CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0Administrative Law and GovernanceDigitalization, Law, and RegulationE-Government and Public Services

المسؤولية الإدارية عن مشاركة الخوارزميات في إعداد القرارات الإدارية "دراسة مقارنة" / Administrative Responsibility For The Involvement Of Algorithms In The Preparation Of Administrative Decisions "Comparative Study"

Open access
علوان, عبد العزيز عبد المعطي·2025·مجلة البحوث الفقهية والقانونية
DOI 10.21608/jlr.2025.359047.1662
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

تعرضت الدراسة لبيان المسؤولية الإدارية المترتبة على مشاركة الخوارزميات في إعداد القرارات الإدارية، حيث شاع في الآونة الأخيرة تزايد استخدام الخوارزميات في إعداد القرارات الإدارية سواء أكان بشكل كلي (التنسيق الالكتروني) أم بشكل جزئي (حساب الضريبة). وبالتالي أصبح هناك فاعلون آخرون يشاركون الجهات العامة في صنع القرارات الإدارية (مصممو الخوارزميات أو مطوروها أو مبرمجوها أو مزودوها بالبيانات). الأمر الذي قد ينتج عنه حدوث أخطاء من الفاعلين ترتب أضرارا تستلزم التعويض. وهو ما جعلنا نبحث عن مفهوم القرار الإداري الخوارزمي، والأساس القانوني لاستخدام الخوارزميات في إعداد القرارات الإدارية، والمسؤولية المترتبة عن مشاركة الخوارزميات في إعداد القرارات، والمسؤول عنها من الفاعلين، وأركان المسؤولية، وصعوبات تحديد المسؤولية وسبل تلافيها. وقد استخدمت الدراسة المنهج الوصفي التحليلي المقارن من خلال بيان التطبيقات القضائية التي عرضت موضوع المسؤولية في كل من فرنسا والدول الأخرى وموقف المشرع والقضاء من تحديد المسؤول عن تعويض الأضرار، وتحليلها ومقارنتها بالتنظيم القانوني لمصر، وبيان أوجه التشابه والاختلاف بينهما. وقد انتهت الدراسة إلى جملة من التوصيات أهمها. يهيب الباحث بالمشرع المصري سرعة إصدار قانون ينظم استخدامات خوارزميات الذكاء الاصطناعي داخل الجهات العامة تحت مسمي "قانون الإدارة الرقمية"، وبما يتوافق مع أحكام القانون الإداري أسوة بالقانون الفرنسي رقم 1321-2016 الصادر في 7 أكتوبر 2016 المتعلق بالجمهورية الرقمية. وإصدار قانون ينظم أحكام الذكاء الاصطناعي بصفة عامة أسوة بالمشرع الكوري الجنوبي الذي أصدر القانون الأساس للذكاء الاصطناعي في 26 ديسمبر 2024، الذي يعد ثانِيَ قانون ينظم الذكاء الاصطناعي بعد قانون الاتحاد الأوربي رقم 1689 لسنة 2024م. The study addressed the administrative responsibility resulting from the participation of algorithms in preparing administrative decisions, as the use of algorithms in preparing administrative decisions has recently become increasingly common, whether in full (electronic coordination) or in part (tax calculation). Consequently, there are other actors who participate with public authorities in making administrative decisions (algorithm designers, developers, programmers, or data providers). This may result in errors by actors that result in damages requiring compensation. This is what made us search for the concept of the algorithmic administrative decision, the legal basis for using algorithms in preparing administrative decisions, the responsibility resulting from the participation of algorithms in preparing decisions, the actors responsible for them, the pillars of responsibility, the difficulties of determining responsibility and ways to avoid them. The study used the descriptive analytical comparative approach by stating the judicial applications that dealt with the subject of responsibility in both France and other countries and the position of the legislator and the judiciary in determining the person responsible for compensating for damages, analyzing and comparing them with the legal organization of Egypt, and stating the similarities and differences between them. The study concluded with a set of recommendations, the most important of which are: The researcher calls on the Egyptian legislator to quickly issue a law regulating the use of artificial intelligence algorithms within public entities under the name of the "Digital Administration Law", in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Law, similar to French Law No. 1321-2016 issued on October 7, 2016 regarding the Digital Republic. And to issue a law regulating the provisions of artificial intelligence in general, similar to the South Korean legislator, which issued the Basic Law on Artificial Intelligence on December 26, 2024, which is the second law regulating artificial intelligence after European Union Law No. 1689 of 2024.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This comparative study examines how administrative liability should be allocated when algorithms participate in preparing administrative decisions, drawing on French, Egyptian, EU, and other jurisdictions' legislation and case law. The author argues that public bodies remain responsible for algorithmic decisions, that gaps in legislation make it hard for courts to identify the responsible actor, and that shared responsibility plus soft-law instruments are the way forward.

