Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica (AUC Iuridica) is a legal journal published since 1955, which presents longer essays as well as short articles on topics relevant for legal theory and international, European and Czech law. It also publishes works concerning current legislative problems.
Although intended primarily for domestic audience, AUC Iuridica is useful also for foreign experts, who can take advantage of summaries in foreign languages (English, German and French) and key words, which are systematically added to the main articles and essays.
The published articles are subject to peer reviews. If necessary, reviewed texts are sent back to the author for revision.
AUC Iuridica accepts contributions from any contributor on any current legal topic.
The journal is registered in the Czech National Bibliography (kept by the National Library of the Czech Republic) and in the Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals (kept by the American Association of Law Libraries).
The journal is archived in Portico.
–––
We are pleased to inform you that the journal Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica was the first journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University to be included in the prestigious international database SCOPUS. This Elsevier database is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature in the world. The editors of the journal expect from the inclusion in the elite SCOPUS database not only an increase in the readership of the journal, but also an increase in interest in the publication of papers by both Czech and foreign authors.
AUC IURIDICA, Vol 70 No 2 (2024), 101–119
EU Administrative Decision-Making Delegated to Machines – Legal Challenges and Issues
Pavlína Hubková
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2024.25
published online: 23. 05. 2024
abstract
Increasing computing power, the constant development of different types of digital tools or even the use of AI systems – they all provide the EU administration with an opportunity to use automated decision-making (ADM) tools to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of administrative action. At the same time, however, the use of these tools raises several concerns, issues or challenges. From a legal perspective, there is a risk of compromising or reducing the accountability of public actors. The use of new technologies in decision-making may also affect fundamental values and principles of the EU as a whole. Automation, the use of large amounts of data and the extremely rapid processing of such data may affect or jeopardise the rights of individuals protected by EU law, including the fundamental rights guaranteed by the EU Charter. In order to keep administrative action within the limits of the law and to guarantee the rights of individuals, it is necessary to keep an eye on the various legal challenges associated with these phenomena. This article looks at three inter-connected levels of automated decision-making – the data, the ADM tool and the way it is programmed, and the output and its reviewability – and presents the legal issues or challenges associated with each of these levels.
keywords: automated decision-making; ADM tools; EU administrative law; good administration; protection of fundamental rights; judicial review
references (47)
1. ALMIOTTO, F. When Is a Decision Automated? A Taxonomy for a Fundamental Rights Analysis. Forthcoming in German Law Review. 2023. In: SSRN [online]. 2023 [cit. 2024-01-29]. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4578761.
2. BRKAN, M. Do Algorithms Rule the World? Algorithmic Decision-Making and Data Protection in the Framework of the GDPR and Beyond. International Journal of Law and Information Technology. 2019, Vol. 27, pp. 91-121. CrossRef
3. BURRELL, J. How the Machine "Thinks": Understanding Opacity in Machine Learning Algorithms. Big Data & Society. 2016, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-12. CrossRef
4. BUSUIOC, M. Accountable Artificial Intelligence: Holding Algorithms to Account. Public Administration Review. 2021, Vol. 81, pp. 825-836. CrossRef
5. CIVITARESE, M. S. Public Administration Algorithm Decision-Making and the Rule of Law. European Public Law. 2021, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 103-130. CrossRef
6. COGLIANESE, C. - LEHR, D. Regulating by Robot: Administrative Decision Making in the Machine Learning Era. Georgetown Law Journal. 2017, Vol. 105, No. 5, pp. 1147-1223.
7. CORBETT-DAVIES, S. et al. The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairness. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2023, Vol. pp. 1-117.
8. CUÉLLAR, M.-F. Cyberdelegation and the Administrative State. In: PARRILLO, N. R. (ed.). Administrative Law from the Inside Out. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017, pp. 134-162. CrossRef
9. CURTIN, D. M. - BASTOS, F. B. Interoperable Information Sharing and the Five Novel Frontiers of EU Governance: a Special Issue. European Public Law. 2020, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 59-70. CrossRef
10. DALY, P. - RASO, J. - TOMLINSON, J. Administrative Law in the Digital World. In: HARLOW, C. (ed.). A Research Agenda for Administrative Law. Chentelham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023, p. 257. CrossRef
11. DEMKOVÁ, S. The Decisional Value of Information in European Semi-Automated Decision-Making. Review of European Administrative Law. 2021, Vol. 2, No. 14, pp. 29-50. CrossRef
12. ELIANTONIO, M. Judicial Review in an Integrated Administration: the Case of "Composite Procedures". Review of European Administrative Law. 2015, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 65-102. CrossRef
13. European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology. Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI [online]. Publications Office, 2019 [cit. 2024-01-29]. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/346720.
