Full Text

• Yet the advantage ML’s self-learning abilities does, however, come at an interpretative cost. It is widely held in the literature that ML algorithms are black-boxes. Cary Coglianese and David Lehr, ‘Regulating by Robot: Administrative Decision Making in the Machine-Learning Era’ [2017] Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 1159 ;
• Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press 2015)
• Jenna Burrell, ‘How the Machine “Thinks”: Understanding Opacity in Machine Learning Algorithms’ (2016) 3 Big Data & Society accessed 23 May 2023.
• European Commission, White Paper On Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust COM (2020) 65 final 1, 8.
• For a taxonomy of algorithmic regulation systems, see Karen Yeung, ‘Algorithmic Regulation: A Critical Interrogation’ (2018) 12 Regulation & Governance 505.
• Dag Wiese Schartum, ‘From Legal Sources to Programming Code: Automatic Individual Decisions in Public Administration and Computers under the Rule of Law’ in Woodrow Barfield (ed), The Cambridge Handbook of the Law of Algorithms (Cambridge University Press 2020) 307. See for a definition Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act) [2022] OJ L277/1, art 2(s).
• Enarsson et al further note that ‘[h]ybrid decision-making (…) includes (…) systems where human agents retain full decision-making autonomy but rely on algorithmic or automated aspects of information gathering, as well as the range of recommendation or recommender systems’. See Therese Enarsson, Lena Enqvist and Markus Naarttijärvi, ‘Approaching the Human in the Loop – Legal Perspectives on Hybrid Human/Algorithmic Decision-Making in Three Contexts’ (2022) 31 Information & Communications Technology Law 123, 3.
• Karen Yeung and Martin Lodge, Algorithmic Regulation (Oxford University Press 2019) 8.
• On the one hand, it encompasses the principle of legality and the principle of judicial review (see Case 294/83 Parti écologiste ‘Les Verts’ v European Parliament EU:C:1986:166, para 23). On the other hand it requires judicial remedies to protect both procedural and substantive rights (see Case C-50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council EU:C:2002:462, paras 38-39).
• ‘[T]he essence of the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter includes, among other aspects, the possibility, for the person who holds that right, of accessing a court or tribunal with the power to ensure respect for the rights guaranteed to that person by EU law and, to that end, to consider all the issues of fact and of law that are relevant for resolving the case before it’. See Joined Cases C-245/19 and C-246/19 État luxembourgeois (Droit de recours contre une demande d’information en matière fiscale) EU:C:2020:795, para 66 and the case-law cited.
• Jens-Peter Schneider, ‘Information Exchange and Its Problems’ [2017] Research Handbook on EU Administrative Law 81.
• Herwig CH Hofmann, ‘Composite Decision Making Procedures in EU Administrative Law’ in Herwig CH Hofmann and Alexander H Türk (eds), Legal Challenges in EU Administrative Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2009) 144. Hofmann further notes that: ‘Information networks are either established as centralized databases administered on the Community level, eg by an agency or they can also be organized as networks of networks, ie structures on the European level, linking pre-existing or newly established databases on the Member State level’. See ibid.
• Composite procedures have been defined in the ReNEUAL Model Rules on EU Administrative Procedure as ‘an administrative procedure where EU authorities and the authorities of a Member State or of different Member States have distinct functions which are inter-dependent. A composite procedure may also mean the combination of two administrative procedures that are directly linked’. See ReNEUAL, ‘ReNEUAL Model Rules on EU Administrative Procedure’ (2014), art 1(4).
• Cary Coglianese and David Lehr, ‘Transparency and Algorithmic Governance’ (Social Science Research Network 2018) SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3293008 7 accessed 23 May 2023.
• For a detailed analysis of the Advanced Relational Trading Enforcement Metrics Investigation System (ARTEMIS) and the Abnormal Trading and Link Analysis System (ATLAS). See David Freeman Engstrom and others, ‘Government by Algorithm: Artificial Intelligence in Federal Administrative Agencies’ (Social Science Research Network 2020) SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3551505 23,24 accessed 23 May 2023.
• In the context of competition law, see eg Thibault Schrepel and Teodora Groza, ‘The Adoption of Computational Antitrust by Agencies: 2021 Report’ (21 June 2022) accessed 23 May 2023.
• Mireille Hildebrandt, ‘Algorithmic Regulation and the Rule of Law’ (2018) 376 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 20170355, 2.