Key findings

  • The French legislature permitted algorithmic involvement in administrative decision-making via Law No. 2016-1321 of 7 October 2016 and Decree No. 2017-330 of 14 March 2017 (CRPA arts. L. 311-3-1 and R. 311-3-1-2), while the Constitutional Council (decision No. 2018-765 DC of 12 June 2018) held that administration may not rely exclusively on an algorithm that can revise its own rules without human control and validation.
  • The Egyptian legislature allowed algorithmic processing of personal data under Law No. 151 of 2020, and the author notes Egypt has not yet enacted a law regulating AI comparable to the EU AI Act (2024) or South Korea's Law No. 1689 of 2024.
  • Under GDPR art. 82, the CJEU held (Case C-300/21, 4 May 2023) that proof of actual damage is a condition of the right to compensation, and that a mere infringement is not sufficient; later rulings (C-456/22, 14 Dec 2023; C-687/21, 25 Jan 2024) addressed moral damage and burden of proof.
  • The author proposes a presumption of causation between the algorithmic system's output and the damage, plus a "shared responsibility" model distributing liability among designers, programmers, operators, data providers, and the administration, and recommends soft-law instruments (codes of good practice, ethical charters) alongside legislation.

Methods

  • Comparative legal analysis of legislation, doctrine, and case law from France, Egypt, the EU, the US (Wisconsin Supreme Court, *State v. Loomis*, 2016), Lithuania (Supreme Administrative Court, 19 Feb 2020), and South Africa (*Mavundla*, 8 Jan 2025).
  • The study applies the three traditional elements of administrative liability (fault, damage, causal link) to algorithmic administrative decisions and examines judicial practice on identifying the responsible party and allocating the burden of proof.
  • Sources include GDPR arts. 22, 24, 82; French CRPA provisions; Egyptian Law 151/2020; CJEU judgments; and Conseil d'État and Conseil constitutionnel decisions.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the absence of legislation regulating algorithmic participation in administrative decision-making obstructs the administrative judiciary in identifying who is responsible, and that the technical complexity and opacity of algorithms make it hard for judges to understand how decisions were produced.
  • The paper notes that the legal framework for algorithmic administrative decisions remains unclear and that judicial applications are still scarce.
  • Evident from the text: the analysis is largely doctrinal and normative, with no empirical data or systematic case sampling; the author's proposed presumption of causation and shared-responsibility model are put forward as recommendations rather than tested proposals.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.21608/jlr.2025.359047.1662

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 17 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Premisecitation

    Algorithms capable of revising the rules they apply cannot be used as the exclusive basis of an individual administrative decision without the control and validation of the data controller.

    “Il en résulte que ne peuvent être utilisés, comme fondement exclusif d'une décision administrative individuelle, des algorithmes susceptibles de réviser eux-mêmes les règles qu'ils appliquent, sans le contrôle et la validation du responsable du traitement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites CC, décis.n° 2018-765 DC du 12 juin 2018

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Premisecitation

    The French Constitutional Council, in decision No. 2020-834 QPC of 3 April 2020, held that a higher-education institution's sending of a document relating to a registration request constitutes an administrative decision subject to challenge before the administrative judge.

