Artificial intelligence in justice systems : Αn inevitable revolution is coming

By George Kazoleas, Lawyer LL.M.

The digitization of justice and the increasing use of forms of e-justice by legal systems is not only a reality but also a necessity that arose from the unprecedented conditions created and continues to create the covid-19 pandemic. An admittedly more advanced area of digitalisation of justice is artificial intelligence in judicial systems, which, as many experts predict, is the sure future in the way justice is administered.

Ιn this matter, the Council of EU[1] notes that the deployment of artificial intelligence systems in the justice sector is already being researched and developed in the EU and that the practical implementation of such systems is already imminent in some Member States. The Council also notes that a sufficient level of digitalisation is also a prerequisite for the use of artificial intelligence applications.

It is also emphasized, that artificial intelligence systems in the justice sector may in the future be capable of performing increasingly complex tasks – within the legal framework of a Member State – such as analysing, structuring and preparing information on the subject matter of cases, automatically transcribing records of oral hearings, offering machine translation, supporting the analysis and evaluation of legal documents and court/tribunal judgments, estimating the chances of success of a lawsuit, automatically anonymising case law and providing information via legal chatbots.

The development of artificial intelligence systems, particularly machine learning systems, depends on the comprehensive availability of large data sets, such as anonymised court/tribunal files and judgments, that are of high quality in relation to the purposes they shall be used for.

It should be emphasized that the use of artificial intelligence in the judiciary will not replace the human factor, ie judges, lawyers and other actors in the judiciary.

According to the Council of EU [2], the use of artificial intelligence tools has the potential to improve the functioning of justice systems for the benefit of citizens and businesses by assisting judges and judicial staff in their activities, accelerating court/tribunal proceedings and helping enhance the comparability, consistency and, ultimately, the quality of judicial decisions.

It is underlined that the use of artificial intelligence tools must not interfere with the decision-making power of judges or judicial independence. A court decision must always be made by a human being and cannot be delegated to an artificial intelligence tool.

Ιn this context, it is emphasized that in certain cases, outcomes of artificial intelligence systems based on machine learning cannot be retraced, leading to a black-box-effect that prevents adequate and necessary responsibility and makes it impossible to check how the result was reached and whether it complies with relevant regulations. This lack of transparency could undermine the possibility of effectively challenging decisions based on such outcomes and may thereby infringe the right to a fair trial and an effective remedy, and limits the areas in which these systems can be legally used.

The use of artificial intelligence in the field of justice should be limited by strict rules and no doubt should be left as to its exact scope. Its use should always safeguard fundamental human rights, such as human dignity, the right to liberty, non-discrimination, protection of privacy and data and the right to a fair trial.

Already in 2018, the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) of the Council of Europe has adopted the five (5) fundamental principles[3] relating to the use of artificial intelligence in judicial systems, which are the following:

  1. Principle of respect for fundamental rights: ensure that the design and implementation of artificial intelligence tools and services are        compatible with fundamental rights.
  2. Principle of non-discrimination: specifically prevent the development or intensification of any discrimination between individuals or groups of individuals.
  3. Principle of quality and security: with regard to the processing of judicial decisions and data, use certified sources and intangible data with models elaborated in a multi-disciplinary manner, in a secure technological environment.
  4. Principle of transparency, impartiality and fairness: make data processing methods accessible and understandable, authorise external audits.
  5. Principle “under user control”: preclude a prescriptive approach and ensure that users are informed actors and in control of the choices made.

The use of artificial intelligence in the field of justice is in my opinion the next or even one of the next inevitable steps in the new era of judicial systems. I believe that as part of the digitalization of justice, it is also a necessary condition for the survival of a hitherto dysfunctional, bureaucratic, slow and inaccessible judicial system. The proper use of artificial intelligence in the legal field is likely to be the greatest revolution ever happened in the fundamental area of administration of justice. 

