Prior to the advent of the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, digitalization of administrative court proceedings was not a prominent priority in Russia. However, subsequent to the emergence of this global health crisis, a series of unprecedented modifications were initiated. The regulation of administrative proceedings remains distinct from other procedural rules with regard to the implementation of digital technologies. For instance, admission to remote participation (web conferencing) depends not only on technical capabilities of a court but also on whether a judge deems such interaction feasible. Another significant aspect of digitalization is the application of artificial intelligence, the implementation of which is still unclear in relation to existing procedural norms. This study aims to evaluate the current rules governing administrative judicial proceedings in Russia in terms of their readiness for digital transformation. To obtain valid results, the author compares these rules with those of foreign jurisdictions where the process of digitalization has commenced and achieved considerable success, with France serving as a notable example. Using the comparative legal method, the study establishes a conceptual framework, evaluates the legal regulations, and identifies options for addressing emerging legal issues. In Russia, the Code of Administrative Procedure imposes additional requirements for employing web conferencing. However, neither the law nor judicial practice has developed criteria for cases where personal presence is deemed necessary. This situation creates conditions for a violation of the right to a remedy, as it arbitrarily restricts litigants’ rights. Furthermore, if remote participation is not approved, disputing parties are left with the “old” set of legal instruments, depriving them of many advantages associated with remote access, which could reduce material and time costs. In contrast, France does not face this issue, as the idea of real cost reduction has been enshrined in law. Additionally, foreign experiences in implementing artificial intelligence are significant, as Russian domestic law does not adequately address this matter. Despite the long-standing availability of court decisions in Russia for public scrutiny, a significant market for services related to predictive justice remains non-existent, in contrast to the prevalent market dynamics observed in France. The article’s conclusion asserts the urgency of implementing artificial intelligence to prevent the privatization of justice administration by private entities. In the absence of such measures, the principles of judicial independence and impartiality may be compromised, resulting in a violation of constitutional guarantees.