• John Zerilli and others, ‘Algorithmic Decision-Making and the Control Problem’ (2019) 29 Minds and Machines 555, 560.
• Michael Veale, Max Van Kleek and Reuben Binns, ‘Fairness and Accountability Design Needs for Algorithmic Support in High-Stakes Public Sector Decision-Making’, Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Association for Computing Machinery 2018) 440 accessed 23 May 2023.
• Regulation (EU) 2018/1240 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 September 2018 establishing a European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) [2018] OJ L 246/1. While it remains to be seen whether machine learning algorithms are used, convincing arguments that it is the case can be found in Charly Derave, Nathan Genicot and Nina Hetmanska, ‘The Risks of Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence: The Case of the European Travel Information and Authorisation System’ (2022) 13 European Journal of Risk Regulation 389, 392–393.
• European Union Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA).
• European Border and Coast Guard Agency.
• ETIAS Regulation (n 20), arts 21-22.
• ETIAS Regulation , art 26.
• Regarding the digitalisation of EU’s external border, see Derave, Genicot and Hetmanska (n 20) 392–393.
• Regarding the digitalisation of EU’s external border, see Derave, Genicot and Hetmanska 8.
• Case C-64/16 Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses EU:C:2018:117, para 36.
• Case C-222/84 Johnston EU:C:1986:206, paras 18 and 19.
• C-362/14 Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner EU:C:2015:650, para 95.
• Joined Cases C-245/19 and C-246/19 État luxembourgeois (Droit de recours contre une demande d’information en matière fiscale) EU:C:2020:795, para 47.
• Case C-300/11 ZZvSecretary of State for the Home Department EU:C:2013:363, para 53.
• Case C-362/09 P Athinaïki Techniki v Commission EU:C:2010:783, para 70.
• Case C-300/11 ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department EU:C:2013:363, para 53.
• Case C-300/11 ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department EU:C:2013:363 para 53 and the case-law cited.
• Margot E Kaminski and Jennifer M Urban, ‘The Right to Contest AI’ (2021) 121 Columbia Law Review 1991 accessed 23 May 2023.
• Daniel N Kluttz, Nitin Kohli and Deirdre K Mulligan, ‘Shaping Our Tools: Contestability as a Means to Promote Responsible Algorithmic Decision Making in the Professions’ in Kevin Werbach (ed), After the Digital Tornado: Networks, Algorithms, Humanity (Cambridge University Press 2020) 145.
• Daniel N Kluttz, Nitin Kohli and Deirdre K Mulligan, ‘Shaping Our Tools: Contestability as a Means to Promote Responsible Algorithmic Decision Making in the Professions’ in Kevin Werbach (ed), After the Digital Tornado: Networks, Algorithms, Humanity 147.
• Henrietta Lyons, Eduardo Velloso and Tim Miller, ‘Conceptualising Contestability: Perspectives on Contesting Algorithmic Decisions’ (2021) 5 Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 1, 15.
• For an overview of Ethics Guidelines where contestability is mentionned, see Anna Jobin, Marcello Ienca and Effy Vayena, ‘The Global Landscape of AI Ethics Guidelines’ (2019) 1 Nature Machine Intelligence 389, 394.
• See Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) [2016] OJ L119/1 (GDPR), art 22.
• Miroslava Scholten and Daniel Scholten, ‘From Regulation to Enforcement in the EU Policy Cycle: A New Type of Functional Spillover?’ (2017) 55 JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 925, 930.
• Ellen Mastenbroek and Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen, ‘Filling the Gap in the European Administrative Space: The Role of Administrative Networks in EU Implementation and Enforcement’ (2018) 25 Journal of European Public Policy 422, 423.
• Herwig CH Hofmann, ‘Mapping the European Administrative Space’ (2008) 31 West European Politics 662, 671.
• Emilie Chevalier, ‘L’espace Administratif Européen’ in Jean-Bernard Auby and Jacqueline Dutheil de la Rochère (eds), Traité de droit administratif européen (2nd edn, Bruylant 2014) 452.
• See David Levi-Faur, ‘Regulatory Networks and Regulatory Agencification: Towards a Single European Regulatory Space’ (2011) 18 Journal of European Public Policy 810, 818.
• See n 14 for a definition.
• For a taxonomy, see Herwig CH Hofmann, ‘Multi-Jurisdictional Composite Procedures - The Backbone to the EU’s Single Regulatory Space’ [2019] University of Luxembourg Law Working Paper accessed 23 May 2023.
