastructures: The case of building internet. Journal of Information Technology, 25(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanseth, O., Monteiro, E., & Hatling, M. (1996). Developing information infrastructure: The tension between standardization and flexibility. Science, Technology & Human Values, 21(4), 407–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hix, S., Junikiewicz, A., Wigard, S., & Jaspers, P. (2011). D1.5 Interim Activity Report No 1. V.1. e-CODEX project Deliverable.Google Scholar
  17. Hvillum, D. B., Ferrand, L., Pellet, J.M. (2016). D3.8 WP3 Final Report, e-CODEX Deliverable.Google Scholar
  18. ISA. (2010). European Interoperability Framework (EIF), COM(2010) 744 final, Annex 2.Google Scholar
  19. Klar, A., Teschner, R., Viljar, T., Murie, C., & Hommik, L. (2012). D 4.2: Concept for Implementation of WP4. V.1.0. e-CODEX project Deliverable.Google Scholar
  20. Koopman, C., Mitchell, M. D., & Thierer, A. D. (2015). The sharing economy and consumer protection regulation: The case for policy change. The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law, 8(2), 529–545.Google Scholar
  21. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 269–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lupo, G., & Velicogna, M. (2017). Making EU justice smart? Looking into the implementation of new technologies to improve the efficiency of cross border justice services delivery. In M. P. R. Bolívar (Ed.), Smart technologies for smart governments. Transparency, efficiency and organizational issues. Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Lupo, G. (2014). Law, technology and system architectures: Critical design factors for money claim and possession claim online in England and Wales. In Francesco Contini & Giovan Francesco Lanzara (Eds.), The circulation of agency in e-Justice: Interoperability and infrastructures for European transborder judicial proceedings. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Meijer, A., & Rodriguez Bolívar, M. P. (2016). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Mohr, R., & Contini, F. (2010). Architectures of enunciation: Reassembling the legal. Paper delivered at the third justice environments conference. UWS, AIJA, Sydney, 20–22 May 2010.Google Scholar
  27. Mohr, R., & Contini, F. (2011). Reassembling the legal: ‘The Wonders of Modern Science’ in court-related proceedings. Griffith Law Review, 20(4), 994–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Monteiro, E., & Hanseth, O. (1996). Social shaping of information infrastructure: On being specific about the technology. In Information technology and changes in organizational work (pp. 325–343). Boston, MA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Myers, M. D. (1997). Qualitative research in information systems. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 21(2), 241–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nickel, N., Wigard, S., & Carrara, W. (2011). D1.2 Internal Communication plan. V.1.1. e-CODEX project Deliverable.Google Scholar
  31. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3, 398–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Rodriguez Bolívar, M. P., & Meijer, A. J. (2016). Smart governance: Using a literature review and empirical analysis to build a research model. Social Science Computer Review, 34(6), 673–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rangaswamy, N., & Nair, S. (2010). The mobile phone store ecology in a Mumbai slum community: Hybrid networks for enterprise. Information Technologies & International Development, 6(3), 51.Google Scholar
  35. Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Steigenga, E., Berkelaar, T., Kolitsi, Z., Velicogna, M., van de Laar, V., Lupo, G., & Moelker, H. (2017). API for Justice Report. API-for-Justice project report.Google Scholar
  37. Steigenga, E., & Velicogna, M. (2017). Envisioning the next step in e-justice: In search of the key to provide easy access to cross border Justice for all users. In B. Hess & X. E. Kramer (Eds.), From common rules to best practices in European Civil Procedure. Nomos/Hart Publishing: London.Google Scholar
  38. Street, C. T., & Ward, K. W. (2012). Improving validity and reliability in longitudinal case study timelines. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(2), 160–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Maanen, J. (2011). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Velicogna, M. (2004). Local initiative in hyper-regulated organizations: A frail way to innovation. PISTA conference (pp. 21–25). Orlando.Google Scholar
  41. Velicogna, M., & Lupo, G. (2017). From drafting common rules to implementing electronic European civil procedures: The rise of e-CODEX. In B. Hess & X. E. Kramer (Eds.), From common rules to best practices in European Civil Procedure. London: Nomos/Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Velicogna, M., & Ng, G. Y. (2006). Legitimacy and internet in the judiciary: A lesson from the Italian Courts’ websites experience. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 14, 370–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Velicogna, M., & Steigenga, E. (2016). Can complexity theory help understanding tomorrow e-Justice? Paper presented at the Conference on Complex Systems, Law and Complexity Session. Amsterdam, 20–23 September 2016. Available at SSRN: or
  44. Velicogna, M., Lupo, G.; Lewis, C., Adam, M.; Borsari, G., Contini, F., et al. (2014). D7.4 Architectural Hands on Material. e-CODEX project Deliverable.Google Scholar
  45. Velicogna, M., Lupo, G., Dragoni, M., Morganti, C., Skripalshchikov, A., Behr, R., et al. (2017). D1.1 The existing context: Assessment report on the current situation to connect legal practitioners to e-CODEX in participating countries, Pro-CODEX project Deliverable.Google Scholar
  46. Velicogna, M. (2015). e-CODEX and the Italian Piloting Experience. IRSIG-CNR Working Paper.Google Scholar
  47. Velicogna, M., Lupo, G., Lewis, C.; Adam, M., Borsari, G., Contini, F., et al. (2016) D7.6 Architectural Hands on Material, e-CODEX Project Deliverable.Google Scholar
  48. Wigard, S. (2011). D1.3 a) Risk Management Strategy V.1. e-CODEX project Deliverable.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute on Judicial Systems, National Research Council of Italy (IRSIG-CNR)BolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations