The Challenges of Artificial Intelligence for Law in Europe by Unknown

Author:Unknown
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9783031868139
Publisher: Springer Nature Switzerland

4 Conclusions—With an Outlook on the Future

The genuine availability of the right to an effective remedy, notably judicial review against any measure taken by public authorities is an essential prerequisite to upholding the rule of law in any legal order—which is a foundational value of the EU legal system (Article 2 TEU). As an enabling right, the right to an effective judicial review constitutes, at the same time, the backbone of holding public authorities accountable for any wrongdoings infringing people’s fundamental rights. It comes as no surprise that some leading scholars contend that the right to an effective (judicial) remedy is perhaps the most important right in the EUCFR (Aalto et al. 2014). Set against this backdrop, this contribution has attempted to shine more light on the role of this fundamental right of central importance in AI-driven decision-making in select EU policy areas in migration and security and the multiple challenges associated with making access to effective remedies a reality for all affected by AI-enabled law enforcement measures. As noted in the introduction, this is all the more important in view of the relatively little scholarly attention paid so far to the development of tailored-made effective legal remedies in this specific digital context.

As the above three case studies on ETIAS, live facial recognition technologies used for law enforcement purposes, and the EU PNR system demonstrated, AI-technologies can considerably alter the nature of the decisions that affected individuals might want to contest (European Parliament 2020a). The crux of the matter is that effective legal remedies must rely on transparency and explainability, paired with sufficiently reasoned decision-making (this latter being, at the same time, an inherent component of the right to good administration). All of this warrants that complainants have enough information to understand how a decision about them was made or a measure affecting them was adopted. Each of the three AI use-cases demonstrated significant gaps, unanswered questions and grey zones in this regard. As of now, such algorithms/AI-tools seem be too opaque to allow for effective judicial remedy against their recommendations or outputs, as it is often impossible to understand from the outside how they work.

Turning to upcoming EU legal developments, the new AI Act, once enters into force, will—to some extent—carry positive implications for individuals’ access to an effective remedy, by creating more transparency and enhancing individuals’ right to information. However, the politically agreed text of the AI Act merely embraces, in express terms, a timid reference to the right to effective (judicial) remedies—but not specifically for victims of alleged fundamental rights violations which result from AI-supported decision-making.91 It would be highly desired to expressly refer to the right to an effective remedy in the new AI Act in this context, too—and not only in relation to challenging the decisions (penalties) of the market surveillance authorities. Equally important would have been not to carve out exceptions from the material scope of the new regulation, unlike both the original European Commission proposal and the politically agreed compromise version, according to

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.