    “‫اﻟﺪﺳﺘﻮري‬ ‫اﳌﺠﻠﺲ‬ ‫ﻗﴣ‬ ‫اﻟﺸﺄن‬ ‫ذﻟﻚ‬ ‫وﰲ‬ ٣ ‫اﺑﺮﻳﻞ‬ ٢٠٢٠ ‫م‬”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “‫وﺛﻴﻘﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﺈرﺳﺎل‬ ‫اﻟﻌﺎﱄ‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬ ‫ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ‬ ‫ﻗﻴﺎم‬ ‫إن‬ ‫إدارﻳﺔ‬ ‫دورة‬ ‫ﰲ‬ ‫اﻟﺘـﺴﺠﻴﻞ‬ ‫ﻃﻠـﺐ‬ ‫ﺑﺪراﺳﺔ‬ ‫ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ‬ ‫ﻳﺸﻜﻞ‬ ‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻴﺔ‬ ‫إدارﻳﺎ‬ ‫ﻗﺮارا‬”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Conseil constitutionnel, 3 Avril 2020, 2020-834 QPC

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Premisecitation

    The French legislator permitted the use of algorithms in preparing administrative decisions by Law No. 2016-1321 of 7 October 2016 (Digital Republic Law).

    “‫اﻟﻔﺮﻧﴘ‬ ‫اﳌﴩع‬ ‫أﺟﺎزه‬ ‫ﻋـﺎم‬ ‫اﻟـﺼﺎدر‬ ‫اﻟﺮﻗﻤﻴـﺔ‬ ‫اﳉﻤﻬﻮرﻳـﺔ‬ ‫ﻗﺎﻧﻮن‬ ٢٠١٦ ‫رﻗـﻢ‬ ، ١٣٢١ -٢٠١٦”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Loi n° 2016-1321

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Premisecitation

    The French Constitutional Council, in decision No. 2018-765 DC of 12 June 2018 on the personal data protection law, held that the reservation does not change the essence of the administration's authority to issue an administrative decision on an algorithmic basis.

    “‫ﻗﴣ‬ ‫اﻟﺬي‬ ، ‫اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧـﺎت‬ ‫ﺑﺤﲈﻳـﺔ‬ ‫اﳌﺘﻌﻠـﻖ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻘـﺎﻧﻮن‬ ‫ﺟﺰﺋﻴﺔ،‬ ‫دﺳﺘﻮرﻳﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ‬ ) ٢ ( .‫ﺟـﻮﻫﺮ‬ ‫ﻳﻐﲑ‬ ‫ﻻ‬ ‫واﺣﺪ‬ ‫ﺧﻮارزﻣﻲ‬ ‫أﺳﺎس‬ ‫ﻋﲆ‬ ‫إداري‬ ‫ﺑﻘﺮار‬ ‫اﻟﱰﺧﻴﺺ‬ ‫أن‬ ‫ﻳﺮى‬ ‫وﻫﻮ‬ ‫اﻹدارة‬ ‫ﺻﻼﺣﻴﺎت‬”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites CC, décis.n° 2018-765 DC du 12 juin 2018

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Premisecitation

    The Egyptian legislator recognized algorithmic administrative decisions by Law No. 5 of 2022.

    “‫رﻗـﻢ‬ ‫اﻟﻘـﺎﻧﻮن‬ ‫ﺑﻤﻮﺟـﺐ‬ ‫اﳌﴩع‬ ‫اﻋﱰف‬ ‫ﻛﲈ‬ ٥ ‫ﻟـﺴﻨﺔ‬ ٢٠٢٢ ‫م‬”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites قانون رقم 5 لسنة 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 14
  • May combine two claims. 6
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The use of algorithms in the making of administrative decisions has become inevitable and is increasing significantly.

    “اﻟﻘﺮارات‬ ‫ﺻﻨﻊ‬ ‫ﰲ‬ ‫اﳋﻮارزﻣﻴﺎت‬ ‫اﺳﺘﺨﺪام‬ ‫اﻟﻮﻗـﺖ‬ ‫ﰲ‬ ‫ﳏﺎﻟـﺔ‬ ‫ﻻ‬ ‫أﻣـﺮا‬ ‫أﺻـﺒﺢ‬ ‫اﻹدارﻳﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻘـﺎﻧﻮن‬ ‫اﻟﻔﺮﻧـﴘ‬ ‫اﳌﴩع‬ ‫أﺻﺪر‬ ‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬ ‫وﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ‬ ‫ﻛﺒﲑ‬ ‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞ‬ ‫وﻳﺘﺰاﻳﺪ‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻄﻮر‬ ‫أﺻﺒﺢ‬ ‫ﺑﻞ‬ ‫اﳊﺎﱄ،‬”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    Spain adopted a Charter of Digital Rights.

    “اﻟﺮﻗﻤﻴﺔ‬ ‫اﳊﻘﻮق‬ ‫ﻣﻴﺜﺎق‬ ‫إﺳﺒﺎﻧﻴﺎ‬ ‫اﻋﺘﻤﺪت‬ ‫وﻗﺪ‬ .‫أﻧـﻮاع‬ ‫ﺳﺘﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﲔ‬ ‫اﳌﻠﺰم‬ ‫ﻏﲑ‬ ‫اﻟﺼﻚ‬ ‫ﻫﺬا‬ ‫وﻳﻤﻴﺰ‬”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    The Swiss Federal Council adopted, in 2020, guiding principles relating to artificial intelligence.

    “ﻋـﺎم‬ ‫ﰲ‬ ‫اﻟﺴﻮﻳﴪي‬ ‫اﻻﲢﺎدي‬ ‫اﳌﺠﻠﺲ‬ ‫اﻋﺘﻤﺪ‬ ‫ﺳﻮﻳﴪا،‬ ‫وﰲ‬ ٢٠٢٠ ‫ﻟﻼﲢـﺎد،‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨـﺴﺒﺔ‬ ، ‫اﻻﺻ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﺬﻛﺎء‬ ‫ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ‬ ‫ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻬﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﺒﺎدئ‬ ‫ﻄﻨﺎﻋﻲ‬”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    The South Korean legislator issued the Basic Law on Artificial Intelligence on 26 December 2024.

    “اﳉﻨـﻮﰊ‬ ‫اﻟﻜـﻮري‬ ‫اﳌـﴩع‬ ٢٦ ‫ـﺴﻢ‬ ‫دﻳـ‬ ‫ﱪ‬ ٢٠٢٤ ، ‫رﻗﻢ‬ ‫اﻷورﰊ‬ ‫اﻻﲢﺎد‬ ‫ﻗﺎﻧﻮن‬ ‫ﺑﻌﺪ‬ ‫اﻻﺻﻄﻨﺎﻋﻲ‬ ‫اﻟﺬﻛﺎء‬ ‫ﻳﻨﻈﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺎﻧﻮن‬ ‫ﺛﺎﲏ‬ ‫ﻳﻌﺪ‬ ‫واﻟﺬي‬ ِ ١٦٨٩ ‫ﻟﺴﻨﺔ‬ ٢٠٢٤ ‫م‬”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingcitation

    The French National Commission on Informatics and Liberty (CNIL) issued recommendations on the ethical development of algorithms.

    “اﻟﻔﺮﻧــﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫ــﺎت‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺨﻮارزﻣﻴـ‬ .‫و‬ ‫ــﲆ‬ ‫وﻋـ‬ ‫ــﻪ‬ ‫ﺟـ‬ ‫ﺑﺈﻧﺸﺎء‬ ‫ﺗﻮﴆ‬ ‫اﳋﺼﻮص،‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎت‬ ‫ﺗﺪﻗﻴﻖ‬ ‫ﻣﻨﺘﻈﻤﺔ‬ ‫وﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ‬ ‫إﱃ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ‬ ‫اﳋﻮارزﻣﻴﺔ،‬ ‫ﻟﻸﻧﻈﻤﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻬﻢ‬ ‫اﻷﺧﻼﻗﻴﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ‬ ‫ﻋﲆ‬ ‫اﳌﺼﻤﻤﲔ‬ ‫ﺗﺪرﻳﺐ‬”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites CNIL

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingcitation

    The European Parliament proposed a resolution on civil law rules on robotics on 16 February 2017.

    “ﺑﺎﻹ‬ ‫اﻷوروﰊ‬ ‫اﻟﱪﳌـﺎن‬ ‫ﻗـﺮار‬ ‫اﻗﱰح‬ ‫ذﻟﻚ،‬ ‫إﱃ‬ ‫ﺿﺎﻓﺔ‬ ) ٣ ( ‫ﻗﻮاﻋـﺪ‬ ‫ﺑـﺸﺄن‬ ، ‫ﰲ‬ ‫اﳌﻌﺘﻤـﺪ‬ ‫اﻟﺮوﺑﻮﺗـﺎت،‬ ‫ﺑﺸﺄن‬ ‫اﳌﺪﲏ‬ ‫اﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮن‬ ١٦ ‫ﻓﱪاﻳـﺮ‬ ٢٠١٧”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Résolution du Parlement européen concernant des règles de droit civil sur la robotique adoptée le 16 février 2017, EC/2015/2103(INL)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    Explainable AI (XAI) techniques have begun to be developed in order to make decision-making processes more transparent and understandable.

