Verfassungsrecht für digitale Technologien, KI-Governance, Plattformregulierung, digitale Rechte und verfassungsrechtliche Aspekte des technologischen Wandels. Umfasst digitale Grundrechte, Datenschutz als Verfassungsrecht und verfassungsrechtliche Regulierung neuer Technologien.
Das Bitcoin-Whitepaper datiert von 2008. Seitdem hat Bitcoin eine enorme Aufmerksamkeit und Wertzuschreibung erfahren, und dabei in einer Distanz zu Staat und Recht gestanden, die gut zu seinen libertären Idealen passt. Mit dem Erfolg kommt nun aber die Regulierung. Es ist daher höchste Zeit, einen Blick auf den grundrechtlichen Rahmen der anlaufenden Blockchain-Regulierung zu werfen – er ist weitestgehend unbesprochen.
The enigmatic Tesla founder Elon Musk has made a public offer to buy 100% of Twitter’s shares at approximately 138% of each share’s value. In his letter of intention submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Musk describes that free speech is necessary in a democratic society, and he wishes to unlock its full potential by bringing Twitter under (his) private ownership. Constitutionally this raises an interesting point: if indeed a billionaire wants to change the rules of speech on the ‘new public squares’ by acquiring a social media platform, can he – and should he be able to?
On 14 April 2022, billionaire Elon Musk came with one of his extravagant ideas: he offered to buy Twitter. According to Musk, who is already majority shareholder, the bid was motivated by his will to fully “unlock” the online platform’s potential as a space for free speech across the globe. This episode calls for a reflection on the future of online platforms as digital spaces for the flourishing of public debate and democracy.
The Polish experience demonstrates how a determined populist government, using the tools available in a democracy, can in a relatively short space of time erode legal safeguards established to control state surveillance activity. The understandable secrecy surrounding the work of the security services must not create an opportunity for the abuse of powers. Surveillance without adequate control weakens democracy, leads to a distortion of its principles, and ultimately, as the ECtHR has warned, threatens its very existence.
Alongside the expansion of surveillance regimes, there is a parallel development of equal importance, through what could be described as safeguard rollbacks. These are different from surveillance creep, in that the aim and purpose of surveillance mandates remains largely the same, but the associated safeguards are gradually weakened. These rollbacks have generally taken place where mandates were initially put in place with strict limits to ensure proportionality and legal certainty, but where the effectiveness of those mandates are later argued to be limited due to the safeguards themselves.
Europe has experienced a significant expansion of state surveillance and counter-terrorism regimes, which demonstrate the increasing appetite of legislators and the executive for the normalisation of surveillance. For long, European Courts offered a powerful pushback against this trend and produced several celebrated victories for fundamental rights over surveillance. However, recent decisions by the CJEU and the ECtHR reveal a different picture, indicating a broader paradigm shift.
On 4 April 2022, Member States of the Council of Europe commences negotiations on the world’s first international binding legal instrument in the field of artificial intelligence. The CoE has a large reservoir of both experience and expertise in the field of standard setting, as far as the three key priorities are concerned: promoting human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Given the undisputed need for regulating AI activities, the CoE appears a prime candidate for this undertaking.
The institutional safeguards formulated under the Rule of Law tend to focus on “an individual” or “the individual” who can be the bearer of the rights and protections it awards. This pre-digital formulation worked well in an era where law was the pre-eminent form of social regulation. However, increasingly, individual interests are impacted not only on the basis of the actions and choices of the concerned individual, but also on the basis of data collected about her social context and that of other similarly situated individuals. In order to reconcile these tensions, in this blog, I argue for supplementing the existing individual protections recognized under the Rule of Law framework with recognition of collective interests in order to strengthen the Rule of Law in the age of AI.
The requirement of explanation for administrative decisions can be found, in one guise or another, in most legal systems. This requirement is a positive obligation on decision-makers in public administrative bodies (among others) to provide the legal basis for their decision. With the continuing growth of artificial intelligence/machine learning technologies being used to streamline administrative decision-making, providing for a right to explanation from black box algorithmic decision-making systems is not a straightforward endeavor.
The advent of statistical ‘legal tech’ raises questions about the future of law and legal practice. While it has always been the case that technologies have mediated the concept, practice, and texture of law, a qualitative and quantitative shift is taking place. Statistical legal tech is being integrated into mainstream legal practice, particularly that of litigators. These applications mediate how practicing lawyers interact with the legal system. By shaping how law is ‘done’, the applications ultimately come to shape what law is.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters