Regulation Tracker · 20 questions
Policies on the court system's own AI: transcription, translation, e-filing triage, research assistants for judges.
As of 2026-09-04, 14 of 130 countries and entities have a binding rule for courts' own AI deployment, 21 have official guidance, 6 have a proposal, 0 are set by case law, 66 were checked with nothing found and 23 remain unclear. Binding countries: Argentina, Brazil, China, Colombia, Croatia, Denmark, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Nepal, Philippines, Spain, Vietnam.
Tap or hover a country. Faint land has no record yet. Miller projection; boundaries as published by Natural Earth (India point of view) — see the disclaimer.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
Acordada 10/2025 authorised AI-generated plain-language summaries of all judgments published through the federal case system, with more than 110,000 summaries by October 2025. Provincial deployments in Santa Fe and Rio Negro are governed by their own acordadas.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
CNJ Resolution 615/2025 governs development, contracting and deployment of AI by all courts through the Sinapses platform, with risk classification, transparency registers and a National AI Committee.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The Supreme People's Court Opinions mandate smart-court AI integration, with full support targeted by 2025 and a regulatory framework by 2030, subject to auxiliary-only, security and transparency principles.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 chapter 3 governs institutional AI projects: suitability analysis, no personal data in training, privacy impact assessments, reporting through the Digital Transformation Unit and monitoring. The judiciary deploys transcription and summarisation tools.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The Rulebook on the anonymisation, publication and search of anonymised court decisions, in force 1 January 2025: the ANON AI system anonymises, extracts metadata and classifies decisions automatically at first instance, while higher-court and Supreme Court decisions are anonymised by authorised staff from ANON's proposals.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
LOV nr 467/2025 § 2(4)–(5): Domstolsstyrelsen is market surveillance authority for courts' use of AI systems when the courts are not acting in their capacity as a court; where they are, the court itself decides, subject to appeal to a higher court within four weeks. No published deployment policy or tool inventory found.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Regional. Kerala and Gujarat High Court policies restrict district courts to approved AI tools for research, translation and administration. The Supreme Court runs SUVAS for translation and SUPACE for research assistance; the draft 2026 regulations would create an apex AI body, High Court AI committees and a central CoRE-AI centre.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Operational rather than regulated. The Supreme Court deploys Smart Majelis, an AI application that automatically assigns judicial panels, piloted in August 2025 and shipped in SIPP v6.0.1 from November 2025, and is developing a Decision Support System to reduce inconsistent decisions. Both were deployed by administrative instruction, not by PERMA or SEMA.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
Procedure 01-26 sets principles, operative instructions and control mechanisms for the judiciary's own AI, requires that use be visible to the public with tailored disclosure rules, and bars non-internal tools for case data. Deployments: AI courtroom transcription from the 2025-26 legal year and 'Chat HaMishpat' (Gemini-based) for roughly 1,650 judges and legal assistants.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Law 132/2025 article 15(2)-(3): the Ministry of Justice regulates AI use for court-service organisation and ancillary administration; until the EU AI Act is fully applicable, any experimentation or use of AI in ordinary judicial offices must be authorised by the Ministry after consulting AgID and the national cybersecurity agency.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
ICT Policy 2083 provides for AI-based systems for drafting non-decisional documents, research, case management and machine-readable records, with a judicial innovation centre to identify flagship programmes.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No AI tool may be used unless authorised by the Supreme Court En Banc, with a phased pilot-then-rollout process. Scriptix voice-to-text was piloted from July 2023 to September 2024 in the Sandiganbayan and 41 trial courts, cutting transcription time by 50 to 80 per cent, with full rollout procured in 2025; eCourt PH 2.0 continues.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Royal Decree-Law 6/2023 regulates automated, proactive and assisted actions in the justice administration: assisted actions produce drafts under full human control and take effect only after validation. Instruccion 2/2026 article 9 restricts judges to systems supplied by the competent administrations, with CGPJ supervision of personal-data processing.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Operational at national scale. The Court Virtual Assistant is in live use by judges for drafting support, retrieval, summarisation and automated case-file processing, rolled out to roughly 400 connection points, and the Supreme People's Court is pursuing sovereign AI on its own data. The governing instrument could not be located.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Addressed inside the judicial guidelines rather than a standalone deployment policy: NSW guidelines govern associates, tipstaves and researchers; Victoria's judicial guidelines cover chambers staff and require the judicial officer to verify any administrative AI output. No published court procurement or deployment policy was found.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No court-specific policy found. The iGA General Policy for the Use of Artificial Intelligence (v1.0, 20 May 2025) applies to all government entities in Bahrain and governs how they adopt AI; it contains no judiciary-, court- or justice-specific provision on the verified full text.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
The Federal Court published interim principles on its own AI use on 29 September 2025. The Superior Court of Quebec adopted an AI governance framework in September 2025 and ran a chatbot pilot as a judicial support tool. The CJC guidelines govern federally appointed judges' institutional use.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
