Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica (AUCI) is the main journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University. It has been published since 1954 and is one of the traditional law journals with a theoretical focus.
As a general law journal, it publishes longer studies and shorter articles on any relevant issues in legal theory and international, European and national law. AUCI also publishes material relating to current legislative issues. AUCI is a peer-reviewed journal and accepts submissions from both Czech and international authors. Contributions by foreign authors are published in their original language – Slovak, English, German, French.
AUCI is a theoretical journal for questions of state and law. It is published by Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Law, through Karolinum Press. It is published four times a year, the dates of publication can be found here.
Articles published in AUCI undergo an independent peer review process, which is anonymous on both sides. Reviewers from the field give their opinion on the scientific quality of the paper and the suitability of publication in the journal. In the case of comments, the opinion is sent back to the author with the possibility of revising the text (see Guidelines for Authors – Per Review Process for more details).
The AUCI journal (ISSN 0323-0619) 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). AUCI has been assigned a periodical registration number MK E 18585.
In 2021 the journal AUCI 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.
AUCI is an open journal and all its content is published both on the faculty website and on the Karolinum Press website. Access to it is free of charge. The homepage of AUCI is on the Karolinum Press website.
The AUCI journal uses the Creative Commons license: CC BY 4.0.
Long-term archiving of the digital content of the journal is provided by Portico.
AUC IURIDICA, Vol 72 No 1 (2026), 85–96
ArticleVyužití systémů umělé inteligence při výkonu působnosti v oblasti veřejné správy, zejména perspektivou základních zásad činnosti správních orgánů a procesních práv jednotlivce
[The Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems in the Exercise of Powers in the Field of Public Administration, Particularly from the Perspective of the Fundamental Administrative Principles and the Procedural Rights of Individuals]
Olga Pouperová
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2026.6
published online: 23. 02. 2026
abstract
This paper focuses on identifying legal objections and risks associated with the introduction and use of AI systems in the exercise of public administration (PA) directed at individuals. It is specifically in the exercise of authoritative power over individuals that procedural rights become relevant. Therefore, the use of AI in PA activities that do not involve the exercise of superior authority or are not targeted at individuals (such as internal organizational functions or non-authoritative planning activities) falls outside the scope of this analysis. The author examines how the principle of legality in public authority may evolve in light of AI decision-making within PA. In this context, the paper explores whether the use of AI in decision-making by independent administrative authorities and collegial administrative bodies is legally permissible. Additionally, it considers the implications of AI use in relation to the principle of “equal treatment in similar cases”, the right to a reasoned decision, and the right to have a decision reviewed.
keywords: procedural rights; legality of public authority; AI decision-making; independent administrative authorities; collegial administrative bodies; equal treatment principle; right to explanation; right to justified decision; right to contest; review of decision
references (32)
1. ALON-BARKAT, S. - BUSUOIC, M. Human-AI Interactions in Public Sector Decision Making: "Automation Bias" and "Selective Adherence" to Algorithmic Advice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory [online]. 2023, Vol. 33, No. 1, s. 153-159 [cit. 2025-09-15]. CrossRef
2. Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2025. In: Stanford University: Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence [online]. 2025 [cit. 2025-09-15]. Dostupné na: https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report.
3. BRAŽINA, R. Minimální požadavky na odůvodnění správního rozhodnutí ve středoevropském kontextu. Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi. 2016, roč. 24, č. 2, s. 121-130. CrossRef
4. BUTT, J. S. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on the Efficiency of Administrative Decision Making Including Ethical & Legal Considerations and Comparative Study about Countries Already Incorporated AI for Administrative Decisions. Acta Universitatis Danubius Juridica. 2023, Vol. 19, No. 3, s. 7-25.
5. ČÍŽEK, K. Obrys řízení správního. Praha: Jindr. Mercyho sklad v Praze, 1888.
6. DALY, P. Judicial Review of AI-Aided Decisions: Haghshenas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 464. In: Paul Daly: Administrative Law Matters [online]. 4. 4. 2023 [cit. 2025-09-15]. Dostupné na: https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2023/04/04/judicial-review-of-ai-aided-decisions-haghshenas-v-canada-citizenship-and-immigration-2023-fc-464judicial-review-of-ai-aided-decisions/.
7. FALCO, M. P. Is a Decision-Maker's Use of AI Unfair? In: Torkin Manes [online]. 25. 6. 2024 [cit. 2025-09-15]. Dostupné na: https://www.torkin.com/insights/publication/is-a-decision-maker-s-use-of-ai-unfair.
8. GACUTAN, J. - SELVADURAI, N. A statutory right to explanation for decisions generated using artificial intelligence. International Journal of Law and Information Technology. 2020, Vol. 28, No. 3, s. 193-216. CrossRef
9. HARTZELL, S. The Evolving Legal Landscape: Will Artificial Intelligence Help or Hurt? In: University Extension Professional Studies [online]. [cit. 2025-09-15]. Dostupné na: https://extension.ucr.edu/features/aiinthecourtroom.