• Schneider (n 12) 81.
• Case C-402/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission EU:C:2008:461, para 326.
• Case C-402/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission EU:C:2008 285.
• Case C-584/10 P Commission and Others v Kadi EU:C:2013:518, para 119.
• Case C-55/06 Arcor EU:C:2008:244, para 170.
• See eg Case C 497/20 Randstad Italia EU:C:2021:1037.
• Anthony Arnull, ‘Article 47 CFR and National Procedural Autonomy’ (2020) 45 European Law Review, 681-693.
• Rob Widdershoven, ‘The European Court of Justice and the Standard of Judicial Review’ in Jurgen de Poorter and Ernst Hirsch Ballin (eds), Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion in the Administrative State (2019) 58.
• Case C-64/16 Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses EU:C:2018:117, para 36.
• See Case 294/83 Parti écologiste ‘Les Verts’ v European Parliament EU:C:1986:166, para 23 and art 2 TEU.
• Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/47 (TFEU), art 19(1);
• and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/02 (CFR), art 47.
• Hofmann, ‘Composite Decision Making Procedures in EU Administrative Law’ (n 13) 151. Mariolina Eliantonio, ‘Judicial Review in an Integrated Administration: The Case of “Composite Procedures”’ (2015) 7 Review of European Administrative Law 65, 96.
• Paolo Mazzotti and Mariolina Eliantonio, ‘Transnational Judicial Review in Horizontal Composite Procedures: Berlioz, Donnellan, and the Constitutional Law of the Union’ (2020) 5 European Papers 41, 54.
• Case T-721/14 Belgium v Commission EU:T:2015:829, para 17 and the case-law cited. It should be noted that while individuals cannot request action for annulment, preliminary rulings via national courts over interpretation and validity of all EU acts remain possible. It is settled case-law that “while Article 263 TFEU excludes the Court’s review of acts having the nature of a recommendation in the context of an action for annulment, it follows from Article 19(3)(b) TEU and the first paragraph of Article 267(b) TFEU that the Court has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on the interpretation and validity of acts of the institutions of the Union, without any exception”. See eg Case C-501/18 BT v Balgarska Narodna Banka EU:C:2021:249, para 82 and the case-law cited.
• Sergio Alonso de Leon, ‘Composite Administrative Procedures in the EU’ (DPhil thesis, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid 2017) 361-363. See for preparatory acts and legal defects appearing during internal procedural steps, Case C-60/81 IBM v Commission EU:C:1981:264, paras 10-12. For purely informative exchanges of information, see Case T-337/04 Pitsiorlas v Council and ECB EU:T:2007:357, para 61.
• Case C-60/81 IBM v Commission EU:C:1981:264.
• Case C-60/81 IBM v Commission EU, para 9.
• Case C-16/16 P Belgium v Commission EU:C:2018:79, para 32.
• See eg Case T-337/04 Pitsiorlas v Council and ECB EU:T:2007:357, para 58 and the case-law cited.
• See in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice, eg Niovi Vavoula, ‘Information Sharing in the Dublin System: Remedies for Asylum Seekers In-Between Gaps in Judicial Protection and Interstate Trust’ (2021) 22 German Law Journal 391.
• Hofmann, ‘Multi-Jurisdictional Composite Procedures - The Backbone to the EU’s Single Regulatory Space’ (n 48) 19.
• Napoleon Xanthoulis, ‘Administrative Factual Conduct: Legal Effects and Judicial Control in EU Law’ (2019) 12 Review of European Administrative Law 39, 43.
• Hofmann, ‘Multi-Jurisdictional Composite Procedures - The Backbone to the EU’s Single Regulatory Space’ (n 48) 21.
• Leon (n 69) 345–346. Regarding judicial review in scenarios where the final decision is taken at the EU level or where an act of a national authority that is part of a decision-making process of the European Union does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the EU Courts, see Case C-219/17 Berlusconi EU:C:2018:1023.
• For a detailed analysis of the case-law, see ibid 345–350.
• See eg Case T-225/07 Thomson Sales Europe v Commission EU:T:2009:363, para 186 and the case-law cited.
• Luis Arroyo Jiménez, ‘Effective Judicial Protection and Mutual Recognition in the European Administrative Space’ (2021) 22 German Law Journal 344, 356.