    “ـﻮﻳﺮ‬ ‫ﺗﻄـ‬ ‫ـﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﺜـ‬ ‫ـﻮر،‬ ‫اﻟﻈﻬـ‬ ‫ﰲ‬ ‫ـﻮل‬ ‫اﳊﻠـ‬ ‫ـﺾ‬ ‫ﺑﻌـ‬ ‫ـﺪأت‬ ‫ﺑـ‬ ‫ـﺴﲑ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺘﻔـ‬ ‫ـﺔ‬ ‫ﻗﺎﺑﻠـ‬ ‫ـﺎت‬ ‫ﺧﻮارزﻣﻴـ‬ ) XAI ( ‫ـﺬﻛﺎء‬ ‫اﻟـ‬”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The Egyptian Council of Ministers issued Decision No. 1699 of 2020 issuing the executive regulations of Law No. 175 of 2018 on combating IT crimes.

    “‫اﳌـﺎدة‬ ‫وﺗـﻨﺺ‬ ) ٩ ( ‫رﻗـﻢ‬ ‫اﻟـﻮزراء‬ ‫ﳎﻠـﺲ‬ ‫ﻗـﺮار‬ ‫ﻣـﻦ‬ ١٦٩٩ ‫ﻟـﺴﻨﺔ‬ ٢٠٢٠ ‫اﻟﻼﺋﺤـﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﺈﺻـﺪار‬ ‫رﻗﻢ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮن‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻳﺔ‬ ١٧٥ ‫ﻟـﺴﻨﺔ‬ ٢٠١٨”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites قرار مجلس الوزراء رقم 1699 لسنة 2020

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The administration bears responsibility for defects in the system, whereas it may bear responsibility for the correct use of the technology.

    “ﳌـﺰودة‬ ‫ﻏـﲑ‬ ‫اﻻﺳـﺘﺨﺪام‬ ‫ﻋـﻦ‬ ‫ﻣـﺴﺆوﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫اﻹدارﻳـﺔ‬ ‫اﳉﻬـﺔ‬ ‫ﺗﺘﺤﻤـﻞ‬ ‫ﻗـﺪ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻨﲈ‬ ‫اﻟﻨﻈﺎم،‬ ‫ﰲ‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻴﻮب‬ ‫ﻋﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺆوﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬ ‫اﻟﺼﺤﻴﺢ‬”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Algorithms may be more just and accurate than humans, add more transparency, and provide more accurate treatment compared to works done by humans.

    “‫اﻟﺸﻔﺎﻓﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫اﳌﺰﻳﺪ‬ ‫إﺿﺎﻓﺔ‬ ‫وﻳﻤﻜﻨﻬﺎ‬ ‫اﻟﺒﴩ،‬ ‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ودﻗﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺪﻻ‬ ‫أﻛﺜﺮ‬ ‫ﺗﻜﻮن‬ ‫ﻗﺪ‬ ‫اﳋﻮارزﻣﻴﺎت‬ ً ‫اﻻﻧـﺴﺎن‬ ‫ﲠـﺎ‬ ‫ﻳﻘـﻮم‬ ‫اﻟﺘـﻲ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻷﻋﲈل‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎرﻧﺔ‬ ‫دﻗﺔ‬ ‫أﻛﺜﺮ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔ‬ ‫وﺗﻘﺪم‬ ‫اﻹدارﻳﺔ،‬ ‫اﻹﺟﺮاءات‬ ‫إﱃ‬”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Algorithms can do the exact opposite, as if biased toward making a decision not consistent with desire, according to their design and programming.