The judiciary launched a unified jurisprudence search engine with AI on 8 July 2025 and runs pilots in Antofagasta, the Supreme Court's third chamber and Mulchen. Article 17 of the ethics code requires human review and certification of automated transcription and translation. No standalone deployment policy was found.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
Egypt's National AI Strategy (2nd edition, Jan 2025) names the judiciary a target sector for the national Arabic model, listing transcription of legal proceedings, case classification, litigation and claim assessment, virtual legal aid and drafting assistance for judges; Egyptian-accent speech recognition is already used to produce court minutes.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The CJEU adopted an AI Strategy on 19 June 2023, created an AI Management Board, and adopted an AI Ethics Charter on 26 January 2026 covering AI tools that assist its judicial functions: purpose documentation, labelling of unverified AI output shared beyond the requester, confidentiality and human oversight.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Administrative jurisdiction: the Conseil d'État charter covers internal SIA and excludes high-risk systems, limiting internal projects to low-risk tasks (anonymisation, research support). Judicial order: the Ministry of Justice report 'L'IA au service de la justice' (Aug 2025) and a sovereign internal generative-AI assistant for magistrates and staff, with 'Mon Assistant Pénal' and 'Mon Assistant Civil' built with the Paris Court of Appeal.
International bodies · verified 2026-09-04
The CEPEJ Ethical Charter of 4 December 2018 and its Assessment Tool, revised 5 June 2025, govern deployment of AI in courts; CEPEJ(2025)18 requires pseudonymised data and public control of infrastructure; the 2025 UNESCO Guidelines add lifecycle monitoring and the capacity to disable systems.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Malaysia was an early adopter: the Sabah and Sarawak Judiciary's AI for Data Sentencing tool for drug and theft offences, built by SAINS, launched 18 January 2020. The Legal Affairs Division leads an AI Legal Justice Roadmap 2025-2026 involving seven agencies including the Chief Registrar's Office and the AIAC.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The Rechtspraak AI strategy governs institutional deployment: low-risk uses (scheduling, pseudonymisation of judgments, inflow prediction and routing, B1-level summaries, chatbot public information, deadline checks, case-law search), a data-and-AI platform, compliance with the AI Act, transparency, and entry of every AI use in a publicly accessible algorithm/AI register. RechtspraakGPT is the in-house assistant.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No deployment policy published, but the judicial guidelines record an intention to procure an in-house generative-AI chatbot for the New Zealand judiciary that protects confidential, suppressed and private information, and forbid use of public chatbots for such material until that happens.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The NJPMC guidelines of April 2026 frame institutional AI adoption. The Federal Judicial Academy's Judge-GPT, a retrieval system over roughly 130,000 Pakistani judgments, was trialled from 2024 with about 1,559 trial judges; results published in August 2026 showed a 6.3 per cent rise in disposals.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
CSM Recommendations 4, 5 and 9: judges should use only AI systems provided through the statutory case-management system or by the CSM, which are subject to CSM control and presumed to meet security, traceability and no-reuse requirements. The CSM also approved an AI monitoring group and a supervision structure.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
SDAIA's Generative AI Guidelines for Government apply to government entities including the Ministry of Justice, requiring transparency, human oversight and risk management. The ministry operates the Najiz portal (140+ judicial e-services) and a virtual enforcement court launched March 2022; no court-specific AI policy is published.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The judiciary runs a closed trial-support AI in pilot across courts for research and summarisation, with issue analysis due by May 2027 and full rollout in June 2028, a sentencing-support AI due December 2028, and AI pilot trial divisions in the Patent Court from April 2026 using generative AI with parties' consent.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Domstolsverket runs AI projects with internal rules: an AI redaction/masking service for confidential data in released documents, and an AI translation tool for judgments. Staff guidelines restrict what may be entered into public tools.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The Judicial Yuan generative-AI judgment-drafting system, announced 27 August 2023, runs an on-premises model for two offence types with drug offences piloted from December 2023, alongside speech recognition and chatbots. The 2026 guidelines govern internal AI use.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
Deployment without a governing policy. The 2025 Presidential Annual Programme committed the Ministry of Justice to expanding AI in justice services and building decision-support and recommendation systems. In Aug 2026 the Ministry's IT Directorate rolled out an OCR-plus-classification module in UYAP for criminal miscellaneous requests.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No court-specific AI policy. The UAE Charter for the Development and Use of AI (UAE AI Office, July 2024) sets 12 non-binding principles for government AI, including human oversight and accountability. The Ministry of Justice runs AI services (Virtual Legal Advisor, 'Ask Adel' chatbot, smart OCR); an integrated AI judicial platform was announced 28 July 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Judiciary guidance covers court-provided tools; HMCTS pilots are not governed by a published rule.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
The AO established an advisory AI Task Force in early 2025 and issued interim guidance on 31 July 2025 covering use, procurement and security of AI tools; courts are encouraged to define locally approved tools and tasks. The September 2025 judiciary Strategic Plan calls for a formal AI governance framework.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
