FORSETI (Doctrine)
Doctrine, 1ère plateforme d'intelligence juridique, centralise toute l'information juridique disponible pour la rendre accessible et pertinente pour les professionnels du droit (avocats, juristes, magistrats).
ID: 250672733265-12
Lobbying Activity
Response to Digital package – digital omnibus
29 Sept 2025
Data is the foundation of AI. To make Europe a global leader, France and the EU must strengthen and fully implement open data policies, ensuring robust, reliable, and sovereign AI models. 1. Key challenges in proactive availability of datasets from the public sector The biggest challenge is the absence of binding obligations or real incentives for Member States to proactively publish datasets. Access today largely depends on political will or administrative capacity, leading to major disparities across and within Member States. A European-level framework, directly applicable above national discretion, is needed to ensure consistency. Second, incumbent private actors often resist broader open data policies because their market power relies on exclusive or quasi-monopoly access. This resistance prevents innovation and limits citizen access to transparent information. Third, administrations frequently invoke privacy as a reason to block publication, even when proportionate safeguards or anonymisation techniques exist. Data protection must not become a pretext for opacity: the GDPR already provides mechanisms to balance openness with privacy, as shown in Article 86. Finally, administrations tend to perceive open data as a cost rather than an investment. Yet the French experience demonstrates the opposite: opening court decisions under the 2016 Lemaire Law enabled the emergence of successful legaltech companies like Doctrine, which create significant economic, social, and democratic value. 2. Opportunities for harmonisation between the Open Data Directive and the Data Governance Act The legal domain is one of the clearest opportunities for harmonisation. France has shown that it is possible to create a centralised flow of court decisions, balancing transparency with privacy. Replicating such models across the EU would unlock immense value. Another opportunity lies in expanding the High-Value Datasets framework. Justice, law, and public administration data should be included. This would provide legal certainty, reduce fragmentation, and enable cross-border services, especially for SMEs and startups that lack the resources to navigate inconsistent national regimes. Greater harmonisation would deliver three main benefits: -clarity for public bodies on their obligations; -predictability and legal certainty for reusers; -reduced compliance costs, especially for smaller actors. 3. Obstacles to access and reuse Fragmentation is the primary obstacle. Rules and procedures differ not only across Member States but also within them. For instance, in France different courts apply different practices for publishing their decisions. Complex, opaque procedures also discourage reuse. Italy is a case in point, where administrative processes are often slow and unclear. Excessive fees remain another barrier. In Germany and Italy, important datasets can only be accessed against prohibitive charges, contradicting the principle of open data. Finally, overly restrictive interpretations of privacy rules prevent access to public data, even though proportionate safeguards exist. 4. Impact of cross-country disparities The disparities are significant and they directly impact ability to scale. France and the Netherlands have made progress, but many other Member States remain restrictive. This fragmentation forces companies to make strategic choices about where to invest, and it slows down the emergence of European champions in key sectors such as legal AI. Conclusion The EU has a unique opportunity to move beyond fragmented national practices and build a coherent, ambitious open data regime. By establishing binding obligations, expanding High-Value Datasets to include legal data, and harmonising reuse rules, Europe can unlock innovation, strengthen democracy, and ensure that citizens, businesses, and professionals benefit equally from access to the law.