    “‫إﻻ‬ ‫أﳖﺎ‬ ‫رﻏﺒﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﻊ‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻮاﻓﻖ‬ ‫ﻣﴩوع‬ ‫ﻏﲑ‬ ‫ﻗﺮار‬ ‫اﲣﺎذ‬ ‫إﱃ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺤﺎز‬ ‫ﻛﺄن‬ ‫ﲤﺎﻣﺎ‬ ‫ذﻟﻚ‬ ‫ﻋﻜﺲ‬ ‫ﺗﻔﻌﻞ‬ ‫أن‬ ‫ﻳﻤﻜﻨﻬﺎ‬ ً ‫وﺑﺮﳎﺘﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻤﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﺗﻢ‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻲ‬ ‫اﻵﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫وﻓﻖ‬ ‫ﺗﻌﻤﻞ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﺧﺘﺼﺎر‬”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Algorithms work according to what their maker, programmer, or operator made them do.

    “‫ﻷﳖﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﺸﻐﻠﻬﺎ،‬ ‫أو‬ ‫ﻣﱪﳎﻬﺎ‬ ‫أو‬ ‫ﻣﺼﻨﻌﻬﺎ‬ ‫أدق‬ ‫بﻤﻌﻨﻲ‬ ‫أو‬ ‫أﺟﻠﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ‬ » ‫أﺟﻠﻪ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺻﻨﻌﻬﻢ‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻢ‬ ‫ﻣﺎ‬ ‫ﻳﻌﻤﻠﻮن‬ ‫إﳖﻢ‬ «”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Under the EU data protection framework, the controller should have to prove that its compelling legitimate interests prevail over the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject.

    “Il devrait incomber au responsable du traitement de prouver que ses intérêts légitimes impérieux prévalent sur les intérêts ou les libertés et droits fondamentaux de la personne concernée.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites https://www.cnil.fr/fr/reglement-europeen-protection-donnees

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    When harm results from the involvement of algorithms in preparing administrative decisions, all those who participated in causing the harm (designers, programmers, data providers and the administration) are liable, and compensation is apportioned jointly among them.

    “ﻟﻠﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ‬ ‫اﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ‬ .‫اﳌـﺴﺆوﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﺈن‬ ‫اﳋﺎﻃﺌﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎت‬ ‫ﻫﺬه‬ ‫ﲣﺺ‬ ‫ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ‬ ‫إﻋﻄﺎء‬ ‫إﱄ‬ ‫أدى‬ ‫ﳑﺎ‬ ‫ﺧﺎﻃﺌﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎت‬ ‫إدﺧﺎل‬ ‫ﻋﻦ‬ ‫ﻧﺎﲡﺎ‬ ‫اﳋﻄﺄ‬”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Under Article 82 of the GDPR, a controller or processor is exempt from liability if it proves that it is not in any way responsible for the event giving rise to the damage.

    “٣ -‫ﻳﻌﻔـﻰ‬ ُ ‫اﻟﻔﻘﺮة‬ ‫ﺑﻤﻮﺟﺐ‬ ‫اﳌﺴﺆوﻟﻴﺔ،‬ ‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫اﻟﺒﺎﻃﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫اﳌﻘﺎول‬ ‫أو‬ ‫اﳌﺮاﻗﺐ‬ ٢ ‫اﻟﺘـﻲ‬ ‫اﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‬ ‫أن‬ ‫أﺛﺒﺖ‬ ‫إذا‬ ، ‫اﻷﺣـﻮال‬ ‫ﻣـﻦ‬ ‫ﺣـﺎل‬ ‫ﺑـﺄي‬ ‫إﻟﻴـﻪ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺴﺐ‬ ‫ﻻ‬ ‫اﻟﴬر‬ ‫ﰲ‬ ‫ﺗﺴﺒﺒﺖ‬”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Article 82

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Under Article 82 of the GDPR, a controller or processor that has paid full compensation has the right to claim back from the other controllers or processors involved in the same processing the part of the compensation corresponding to their responsibility.

    “٥ -‫اﻟﺒ‬ ‫ﻣﺮاﻗـﺐ‬ ‫ﻳﻘﻮم‬ ‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ‬ ‫اﳌﻘـﺎول‬ ‫أو‬ ‫ﻴﺎﻧـﺎت‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻔﻘﺮة‬ ‫وﻓﻘﺎ‬ ‫اﻟﺒﺎﻃﻦ،‬ ‫ﻣﻦ‬ ً ٤ ‫ﻣـﻦ‬ ‫اﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒـﺔ‬ ‫ﻟـﻪ‬ ‫ﳛـﻖ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺎﻣـﻞ،‬ ‫ﺑـﻪ‬ ‫ﳊـﻖ‬ ‫اﻟـﺬي‬ ‫اﻟـﴬر‬ ‫ﺑﺈﺻـﻼح‬”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Article 82

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The current legal regulation of algorithmic administrative decision-making is unclear and does not support the legal framework for determining responsibility.