14. FINCK, M. Automated Decision-Making and Administrative Law. In: CANE, P. et al. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Administrative Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. CrossRef
15. FINCK, M. - FINK, M. Reasoned A(I)dministration: Explanation Requirements in EU Law and the Automation of Public Administration. European Law Review. 2022, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 376-392.
16. GEBURCZYK, F. Automated Administrative Decision-Making under the Influence of the GDPR - Early Reflections and Upcoming Challenges. Computer Law & Security Review. 2021, Vol. 41, No. 105538, pp. 6-10. CrossRef
17. HARLOW, C. - RAWLINGS, R. Proceduralism and Automation: Challenges to the Values of Administrative Law. In: HARLOW, C. - RAWLINGS, R. The Foundations and Future of Public Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020, pp. 292-295. CrossRef
18. HICKOK, M. Public Procurement of Artificial Intelligence Systems: New Risks and Future Proofing. AI & Society. 2022. CrossRef
19. HILDEBRANDT, M. Algorithmic Regulation and the Rule of Law. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 2018, Vol. 376, No. 2128. CrossRef
20. HOFMANN, H. C. H. An Introduction to Automated Decision Making (ADM) and Cyber-Delegation in the Scope of EU Public Law. University of Luxembourg Law Research Paper No. 2021-008. In: SSRN [online]. 2021 [cit. 2024-01-29]. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3876059.
21. HOFMANN, H. C. H. Automated Decision-Making (ADM) in EU Public Law University of Luxembourg Law Research Paper No. 2023-06. In: SSRN [online]. 2023 [cit. 2024-01-29]. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4561116.
22. HOFMANN, H. C. H. Automated Decision-Making and Delegation: Discussing Implications for EU Public Law. In: WEAVER, L. R. - HOFMANN, H. C. H. (eds.). Digitalisation of administrative law and the pandemic-reaction. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2022, pp. 91-115.
23. HOFMANN, H. C. H. Composite Decision Making Procedures in EU Administrative Law. In: HOFMANN, H. C. H. - TÜRK, A. (eds.). Legal Challenges in EU Administrative Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009. CrossRef
24. HOFMANN, H. C. H. - MIR, O. - SCHNEIDER, J.-P. Digital Administration: the ReNEUAL Model Rules on EU Administrative Procedure Revisited. In: DIANE, F. (ed.). Jacques Ziller: a European scholar. Florence: European University Institute, 2022, pp. 94-95.
25. HUQ, A. Z. Constitutional Rights in the Machine Learning State. Cornell Law Review. 2020, Vol. 105, No. 7, pp. 1875-1954. CrossRef
26. JAN, B. Safeguarding the Right to an Effective Remedy in Algorithmic Multi-Governance Systems: an Inquiry in Artificial Intelligence-Powered Informational Cooperation in the EU Administrative Space. Review of European Administrative Law. 2023, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 9-36. CrossRef
27. KRAFFT, T. D. - ZWEIG, K. A. - KÖNIG, P. D. How to Regulate Algorithmic Decision‐making: a Framework of Regulatory Requirements for Different Applications. Regulation & Governance. 2022, Vol. 16, pp. 119, 120-125. CrossRef
28. LIGA, D. The Interplay Between Lawfulness and Explainability in the Automated Decision-Making of the EU Administration. University of Luxembourg Law Research Paper No. 2023-12. In: SSRN [online]. 2023 [cit. 2024-01-29]. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4561012.
29. McBRIDE, K. et al. Towards a Systematic Understanding on the Challenges of Procuring Artificial Intelligence in the Public Sector. SocArXiv [online]. 2021 [cit. 2023-12-12]. Available at: https://osf.io/un649 12. CrossRef
30. MIR, O. Algorithms, Automation and Administrative Procedure at EU Level. University of Luxembourg Law Research Paper No. 2023-08. In: SSRN [online]. 2023 [cit. 2024-01-29]. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4561009.
