Artificial Intelligence in legal systems: The right to a human judge should be guaranteed at all stages of the proceedings (CCBE)

The Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) published a position paper on the proposal for a regulation laying down harmonised rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). 

On 21 April 2021, the European Commission presented a proposal for a regulation laying down harmonised rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts. The proposal is supplemented by 9 annexes. 

The CCBE previously issued comments on the communication on the digitalisation of Justice in the EU, a response to the consultation on the European Commission’s White Paper on Artificial Intelligence as well as its own considerations on the legal aspects of Artificial Intelligence. 

With the recent paper, the CCBE wishes to further develop its position in relation to several aspects of the proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act (hereafter “the AIA” or “the proposal”). 

In particular, the CCBE considers that: 

• Despite the choice of a risk-based approach, the proposal should contain specific provisions on the use of AI in the field of Justice. 

• The proposal must contain clearer prohibitions in Article 5. Any type of social scoring should be prohibited, as well as automated recognition of human features in publicly accessible spaces or the use by AI systems of biometrics to categorise individuals into clusters. 

• A judge should not be allowed to delegate all or part of his/her decision-making power to an AI tool: there should be prohibited in the field of Justice not only automated decision making by AI systems but also the use of those AI systems which produce “decisions” of a nature which might tempt a human judge simply to adopt such decisions uncritically – effectively rubber-stamping what in effect would be automated decision-making. 

• The entire decision-making process must remain a human-driven activity and human judges must be required to take full responsibility for all decisions. A right to a human judge should be guaranteed at all stages of the proceedings. Annex III.8 and Recital 40 should clarify that, where an AI system may be used to "assist" judicial authorities, the possibility of it doing so to, in effect, reach decisions or formulate the expression of such decisions is excluded. 

• The proposal should definitively exclude the use of AI tools which may infringe a person's fundamental rights; for example: for the purposes of so-called “predictive policing” and for the purposes of determining risks of future offending as an aid to the making of decisions as to the granting of bail, the imposing of a sentence, following conviction, the making of decisions concerning probation and, generally, during prosecution and trial. Furthermore, the output of an AI system should not, of itself, be treated in judicial proceedings as having the status of evidence. 

• The principles of transparency and explainability must be strictly observed. In those cases where the manner in which an AI system produces an output is not transparent or where that output cannot be sufficiently explained, the output must not be taken into account by a law enforcement authority and removed from the file. 

• The AIA should define the notion of “judicial authority”, as mentioned in Recital 40 and Annex III.8. 

• The use of an AI system to apply the law to a “concrete set of facts” should be excluded and the relevant deletions should be made in Recital 40 and Annex III.8. 

• The transparency obligations laid down in Article 13 must be strengthened. 

• The exception to the principle of transparency, laid down in Article 52, paragraph 1, for certain AI systems intended to interact with natural persons should be discarded. 

• There should be a ban or moratorium on the use of automated technologies in border and migration control until they are independently assessed for compliance with international human rights standards. 

• The proposal should limit uses and applications of AI systems that violate access to social rights and benefits. 

• Specific provisions should be adopted on AI liability issues. The following issues must be considered: 

  • the notion of product; 
  • the lack of foreseeability in the functioning of AI systems; o the addressee of liability; 
  • the defences; 
  • the type of damage and the victims; 
  • the rule of evidence and the reversal of burden of proof in certain situations; and 
  • the question of whether there should be mandatory insurance.

(source: ccbe.eu/ photo: pixabay.com)

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

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

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

Prohibiting contact between children and their mother in custody and contact rights case was unjustified (ECtHR)

Image
The case of X and Others v. Slovenia (application nos. 27746/22 and 28291/22) concerned custody decisions and contact rights following the separation of X from her children’s father in 2018. It also concerned the reassignment of X’s court case to a particular judge.  In Chamber's judgment in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as regards X’s right to a tribunal established by law, and violations of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) with respect both to:  - the applicant children, as regards the order to remove them from X’s (their mother’s) care in March 2020, their not being represented in the contact and custody proceedings, and their not being allowed contact with their mother;  - X, for not being allowed contact with her children.  The Court found in particular that the President of the District Co...
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

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

European Data Protection Board clarifies rules for data sharing with third country authorities and approves EU Data Protection Seal certification

Image
During its latest plenary, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) published  guidelines on Art.48 GDPR  about data transfers to third country authorities and  approved a new European Data Protection Seal. Αs stated in a press release from the EDPB, in a highly interconnected world, organisations receive requests from public authorities in other countries to share personal data. The sharing of data can, for instance, be of help to collect evidence in the case of crime, to check financial transactions or approve new medications. When a European organisation receives a request for a transfer of data from a ‘third country’ (i.e. non-European countries) authority, it must comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In its guidelines, the EDPB zooms in on Art. 48 GDPR and clarifies how organisations can best assess under which conditions they can lawfully respond to such requests. In this way, the guidelines help organisations to make a decision on whether...
Read more