*George Kazoleas is Lawyer in Greece and Cyprus

___________

[1] Access to justice – seizing the opportunities of digitalisation’ (2020/C 342 I/01) Official Journal of the European Union 14.10.2020

[2] As above

[3] European ethical Charter on the use of Artificial Intelligence in judicial systems and their environment (Adopted at the 31st plenary meeting of the CEPEJ , Strasbourg, 3-4 December 2018)

Comments

Post a Comment

Editorial

Editorial
George Kazoleas, Lawyer

Top Stories

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld...
Read more

Daily Mail publisher wins case against ‘success fees’ paid to lawyers (ECtHR)

Image
Obligation on publisher of the Daily Mail to pay substantial “success fees" in defamation and breach of privacy cases was excessive. The case Associated Newspapers Limited v. the United Kingdom (application no. 37398/21) concerned the fact that Associated Newspapers Limited the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday had been obliged to pay extensive costs incurred by claimants who had successfully sued it in privacy and/or defamation proceedings following articles it had published in print or online in 2017 and 2019.  Since one of the claimants had entered into a conditional fee arrangement (CFA) with his legal representative, and both had taken out “after-the-event” (ATE) insurance, Associated Newspapers Limited had been liable not only for their base costs, but also for fee uplifts including the “success fee” in the CFA and for their ATE insurance premiums.  In Chamber judgment (12.11.2024) in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that t...
Read more

ECtHR elects a new Vice-President of the Court and two new Section Presidents

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has elected on 23.9.2024 a new Vice-President of the Court – Judge Ivana Jelić (elected in respect of Montenegro). She will take up her duties on 1 November 2024.  The Court has also elected at the same date two new Section Presidents – Judges Lado Chanturia (elected in respect of Georgia) and Ioannis Ktistakis (elected in respect of Greece). They will also take up their duties on 1 November 2024. Ivana Jelić was born on 17 March 1975 in Podgorica, Montenegro and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 12 July 2018. Lado Chanturia was born on 14 April 1963 in Tsalenjikha, Georgia, was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 January 2018 and is Vice-President of Section since 18 May 2023. Ioannis Ktistakis was born on 3 January 1971 in Thebes, Greece and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 March 2021. (source/photo: echr.coe.int) Read more here
Read more

Intellectual property: the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark

Image
In its Judgment in Case T-82/24 (Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine v EUIPO) (RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F**K YOURSELF) the General Court ruled that the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark. That phrase, which has become a symbol of Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression, is not perceived as an indication of a commercial origin.  The Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine (Kyiv, Ukraine) requests the General Court of the European Union to annul the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 st December 2023, which refused registration of the following figurative sign as an EU trade mark: ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ That mark is a war cry uttered by the Ukrainian border guard on Snake Island on 24th February 2022, the first day of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Registration was sou...
Read more

The banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars

Image
According to the Judgment of the General Court in Cases T-386/21 (Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission) and T-406/21 (UBS Group and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) v Commission), the banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars (‘SSA Bonds’).  The General Court of the European Union confirms the Commission’s finding of an infringement and maintains the amount of the fines imposed in 2021. In 2018, the European Commission initiated proceedings for infringement of the competition rules involving Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse (now UBS Group [1] ).  In 2021, the Commission found that those banks had entered into an agreement on the secondary market for suprasovereign, sovereign and agency bonds denominated in dollars (SSA bonds). According to the Commission, traders employed by ...
Read more

A national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law (ECJ)

Image
In its Judgment of 26.9.2024 in Case C-792/22 (Energotehnica) the Court of Justice ruled as regards the right to an effective remedy that a national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law. In such a case, the national court may not be penalised.  Following the death of an electrician by electrocution during a maintenance operation, an administrative procedure was initiated against his employer. At the same time, criminal proceedings for negligence and manslaughter were initiated against the supervisor. The victim’s next of kin also became civil parties to the criminal proceedings.  The administrative court hearing the dispute concluded that the present case did not involve an ‘accident at work’. It annulled the administrative penalties imposed on the employer. According to national legislation, as interpreted by the Romanian Constitutional Court, that administrative decision prevents the criminal court from reconsidering whe...
Read more

European Ombudsman asks Commission to publish details of its handling of senior staff move to law firm

Image
The European Ombudsman has asked the European Commission to publish details about how it has handled the planned move by a former director in its competition department to the Brussels office of a US corporate law firm as a partner. Any restrictions that have been placed on the activities of the former director to mitigate potential conflicts of interest should be made public without delay, said the Ombudsman. She noted that public information about the move came from the law firm and gives the impression that the Commission has allowed a senior official to work for a company that anticipates major benefits from their inside knowledge.  The Ombudsman also noted that the Commission declined to give details about the individual’s professional experience despite the fact that the law firm itself has put out a press release detailing it. The Ombudsman has previously criticised a tendency in the EU administration to underestimate the potential negative effects of staff moves to th...
Read more