Read full responseResponse to European Data Union Strategy
19 Jun 2025
France and the European Union share a clear ambition: to establish Europe as a global leader in artificial intelligence. At Doctrine, we firmly believe that this goal can be achieved by fostering the development of European champions in specific verticals rather than engaging in an overly broad international race. This development requires strengthening open data policies, which were initiated several years ago but have not yet been fully implemented. Data is the foundation of all advances in artificial intelligence. Without adequate data, it is impossible to build robust, reliable, and sovereign AI models. Artificial intelligence will disrupt many specialized markets, and both France and Europe have several promising companies in most of these sectors (e.g., Alan and Doctolib in health, Qonto in finance). The global legal AI market (legaltech) is valued at $2 billion in 2024 and could reach nearly $10 billion by 2030. This market is not yet dominated by one or more technological players, providing Europe with an opportunity to enable the emergence of a European champion by opening up more public data. Beyond economic success, the development of European legaltech champions will also promote European legal traditions and systems in a world where competition also depends on the attractiveness of legal jurisdictions. Lastly, this effort aims to improve access to justice and strengthen democracy by making legally public but unpublished and inaccessible data more transparent. It is worth noting that the European Commission has already stated that the EU should "promote the development and implementation of innovative technologies for courts and legal practitioners using artificial intelligence solutions capable of simplifying and accelerating procedures (legal tech applications, digital law technologies)." To achieve these objectives, Doctrine recommends the following actions: Quickly adopt (i) a delegated act to expand the categories of high-value datasets and (ii) an implementing act for this delegated act. Establish audits, regular monitoring, and reports on the effective transposition of Directive (EU) 2019/1024, particularly regarding High-Value Data Sets (HVDS). Adopt guidelines to clarify the relationship between personal data protection and the reuse of public data. Add information on corporate ownership in the Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/138 of 21 December 2022
Read full responseResponse to Apply AI Strategy
20 May 2025
France and the EU share a clear ambition: making Europe a global leader in AI. At Doctrine, we believe this requires developing strong European champions in targeted sectors. This means fully implementing open data policies. Data is the backbone of AIwithout it, building sovereign, reliable models is impossible. AI will transform many specialized markets, where Europe already has promising players. Legaltech is a $2B global market today, expected to hit $10B by 2030. With no dominant player yet, Europe has a real opportunityif it opens more public data. To achieve these objectives, Doctrine recommends: 1) adopt a delegated act to expand the categories of high-value datasets followed by an implementing act ; 2) Establish audits, regular monitoring, and reports regarding High-Value Data Sets ; 3) Adopt guidelines to clarify the relationship between GDPR and the reuse of public data ; 4) Add information on corporate ownership in the Implementing Regulation 2023/138.
Read full responseMeeting with Svenja Hahn (Member of the European Parliament) and BUSINESSEUROPE and
29 Jan 2025 · Renew Europe Stakeholder Roundtable: “Elevator Pitch for Better Single Market Rules”
Response to Report on the application of the General Data Protection Regulation
8 Feb 2024
Le RGPD est incontestablement une réussite : en quelques années, le texte sest imposé comme létalon-or mondial de la réglementation des données personnelles. Il a cependant été écrit à une époque où lintelligence artificielle nétait quà ses prémisses. Si lambition de lUnion européenne est de devenir leader dans le domaine de lintelligence artificielle et de permettre le développement de nombreuses pépites européennes, il convient dapporter des précisions au texte. En tant quacteur majeur de lintelligence artificielle en France, Doctrine souhaite apporter des suggestions de travail pour permettre cette adaptation dun texte majeur aux enjeux actuels et futurs. Le développement de lintelligence artificielle requiert de grandes quantités de données. Les acteurs internationaux leaders du sujet ont déjà de telles quantités de données en interne ou les acquièrent par des procédés massifs dexploration du web, qui posent des questions de propriété intellectuelle et de respect du RGPD. Pour les acteurs européens qui ne disposent pas de cet avantage concurrentiel, lopen data des informations publiques est déterminant. Les politiques dopen data permettent en effet davoir accès à de grandes quantités de données de qualité, et donc de combler le retard sur le développement de modèles européens dintelligence artificielle. Il est précisé quau-delà de lambition de