31. Model Rules on Impact Assessment of Algorithmic Decision-Making Systems Used by Public Administration [online]. European Law Institute, 2022 [cit. 2024-01-29]. Available at: https://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/Publications/ELI_Model_Rules_on_Impact_Assessment_of_ADMSs_Used_by_Public_Administration.pdf.
32. OLSEN, H. P. et al. What's in the Box? The Legal Requirement of Explainability in Computationally Aided Decision-Making in Public Administration. In: MICKLITZ, H.-W. (ed.). Constitutional Challenges in the Algorithmic Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022, p. 222. CrossRef
33. OSWALD, M. Algorithm-Assisted Decision-Making in the Public Sector: Framing the Issues Using Administrative Law Rules Governing Discretionary Power. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences [online]. 2018, Vol. 376, No. 2128 [cit. 2024-01-29]. CrossRef
34. QUINTEL, T. Connecting Personal Data of Third Country Nationals. Interoperability of EU Databases in the Light of the CJEU's Case Law on Data Retention. Europarättslig tidskrift. 2018, Nr. 2. CrossRef
35. ROEHL, U. B. U. Automated Decision-Making and Good Administration: Views from inside the Government Machinery. Government Information Quarterly. 2023, No. 4, p. 101864. CrossRef
36. RUSSO, F. - SCHLIESSER, E. - WAGEMANS, J. Connecting Ethics and Epistemology of AI. AI & Society. 2023, pp. 8-10. CrossRef
37. SLOSSER, J. L. Artificial Intelligence and Public Law. In: VALVERDE, M. et al. (eds.). The Routledge handbook of law and society. London: Routledge, 2021. CrossRef
38. SUKSI, M. (ed.). The Rule of Law and Automated Decision-Making: Exploring Fundamentals of Algorithmic Governance. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2023. CrossRef
39. SÜMEYYE, E. B. Between Human and Machines: Judicial Interpretation of the Automated Decision-Making. University of Luxembourg Law Research Paper No. 19. In: SSRN [online]. 2023 [cit. 2024-01-29]. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4662152.
40. SURESH, H. - GUTTAG, J. A Framework for Understanding Sources of Harm throughout the Machine Learning Life Cycle. In: Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization [online]. New York: ACM, 2021 [cit. 2023-11-30]. CrossRef
41. TASSINARI, F. ADM in the European Union: an Interoperable Solution. In: LARSEN, H. L. et al. (eds.). Flexible Query Answering Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 14113. Cham: Springer, 2023, pp. 290-303. CrossRef
42. VETRÒ, A. - TORCHIANO, M. - MECATI, M. A Data Quality Approach to the Identification of Discrimination Risk in Automated Decision Making Systems. Government Information Quarterly [online]. 2021, Vol. 38, No. 4, p. 101619 [cit. 2024-01-14]. Available at: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0740624X21000551. CrossRef
43. WIDLAK, A. - VAN ECK, M. - PEETERS, R. Towards Principles of Good Digital Administration. In: SCHUILENBURG, M. - PEETERS, R. (eds.). The algorithmic society: technology, power, and knowledge. London: Routledge, 2020. CrossRef
44. YEUNG, K. Algorithmic Regulation: a Critical Interrogation. Regulation & Governance. 2018, Vol. 12, pp. 505-523. CrossRef
45. YEUNG, K. Why Worry about Decision-Making by Machine? In: YEUNG, K. - LODGE, M. (eds.). Algorithmic Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019, p. 23. CrossRef
46. ZERILLI, J. et al. Transparency in Algorithmic and Human Decision-Making: Is There a Double Standard? Philosophy & Technology. 2019, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 661-683. CrossRef
47. ZŐDI, Z. Algorithmic Explainability and Legal Reasoning. The Theory and Practice of Legislation. 2022, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 67-92. CrossRef
EU Administrative Decision-Making Delegated to Machines – Legal Challenges and Issues is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
230 x 157 mm
periodicity: 4 x per year
print price: 65 czk
ISSN: 0323-0619
E-ISSN: 2336-6478