• Mazzotti and Eliantonio (n 67) 43.
• Jiménez (n 85) 357; Mazzotti and Eliantonio (n 67) 43.
• See for analysis: Mazzotti and Eliantonio (n 67) 44–46; Jiménez (n 85) 358; Hofmann, ‘Multi-Jurisdictional Composite Procedures - The Backbone to the EU’s Single Regulatory Space’ (n 48) 19.
• Hofmann, ‘Multi-Jurisdictional Composite Procedures - The Backbone to the EU’s Single Regulatory Space’ (n 48) 20.
• Case C-682/15 Berlioz Investment Fund EU:C:2017:373, para 84.
• Case C-682/15 Berlioz Investment Fund EU:C:2017:373 92.
• Case C-682/15 Berlioz Investment Fund EU:C:2017:373 86.
• Mazzotti and Eliantonio (n 67) 47.
• Simona Demkova, ‘The Decisional Value of Information in European Semi-Automated Decision-Making’ (2021) 2 Review of European Administrative Law 38.
• Case C-60/81 IBM v Commission EU:C:1981:264, para 9.
• Case C-16/16 P Belgium v Commission EU:C:2018:79, para 32.
• Case C-16/16 P Belgium v Commission EU:C:2018:79 34-35.
• Xanthoulis (n 78) 43.
• Case C-634/21 SCHUFA Holding and Others (Scoring), opinion of AG Pikamäe EU:C:2023:220.
• Case C-634/21 SCHUFA Holding and Others (Scoring), opinion of AG Pikamäe EU:C:2023 35.
• Case C-634/21 SCHUFA Holding and Others (Scoring), opinion of AG Pikamäe EU:C:2023 38.
• Case C-634/21 SCHUFA Holding and Others (Scoring), opinion of AG Pikamäe EU:C:2023 40.
• Demkova (n 96) 45.
• Case T-160/98 Van Parys v Commission EU:T:2002:18, para 65.
• Case T-160/98 Van Parys v Commission EU:T:2002:18, para 65. See also Case T-225/07 Thomson Sales Europe v Commission EU:T:2009:363, para 187.
• Demkova (n 96) 41–43.
• Demkova (n 96) 39.
• Arjan Widlak, Marlies van Eck and Rik Peeters, ‘Towards Principles of Good Digital Administration: Fairness, Accountability and Proportionality in Automated Decision Making’ in Marc Schuilenburg and Rik Peeters (eds), The Algorithmic Society. Technology, power and knowledge (Routledge 2021) 27 accessed 23 May 2023.
• Hofmann, ‘Composite Decision Making Procedures in EU Administrative Law’ (n 13) 144.
• Case C-817/19 Ligue des droits humains v Conseil des ministres EU:C:2022:491.
• Art 6 (5) and (6) Directive (EU) 2016/681 on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime.
• Case C-817/19 Ligue des droits humains v Conseil des ministers, opinion of AG Pitruzzella EU:C:2022:65, para 228.
• Case C-817/19 Ligue des droits humains v Conseil des ministres EU:C:2022:491, para 195.
• Joined Cases C-245/19 and C-246/19 État luxembourgeois (Droit de recours contre une demande d’information en matière fiscale) EU:C:2020:795, para 60.
• ibid para 66 and the case-law cited.
• Paul Craig, ‘Transparency’ in Paul Craig, EU Administrative law (Oxford University Press) 389.
• Christian Katzenbach and Lena Ulbricht, ‘Algorithmic Governance’ (2019) 8 Internet Policy Review 6.
• In the context of online platforms, see Digital Services Act (n 6), art 15.
• GDPR (n 40), art 14(2)(g).
• For other transparency obligations, see Commission, ‘Proposal for a regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act) and amending certain union legislative acts’ COM (2021) 206 final (AI act), art 52.
• AI act (n 121), art 15. See also to a lesser extent art 52 of the same regulation.
• It would therefore require simpler ML models since it is sometimes impossible to identify which datasets were determinative, for instance, when neural networks are used.
• See European Commission, ‘What is ETIAS?’ (2023) accessed 23 May 2023.
• Eliantonio (n 64) 96.
• Case C-682/15 Berlioz Investment Fund EU:C:2017:373, para 84.
• Herwig CH Hofmann, ‘The Right to an Effective Remedy’ in Steve Peers and others (eds), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary (Bloomsbury Publishing 2021) 1290.