créer un acteur majeur sur les grands modèles de langage, lopen data permet surtout le développement de leaders sur des verticales identifiées, comme par exemple Doctrine dans le domaine juridique. Lintelligence artificielle à leuropéenne peut dailleurs être ainsi caractérisée : des acteurs très compétents dans leurs spécialités, alliant respect des droits fondamentaux et grande expertise sectorielle. Nous développons donc 6 propositions de modification du RGPD, détaillées et justifiées dans le document joint en annexe, et ainsi résumées : Proposition n°1 : amender larticle 86 pour affirmer que le RGPD ne fait pas obstacle à la communication dinformations publiques dans le respect des textes applicables à laccès à ces informations et des dispositions du RGPD. Proposition n°2 : amender le considérant 47 pour préciser que les traitements de données personnelles consistant en la réutilisation dinformations publiques peuvent être considérés comme étant réalisé pour répondre à un intérêt légitime. Proposition n°3 : amender le considérant 50 pour préciser que les traitements de données personnelles consistant en la réutilisation dinformations publiques sont, sauf preuve contraire, compatibles avec le traitement antérieur. Proposition n°4 : amender larticle 14 pour préciser au 5.b) que la fourniture des informations aux personnes concernées est disproportionnée ou impossible pour les traitements consistant en la réutilisation dinformations publiques. Proposition n°5 : Afin non seulement de garantir une concurrence loyale et équitable et de garantir le bon respect des intérêts de la personne concernée, il convient donc damender larticle 21 du RGPD pour prévoir que lorsque les données personnelles traitées sont des données publiques fournies en open data, le droit dopposition sexerce auprès de lautorité publique ayant diffusé les données, à charge pour chaque réutilisateur de (i) indiquer à la personne concernée les coordonnées de cette autorité publique et (ii) de mettre à jour ses données si et lorsque lautorité publique fait droit à la demande dopposition. Proposition n°6 : Amender larticle 21 du RGPD pour préciser que, dans le cas de la réutilisation dinformations publiques, le droit dopposition sexerce pour des situations particulières dans lesquelles des raisons prépondérantes et légitimes tenant au cas concret de la personne concernée justifient exceptionnellement que laccès aux informations publiques à caractère personnel la concernant soit limité.
Read full responseResponse to 8th Amendment to Annex II to Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of life vehicles
20 Jun 2022
Doctrine, a French legaltech company providing legal information services to law professionals, welcomes the opportunity of commenting on the draft implementing Act, which is unfortunately a disappointment for many re-users who expected new opportunities due to the 2019 Directive.
About Article 4 (4)
Allowing public authorities to impose further restrictions based on data protection concerns opens a Pandora's box for virtually all datasets, while being unnecessary since GDPR is in any case always applicable to the re-use of personal data contained in public information, which is why GDPR article 86 provides that “personal data in official documents […] may be disclosed […] in order to reconcile public access to official documents with the right to the protection of personal data”.
With the draft implementing act now presented, the fears have unfortunately come true. The risk that this Pandora’s box will be used by public bodies to restrict the scope of availability of High-Value DataSets (HVDS) is extremely high since Article 4 (4) does not contain any conditions, safeguards or limits to the restrictions that will therefore be added on a purely discretionary basis.
About Company Ownership data
We believe that Company Data should contain extensive data about sole entrepreneurs and liberal actors. For example, we strongly believe that national Lawyers’ registries should be included as a data set. This data would contribute to a stronger Justice system in the European Union. First it would allow the creation of a European search service for lawyers, thus providing EU citizens and companies with more accessible tools to find the right lawyer corresponding to their needs. It would also empower lawyers by making it easier for them to provide their services in their Member State and across the EU. This is perfectly in line with the objectives of the Single Market and the objective to provide a better access to justice in Europe.
About broadening HVDS
We also wishe to stress the importance of promptly adopting a Delegated Act expanding the list of thematic categories of HVDS in order to accomplish the vision of the PSI Directive. In particular, the categories of government and public sector data and justice and legal data will foster the development of a strong European legaltech sector.
The legal tech sector is young but growing extremely fast. Investments in legal tech in the US reached $1.6bn in 2018, and this trend accelerated in 2019. The global legal AI software market itself is expected to see a 30% growth to reach $1.8bn in 2026.