The protocol confines judicial actors to institutional AI tools authorised by task type, and Ecuador also participates in the Ibero-American AI-assisted drafting project. No deployment policy is in force as of 4 September 2026.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The Supreme Court announced on 28 August 2026 a budget request for the 2027 financial year, reported at about 60 million yen, for a demonstration using records of settled civil cases to have AI draft record summaries and issue lists, with leak prevention for personal data. No AI is used in trials today.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
The Judiciary is piloting AI transcription of proceedings and says the forthcoming AI Adoption Policy Framework will cover case management, legal research, predictive analytics and administrative support. No published policy governs these deployments yet.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Norwegian courts use Microsoft 365 Copilot as an internal support tool after Domstoladministrasjonen risk assessments; guidelines were being finalised in 2025 and no public deployment policy had been published as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The Ministry of Justice is running proof-of-concept AI and automation projects in courts and prosecution services and maintains a dedicated portal, si-dla-sprawiedliwosci.gov.pl; no adopted deployment policy located as of 4 September 2026.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
Resolutions 5.1 and 5.4 of the 2026 Judiciary Conference direct modernisation of court systems and use of customised, secure AI platforms, initially for court recording and transcription, translation, case management and document summarisation. No policy is yet adopted.
No countries in this status.
No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No published court AI deployment policy found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.
No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.
No Supreme Judicial Council AI policy was found. The council publishes e-justice and case-processing updates, but no court AI deployment rule or guidance was located.
No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.
No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.
No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.
No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.
The Supreme Court reports electronic signature and document-management modernization, but no court AI deployment policy was found as of 4 September 2026.
No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026
No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.
No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No policy on the Icelandic courts' own AI deployment (transcription, translation, triage) found as of 4 September 2026.
No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.
No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.
No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.
Jordan’s AI strategy targets public-sector AI projects generally, but no Ministry of Justice or Judicial Council policy on courts’ own AI deployment was located.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. The Ministry of Justice launched the first phase of electronic litigation for criminal orders in July 2026 and an official electronic seal, but no AI component or AI policy is published; the ministry website contains no AI reference.
No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.
No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.
No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.
No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.
The government announced a DIVA virtual assistant for public services, but no Supreme Court or judiciary policy on courts’ own AI deployment was located.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. Morocco's e-justice / justice numérique digitisation programme is well established, but no published policy on the courts' own use of AI was located; the CSPJ website was unreachable from outside Morocco during checks.
No court AI deployment policy was found. CNIA includes judicial representatives as policy stakeholders, but the fetched sources do not describe court use of AI systems.
No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.
Reports mention e-Parliament use of AI analytics, chatbots and virtual research assistants, but no court AI deployment or judiciary AI policy was found.
No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
No policy on judiciary AI deployment. Digitisation is proceeding via the National Case Management System and mandatory e-filing of Supreme Court processes from 1 Jul 2026, neither of which addresses AI.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
AI for civil-case triage was announced on 20 January 2026 alongside the new Civil Procedure Code, and Panama co-drafted the Ibero-American framework on governance, transparency and explainability. No written deployment policy was found as of 4 September 2026.
No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
The Supreme Court presented Curia on 14 March 2025, a generative-AI assistant trained on more than 800,000 resolutions that drafts reasoned decisions for judicial review, but no governing policy had been adopted as of 4 September 2026.
Puerto Rico courts operate the Tribunal Electronico/SUMAC portal; no court AI deployment policy was found as of 4 September 2026.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No published policy on the courts' own AI deployment. The Ministry of Justice has publicised AI ambitions for the justice system since September 2023 and publishes AI research in its Journal of Judicial and Legal Studies.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.
No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.
Serbia operates a National AI Platform for development and public-sector use, but no published court AI deployment policy or judicial guidance was located.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No policy on courts' own AI systems found as of 4 September 2026.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No published court AI deployment policy found as of 4 September 2026.
No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.
No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.
No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.
No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
The judiciary reported no AI applications beyond its case-management systems as of April 2025, and no policy was found as of 4 September 2026.
No Supreme Court AI deployment policy found; the verified AI programme is government-wide and not court-specific.
