The article analyzes the current international experience of remote justice during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. It identifies the main disadvantages of remote hearings that led to the reluctance to make active use of video conferencing prior to the threat of the coronavirus. The paper examines the widespread use of remote hearings during the active phase of the pandemic, looking in particular at the legal, administrative and organisational measures taken to ensure the capacity of judicial systems to administer justice at a distance. The article also examines evaluations of remote court hearings and their impact on justice outcomes conducted in Anglo-Saxon and Western European jurisdictions, highlighting the benefits and positive feedback from remote participation. In particular, these benefits include facilitating access to justice; increasing the efficiency of court proceedings; meeting deadlines; and reducing costs and time for parties and their representatives. Less obvious benefits include reducing public anxiety and concern; improving work-life balance, in particular by helping women lawyers to combine work and childcare; avoiding unwanted conflict between parties in court buildings; helping to protect the environment by reducing travel and air travel; and improving access to hearings for disabled parties and lawyers. The article demonstrates that remote justice contributes to ensuring the effectiveness of the right to legal protection, provided that there is a robust legal framework, the necessary procedural steps, and adequate technical equipment and Internet connection. With this in mind, the article provides arguments in favour of a balanced use of remote justice on an ongoing basis, i.e. use in certain court processes or at certain stages of the court process, when remote participation can contribute to ensuring access to justice or increasing its efficiency. The appropriateness of the use of remote justice and its compatibility with the guarantees of a fair trial must be determined and justified by the judge in each specific case on the basis of a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances of the case, its complexity and the capabilities of the parties to the proceedings. General conclusions are drawn regarding the types of cases or stages that are more suitable for video hearings, and the need for further improvement of remote justice practices to meet the requirements of fairness, transparency, equality, and accountability.