Articles for tag: EU legislationEuropäische KommissionHerrschaft des AlgorithmusKIRechtsstaatlichkeit

Artificial Intelligence Must Be Used According to the Law, or Not at All

Democracy requires to strengthen the Rule of Law wherever public or private actors use algorithmic systems. The law must set out the requirements on AI necessary in a democratic society and organize appropriate accountability and oversight. To this end, the European Commission made several legislative proposals. In addition to the discussion on how to use algorithmic systems lawfully, the question when it is beneficial to use them deserves more attention.

Not looking up

It now seems that after the ruling is before the ruling. The Commission is intent on continuing with its wait-and-see approach, a situation which Hungarian MEP Katalin Cseh compared to the Netflix movie “Don’t look up”, in which the President of the United States decides to ignore the huge comet approaching the earth. While in the movie the comet finally destroys the planet, the European Parliament, however, is determined not to let it come to that. It has made clear that it will not tolerate this policy of looking the other way and has taken up arms.

Quantifying ›Better Regulation‹

The EU Commission is expected to publish later this month its long-awaited proposal on Sustainable Corporate Governance, an initiative to ‘better align the interests of companies, their shareholders, managers, stakeholders and society’. Almost a year of delay and possibly some toning down of the legislative ambition can be attributed, in large part, to the double negative opinion issued by the EU Regulatory Scrutiny Board’s (RSB) on the Impact Assessment. In doing so, the RSB – a body whose absence from public debate seems largely disproportionate to its actual powers – has shown its teeth and incidentally revealed some of the shortcomings of its own mandate.

Time to Rewrite the EU Directive on Combating Terrorism

The adoption of EU Directive 2017/541 on combating terrorism in March 2017 has profoundly changed the landscape of European counter-terrorism law. The primary aim of this Directive was to further harmonise the legal framework under which terrorist offences are prosecuted across EU Member States by establishing minimum rules and standards. However, the adverse consequences for the rule of law and human rights have been overlooked from the very outset by the EU institutions. Now, five years after its adoption, it is time for a thorough revision.

Auf heiklem Terrain

Die Zusage der Bundesregierung gegenüber der Europäischen Kommission, künftige Ultra-Vires-Feststellungen durch das Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) zu vermeiden, ist verfassungsrechtlich mindestens bedenklich. Nicht nur aus Perspektive der richterlichen Unabhängigkeit handelt es sich hierbei um einen heiklen Vorgang. Auch in Hinblick auf die Unparteilichkeit und Distanz des BVerfG gegenüber den zu kontrollierenden obersten Bundesorganen wirft die Zusage möglicherweise Fragen auf.

Questions of Integrity

Many have rightly criticized the Commission for failing to robustly defend the EU’s founding values from academic freedom, to media freedom, to judicial independence, to the rights of refugees or the LGBT community. In these discussions, the Commission’s failure to take action against another form of discrimination is generally ignored: discrimination against national minorities. Looking at the example of Hungarian communities in other member states, this post highlights the Commission’s failure to defend ethnic or national minorities against discrimination. This is in stark contrast with the fact that the protection of and respect for minorities is a founding value of the EU, ranked equally to democracy, rule of law and human dignity.

The Guardian is Absent

What limits does European Union (EU) law impose on Member States invoking national security to temporarily re-introduce border controls within the Schengen Area? This question will be answered soon by the European court of Justice (ECJ) in the joined cases C-368/20 NW v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark and C-369/20 NW v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Leibnitz.