The European Union is perfectly suited to harness this opportunity. While the US and Asia have been investing massively in this sector, Europe has a well-established legal tradition which positions it as the natural leader in this field. As there are no EU-wide dominant companies coming from the US or China yet, there is an opportunity for EU champions to get ahead of their future international competitors.
A strong legal tech sector contributes to EU digital sovereignty and competitiveness. The development of a strong legal tech sector is essential to ensure a better access to justice and preserve democracy by bringing EU citizens and public institutions closer. Access to legal information is considered as a cornerstone of the right to a fair trial and as a tool to improve the justice system. Open data contributes to public transparency and accountability.
Despite these strong arguments in favor of opening justice and legal data and government and public sector data, our experience is that this data is scarcely available.
As an example, French commercial court decisions are made available only decision per decision with a fee of 5 euros per document. The re-use of legal information is associated with important socio-economic benefits and constitutes a means to ensure that the rights protected by the EU Charter are safeguarded. Legal information should therefore be explicitly included in HVDS.
Read full responseResponse to Digitalisation of justice in the European Union
21 Sept 2020
We would like to thank the European Commission for this opportunity to contribute to the reflection regarding the development of a roadmap for the Digitalisation of Justice in the European Union.
As a major player in the legal tech sector, we are particularly interested in this roadmap. We strongly believe that an accessible, transparent and well-functioning justice system is the cornerstone of democracy. We also welcome the focus on the importance to conduct the digital transformation of justice in the Commission’s recovery and resilience plan.
In our reply attached, we outline how innovative technologies, associated with an increased reuse of legal data such as case law decisions and lawyers’ registries, are able to substantially improve the access to and functioning of Justice in the European Union. The Covid-19 crisis has emphasized the need to operate a digital transformation of justice to ensure its accessibility and continuity.
A strong legal tech sector contributes to EU digital sovereignty and competitiveness. The availability of efficient tools to apprehend the law is an important incentive for multinationals in their choice of investment destination. These tools will shape the future of the legal system. The EU legal and judiciary tradition will gain in influence thanks to the development of EU-based technologies.
The development of a strong legal tech sector is essential to ensure a better access to justice and preserve democracy by bringing EU citizens and public institutions closer. Access to legal information is considered as a cornerstone of the right to a fair trial and as a tool to improve the justice system. Opening legal and administrative data also contributes to public transparency and accountability.
In the paper attached, we detail the three areas where the Commission could have a strong impact on the digitalisation of Justice in the EU : a) increasing open data in the justice sector, b) support the development of AI solutions, and c) provide financial and operational support for the digital transformation of justice.
Read full responseResponse to Implementing act on a list of High-Value Datasets
20 Aug 2020
We would like to thank the European Commission for this opportunity to contribute to the reflection regarding the implementation of the Open Data Directive and in particular the definition of the High Value Datasets provided by article 13. An ambitious implementation of the Open Data Directive, in accordance with the European Strategy for Data, is essential to ensure the development of EU Legal Tech Champions and a better access to justice for EU Citizens.
Doctrine is a Paris-based start-up providing a high performing legal search and analytics service to legal professionals such as lawyers and judges, using artificial intelligence and natural language processing. Created three years ago by a lawyer, an engineer and a mathematician, Doctrine is a fast-growing company (€12 million raised, 80+ employees) with the ambition to expand across Europe and compete with international tech giants.
With half a million visitors each month, Doctrine is the second most visited legal information website in France. We aim to foster open justice and the Rule of law by providing easy access to legal information. For this purpose, we reuse public information such as laws, regulations and jurisprudence (case law).
A strong legal tech sector contributes to EU digital sovereignty and competitiveness. These tools will shape the future of the legal system. The EU legal and judiciary tradition will gain in influence thanks to the development of EU-based technologies. The development of a strong legal tech sector is also essential to ensure a better access to justice and preserve democracy by bringing EU citizens and public institutions closer. Access to legal information is considered as a cornerstone of the right to a fair trial and as a tool to improve the justice system. Open data contributes to public transparency and accountability.