No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.
No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.
No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not researched — no published Austrian policy on institutional court AI deployment identified before the search budget was exhausted.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not researched — no published Belgian policy on institutional court AI deployment identified before the search budget was exhausted.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
AI is deployed: a document classifier processed 1.3 million filings in 2024 and a constitutional-chamber predictive tool was built with the national university in 2025. The judiciary's transparency portal carries a declaration of AI use page which could not be opened, so a formal deployment policy is unconfirmed.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not checked because the research budget was exhausted.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not researched — no published policy on the Czech courts' own AI deployment could be checked; usoud.cz refused connection during this session.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
The judiciary runs the LEIA procedural-guidance assistant through the national judicial school and coordinates the Ibero-American AI-assisted drafting project with human supervision. Its responsible AI use page could not be opened, so the existence of a formal policy is unconfirmed.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No published policy on Estonian courts' institutional AI deployment was located; the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs runs national AI programmes (test environment, privacy-protection support) but none is court-specific.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No published policy on the Finnish courts' own AI deployment was located. Tuomioistuinvirasto's site lists no AI programme; the AIPA case-management programme documentation could not be checked during research.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not fully checked — the WebSearch budget was exhausted before German court AI deployment policies (Land-level pilots, Bund-Länder digitalisation programmes) could be verified against official sources.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The OECD reported in June 2025 that Greek justice-sector AI is used for document processing, case-law search, speech-to-text and translation, but no policy document governing court AI was located and the digital-justice reforms could not be checked.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Not established. The Judiciary's guidelines govern individual use by judges and staff but no policy on the Judiciary's institutional AI deployment (transcription, translation, filing triage) was located.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not researched — birosag.hu (OBH) returned HTTP 403 on 4 September 2026 and no court AI deployment policy could be checked.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not researched — no published Courts Service policy on institutional AI deployment identified before the search budget was exhausted.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Tiesu administrācija operates Latvia's court information systems and e-file, but no published policy on institutional AI deployment (transcription, triage, translation) was located during research.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The National Courts Administration operates Lithuania's LITEKO court information system, but no published policy on institutional AI deployment was located during research.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not researched — no published Luxembourg policy on institutional court AI deployment identified.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
A reported court AI pilot could not be located. Malta's recovery-fund justice digitalisation, due in mid-2026, lists virtual sittings and case management rather than AI; government AI pilots cover other sectors.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
The SCJN operates a public virtual assistant, JusticIA, over its own published materials, and individual federal and state judges have deployed AI in case preparation, but no published institutional AI policy was located; official SCJN and CJF sources could not be opened during this pass.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not researched — no policy on the Romanian courts' institutional AI deployment could be checked.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Not established. No published policy on the Singapore Judiciary's own institutional AI deployment was located; the judiciary's news and registrar's-circular indexes are JavaScript-driven and could not be searched after the session search budget was exhausted.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not researched — no policy on the Slovak courts' institutional AI deployment could be checked without search access.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not researched — no published Swiss policy on institutional court AI deployment identified before the search budget was exhausted.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Not substantiated. No Courts of Justice AI system was documented on the pages that could be opened.
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Courts' own AI deployment" by country, https://safelegalai.com/regulation/category/court-own-use (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.
SafeLegalAI is a research publication by Cognesio LLP, not a law firm. Nothing here is legal advice, and no lawyer–client relationship arises from reading it. Rules change; always check the official document linked on each record and take advice on your own situation. Researched and drafted with AI assistance; verified against primary sources and edited by Cognesio LLP. The linked official documents are the record — our summaries are not the law and are not legal advice.
Argentina
Brazil
China
Colombia
Croatia
Denmark
India
Indonesia
Israel
Italy
Nepal
Philippines
Spain
Vietnam
Australia
Bahrain
Canada
Chile
Egypt
European Union
France
International bodies
Malaysia
Netherlands
New Zealand
Pakistan
Portugal
Saudi Arabia
South Korea
Sweden
Taiwan
Türkiye
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Ecuador
Japan
Kenya
Norway
Poland
South Africa
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Belarus
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brunei
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Cameroon
Côte d'Ivoire
Cuba
El Salvador
Ethiopia
Georgia
Ghana
Guatemala
Honduras
Iceland
Iran
Iraq
Jamaica
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lebanon
Macao
Mauritius
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nicaragua
Nigeria
North Macedonia
Oman
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Russia
Rwanda
Senegal
Serbia
Slovenia
Sri Lanka
Tanzania
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Uganda
Ukraine
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Venezuela
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Austria
Belgium
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Czechia
Dominican Republic
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong SAR
Hungary
Ireland
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Romania
Singapore
Slovakia
Switzerland
Thailand