10. HENDRYCH, D. Správní věda: teorie veřejné správy. 3. vyd. Praha: Wolters Kluwer ČR, 2009.
11. HILDEBRANDT, M. Privacy As Protection of the Incomputable Self: From Agnostic to Agonistic Machine Learning. Theoretical Inquiries of Law. 2019, Vol. 19, No. 1, s. 83-121. CrossRef
12. KAMINSKI, M. E. Binary Governance: Lessons from the GDPR's approach to algorithmic accountability. Southern California Law Review. 2019, Vol. 92, s. 1529-1616. CrossRef
13. KAMINSKI, M. E. - URBAN, J. M. The right to contest AI. Columbia Law Review. 2021, Vol. 121, No. 7, s. 1957-2047.
14. KOPECKÝ, M. - STAŠA, J. a kol. Správní řád: komentář. Praha: Wolters Kluwer ČR, 2022.
15. KOULU, R. Proceduralizing control and discretion: Human oversight in artificial intelligence policy. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law. 2020, Vol. 27, No. 6, s. 720 a násl. CrossRef
16. KÜHN, Z. - KOCOUREK, T. a kol. Soudní řád správní: komentář. Praha: Wolters Kluwer ČR, 2019.
17. MACH, M. Umělá inteligence - nové výzvy z pohledu osobních údajů. Právník. 2025, roč. 164, č. 4, s. 347-360.
18. MAYER, H. a kol. Fachwörterbuch zum Öffentlichen Recht. Wien: MANZ Verlag Wien, 2003.
19. Nález Ústavního soudu ze dne 9. 10. 2008, sp. zn. II. ÚS 801/08.
20. Nález Ústavního soudu ze dne 26. 4. 2005, sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 21/04, N 90/37 SbNU 241.
21. Nález Ústavního soudu ze dne 27. 3. 2003, sp. z. IV. ÚS 690/01.
22. NEŠPOR, J. Automated Administrative Decision-Making: What Is the Black Box Hiding? Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica. 2024, Vol. LXX, č. 2, s. 69-83. CrossRef
23. NOWOTKO, P. M. AI in judicial application of law and the right to a court. Procedia Computer Science. 2021, Vol. 192, s. 2220-2228 [cit. 2025-09-15]. CrossRef
24. OSOBA, A. O. - BOUDREAUX, B. - SAUNDERS, J. - IRWIN, J. L. - MUELLER, P. A. - CHERNEY, S. Algorithmic Equity: A Framework for Social Applications [online]. Santa Monica, Calif: RAND Corporation, 2019, s. 20 [cit. 2025-09-15]. Dostupné na: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2708.html. CrossRef
25. Parlament České republiky, Poslanecká sněmovna. Sněmovní tisk č. 845/0, Novela z. o obcích. In: Poslanecká sněmovna Parlamentu České republiky [online]. 2024, 9. volební období [cit. 2025-09-15]. Dostupné na: https://www.psp.cz/sqw/text/tiskt.sqw?O=9&CT=845&CT1=0.
26. POUPEROVÁ, O. Zřizování nezávislých správních úřadů jako způsob řešení nestabilní politiky. In: MASLEN, M. - OLŠOVSKÁ, A. - MORAVČÍKOVÁ, M. (eds.). Vplyv politiky, normotvorby a súdnej judikatúry na výkon verejnej správy: zborník z medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie v rámci online medzinárodného vedeckého kongresu Trnavské právnické dni, 24.-25. septembra 2020. Bratislava: Wolters Kluwer SR, 2020, s. 185-186.
27. Rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu ze dne 20. 8. 2020, č. j. 6 Azs 192/2020-21.
28. SKULOVÁ, S. - HEJČ, D. - BRAŽINA, R. Odůvodnění správního rozhodnutí: revitalizace institutu s dlouhou tradicí. Právník. 2016, roč. 155, č. 10, s. 895-912.
29. SVOBODA, T. Chatboty ve veřejné správě - stručný nástin problematiky. Správní právo. 2024, roč. LVII, č. 6-7, s. 500-516.
30. Usnesení Ústavního soudu ze dne 4. 6. 2013, sp. zn. IV. ÚS 1787/13.
31. VEDRAL, J. Správní řád: komentář. 2. vyd. Praha: Bova Polygon, 2012.
32. ZSOLT, Z. Algorithmic explainability and legal reasoning. The Theory and Practice of Legislation. 2022, Vol. 10, No. 1, s. 67-92. CrossRef
Využití systémů umělé inteligence při výkonu působnosti v oblasti veřejné správy, zejména perspektivou základních zásad činnosti správních orgánů a procesních práv jednotlivce 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