    “وﻻ‬ ‫اﳌﻌـﺎﱂ‬ ‫واﺿـﺢ‬ ‫ﻏﲑ‬ ‫اﳊﺎﱄ‬ ‫اﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﲏ‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻢ‬ ‫ﻓﺈن‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻘﻨﻲ‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻄﻮر‬ ‫ﻫﺬا‬ ‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫اﻟﺮﻏﻢ‬ ‫وﻋﲆ‬ ‫اﳌﺴﺆوﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ‬ ‫اﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﲏ‬ ‫اﻹﻃﺎر‬ ‫ﻳﺪﻋﻢ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟـﺸﻜﻞ‬ ‫اﳋـﻮارزﻣﻲ‬ ‫اﻹداري‬ ‫اﻟﻘـﺮار‬ ‫ﻋﲆ‬ ‫اﳌﱰﺗﺒﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ‬”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The involvement of artificial intelligence algorithms in preparing administrative decisions brings in new actors, which makes it difficult to determine who caused the errors.

    “وﰲ‬ ‫اﻹداري‬ ‫اﻟﻘـﺮار‬ ‫إﻋـﺪاد‬ ‫ﰲ‬ ‫اﻻﺻﻄﻨﺎﻋﻲ‬ ‫اﻟﺬﻛﺎء‬ ‫ﺧﻮارزﻣﻴﺎت‬ ‫رﻛﺔ‬ ‫ﻣـﻊ‬ ‫ﺟـﺪد‬ ‫ﻓـﺎﻋﻠﲔ‬ ‫ﺗـﺪاﺧﻞ‬ ‫ﻣـﻊ‬ ‫ﺧﺎﺻﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﻴﻬﺎ،‬ ‫اﳌﺘﺴﺒﺐ‬ ‫ﲢﺪﻳﺪ‬ ‫ﻳﺼﻌﺐ‬ ‫اﻟﺘﻲ‬ ‫اﻷﺧﻄﺎء‬ ‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫اﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ‬”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
18 of 18

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [15]15. Arguments for other approaches in relation to other forms of outsourced public decision-making have also been proposed -see, e.g., C Scott 'Accountability in the Regulatory State' (2000) 27 Journal of Law and Society 1
  2. [20]20. Eser, A. / Kubiciel, M. (2019), in: Meyer, J. / Hölscheidt, S. (Eds.), Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union, 5th Edn., Art. 47, para. 37.
  3. [30]30. Danièle Bourcier, Primavera de Filippi. Les algorithmes sont ils devenus le langage ordinaire de l'administration? Geneviève Koubi, Lucie Cluzel-Métayer, Wafa Tamzini. Lectures critiques du Code des relations Public et administration, LGDJ, pp.193-210, 2018, 978-2-275-05513-8. ffhal-01850928f.
  4. [49]49. Pour une vision d'ensemble, V. Cluzel-Métayer, L., « The Judicial Review of the Automated Administrative Act », European Review of Digital Administration and Law, 2020, vol. 1, 1-2, p. 101

Related

Authors
علوان, ع. ا. ع. ا.
Venue
مجلة البحوث الفقهية والقانونية
Publisher
Egyptian Knowledge Bank
Published
2025-04-01
Volume
49
Issue
49
Pages
2077-2162
ISSN
  • 1110-3779 (ISSN-L)
  • 2636-2805
DOI
10.21608/jlr.2025.359047.1662
OpenAlex
W4411247386
Cited by
0
References
0
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
ar
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • مجلة البحوث الفقهية والقانونية (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Administrative Law and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
Keywords
administrative liability, algorithms, administrative decisions, algorithmic decision-making, artificial intelligence in public administration, tax calculation, elements of liability, compensation for damages, comparative law, Egypt, AI regulation

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-11.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-11.

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