Access to data is essential to create a strong AI sector in the EU, as stressed by the Commission in its European Strategy for Data. Startups, in particular, need large volumes of data to build innovative and efficient machine-learning models. This is especially true in the legal tech sector, where access to national data such as jurisprudence (case law) is very difficult, despite the public nature of these data. In France for instance, only 1% of the decisions issued by courts and tribunals are available online for free. Several Member States also limit the reuse of legal data, effectively barring innovation in certain areas. Finally, the lack of harmonization between national access regimes makes it difficult to conduct cross-border activities, limiting the possibility to develop EU champions.
The EU Council’s working party on e-law vowed to enhance Open Data in the justice field. In a note published on January 21st, referring to article 13 of the Open Data Directive, it states that “Case law appears to be a prime example of such high-value data sets”.
Accessing legal data and being able to reuse them are essential to enable innovative gov tech and legal tech applications that both help law professionals and foster access to justice for citizens.
We therefore respectfully suggest a few policy actions in the document attached, among which :
• Extend the list of High Value Datasets to include Legal Information
• Ensure a harmonious and ambitious implementation of the Open Data Directive beyond HVDS
Read full responseResponse to Legislative framework for the governance of common European data spaces
20 Jul 2020
Please find our feedback and the supporting elements in the document attached.
Read full responseResponse to Report on the application of the General Data Protection Regulation
28 Apr 2020
Le champ très large de la notion de donnée personnelle, distinct de celui de la vie privée, entraine l'application du RGPD à des données publiées en *open data* par des autorités publiques, des organismes publics ou des des organismes privés chargés d'une mission d'intérêt public (les "administrations"), dans le cadre de dispositions de droit national permettant ou imposant une telle publication. Ainsi, par exemple, le droit français impose aux administrations de plus de 50 fonctionnaires de publier en open data toutes bases de données qu'elles produisent et reçoivent dans le cadre de leur mission de service public.
Malgré la précision de l'article 86 du RGPD conférant explicitement aux administrations la facultés de communiquer des données personnelles dans le cadre de l'accès aux documents officiels, le RGPD est très souvent invoqué par les administrations pour limiter le droit d'accès aux documents administratifs.
Afin de permettre une pleine application du droit d'accès aux documents officiels, qui découle du principe de transparence administrative et du droit d'accès à l'information, protégés par les articles 11 et 42 de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'UE et l'article 10 de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales, il serait souhaitable de modifier comme suit l'article 86 du RGPD :
- Préciser que la publication par les administrations de documents officiels en vertu du droit d'accès aux documents officiels est un traitement nécessaire au respect d'une obligation légale à laquelle l'administration est soumise (selon l'article 6.1.c du RGPD) ;
- Dispenser les administrations de l'obligation d'information préalable pour le traitement consistant à publier ou communiquer les documents officiels en vertu de dispositions nationales relatives à l'open data ;
- Préciser que seules les personnes effectuant des réutilisations de documents officiels, au sens de la directive 2019/1024 du 20 juin 2019 concernant les données ouvertes et la réutilisation des informations du secteur public (la Directive Open Data) sont soumises au respect du RGPD lors de la réutilisation ; les administrations ne sont pas responsables du respect du RGPD par les réutilisateurs de documents officiels.
Ces aménagements et précisions permettront de garantir l'effectivité du droit d'accès aux documents officiels et du droit de réutiliser les informations publiques qu'ils contiennent, tel que garanti par la Directive Open Data, tout en maintenant le niveau élevé de protection des données personnelles des personnes concernées, les réutilisations étant intégralement soumises au respect du RGPD.
Read full responseMeeting with Eric Peters (Cabinet of Commissioner Mariya Gabriel)
23 Nov 2018 · Startups, artificial intelligence