CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5Digitalization, Law, and RegulationAdministrative Law and GovernanceEthics and Social Impacts of AI

EU Administrative Decision-Making Delegated to Machines – Legal Challenges and Issues

Open access
Hubková, Pavlína·2024·AUC IURIDICA
DOI 10.14712/23366478.2024.25
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14712/23366478.2024.25

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The difficulty of explaining AI may lead data subjects to avoid using more advanced, albeit more effective, AI technologies in order to comply with GDPR requirements.

    “This may lead to data subjects avoiding the use of more advanced, albeit more effective, AI technologies in order to comply with the requirements of the GDPR.”

    From AUTOMATED DECISION-MAKING IN ADMINISTRATIVE PENAL MATTERS (2025) · cites this paper as [13]

    Section 3.3 (p. 19) says that sophisticated AI can be difficult to explain and that opacity precludes certain self-learning systems under the PNR Directive. Section 3.1 (p. 13) discusses GDPR requirements for automated decisions, but the paper does not say that data subjects avoid more effective AI technologies to comply with the GDPR; it discusses restrictions on the authorities using those tools. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hubková, P.
Corresponding author
Hubková, Pavlína
ORCID
Hubková, Pavlína
Venue
AUC IURIDICA
Publisher
Charles University in Prague, Karolinum Press
Published
2024-05-23
Volume
70
Issue
2
Pages
101-119
ISSN
  • 0323-0619 (ISSN-L)
  • 2336-6478
DOI
10.14712/23366478.2024.25
OpenAlex
W4398237835
Cited by
4
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2
FWCI
10.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • AUC IURIDICA (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Administrative Law and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
automated decision-making, artificial intelligence in public administration, government accountability, fundamental rights, EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, data protection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review