Search

EU regulatory initiatives on technology-related topics has spiked over the past few years. On the basis of its Priorities Programme 2019-2024, while creating “Europe fit for the Digital Age”, the EU Commission has been busy releasing new texts aimed at regulating a number of technology topics, including, among others, data uses, online platforms, cybersecurity, or artificial intelligence. This paper identifies three basic phenomena common to all, or most, EU new technology-relevant regulatory initiatives, namely (a) “act-ification”, (b) “GDPR mimesis”, and (c) “regulatory brutality”. These phenomena divulge new-found confidence on the part of the EU technology legislator, who has by now asserted for itself the right to form policy options and create new rules in the field for all of Europe. These three phenomena serve as indicators or early signs of a new European technology law-making paradigm that by now seems ready to emerge.

The lack of transparency is one of the artificial intelligence (AI)'s fundamental challenges, but the concept of transparency might be even more opaque than AI itself. Researchers in different fields who attempt to provide the solutions to improve AI's transparency articulate different but neighboring concepts that include, besides transparency, explainability and interpretability. Yet, there is no common taxonomy neither within one field (such as data science) nor between different fields (law and data science). In certain areas like healthcare, the requirements of transparency are crucial since the decisions directly affect people's lives. In this paper, we suggest an interdisciplinary vision on how to tackle the issue of AI's transparency in healthcare, and we propose a single point of reference for both legal scholars and data scientists on transparency and related concepts. Based on the analysis of the European Union (EU) legislation and literature in computer science, we submit that transparency shall be considered the “way of thinking” and umbrella concept characterizing the process of AI's development and use. Transparency shall be achieved through a set of measures such as interpretability and explainability, communication, auditability, traceability, information provision, record-keeping, data governance and management, and documentation. This approach to deal with transparency is of general nature, but transparency measures shall be always contextualized. By analyzing transparency in the healthcare context, we submit that it shall be viewed as a system of accountabilities of involved subjects (AI developers, healthcare professionals, and patients) distributed at different layers (insider, internal, and external layers, respectively). The transparency-related accountabilities shall be built-in into the existing accountability picture which justifies the need to investigate the relevant legal frameworks. These frameworks correspond to different layers of the transparency system. The requirement of informed medical consent correlates to the external layer of transparency and the Medical Devices Framework is relevant to the insider and internal layers. We investigate the said frameworks to inform AI developers on what is already expected from them with regards to transparency. We also discover the gaps in the existing legislative frameworks concerning AI's transparency in healthcare and suggest the solutions to fill them in.

Smart devices have become ubiquitous in everyday life, and it is commonplace that migrants are among the users of connected tools. With the realization that migrants rely on connectivity for multiple purposes, including to access information and services, many initiatives started working on developing ICT tools to assist migrants to integrate into their new society. Technological tools, however, come with inherent risks, many of which are linked to the processing of personal data of their users. This is especially true for migrants, who are often vulnerable due to their migration status, which is not always secure in the host country. To mitigate these risks, we argue that an expanded data protection impact assessment, analyzing not only the impacts related to data protection, but also to the specific situation of migrants, should be conducted at the outset of any technology development project to influence the development of safe and reliable ICT tools for this target population. A practical example of the application of such an assessment is provided, based on the authors’ experience as legal advisors in the REBUILD project, which is one of the current initiatives in the EU aiming to develop ICT tools for migrant integration.

Looking at the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on surveillance, one notices a well maturing set of principles, namely: legality, legitimacy, proportionality (the standard check) and, if the Court is ‘on it’, also necessity and subsidiarity (the closer scrutiny check). In this contribution, we go through the surveillance case law of the Court. We find that 1) not all surveillance is considered relevant to the right to privacy (the threshold problem); 2) when surveillance is subjected to a privacy right analysis, concerns about rights contained in other provisions, such as Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention, are added; 3) not all surveillance that interferes with privacy is considered as problematic, hence differences in the Court’s view with regard to the legality requirement and the intensity of the scrutiny arise. This contribution goes beyond a straightforward analysis of the Court’s surveillance case law. In our second part we turn to Murphy and Ó Cuinn’s research on a ‘new technology’ approach in the Court’s case law and on principles that apply to a wide range of technology-related issues (from surveillance, to biomedicine, to polluting technologies). We focus in particular on the case law of the Court on environmental matters. We find that greater coherence could be reached in the Court’s case law on surveillance by integrating the environmental law principles of participation, precaution, access to information and access to justice in surveillance matters. Nevertheless, such a move would be very desirable and give new momentum to the Court’s case law on surveillance-related interferences.

After 9/11, states looked at transportation as if it was a matter of paying taxes: “We cannot make it fun, but we can make it efficient.” When traveling, we are asked to pass on data, give body samples, and pass through body scanners in the name of the general interest and in the name of our safety. Technology complements existing human checks and controls. Here we take a fresh look at the new security apparatuses and make transportation of humans more passenger-centered. Consumer protection law might help to complement the existing use of data protection law principles by citizen organizations. It should be possible to satisfy consumer needs, without forgetting the perspective of the citizen.

This contribution will focus on the facet of International Criminal Justice where the influence of global law is the most apparent, namely the hybrid or internationalized criminal tribunals. Since many of these tribunals have closed their doors or are in the advanced stage of the proceedings, the time is ripe for a preliminary evaluation. Furthermore, the future necessity and viability of hybrid tribunals will be assessed, both for crimes that fall within and without the jurisdictional regime established by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Multilevel global law is defying formal hierarchy in favour of a qualitative and responsive approach. As the cases of Solange and Kadi indicate, Courts may start giving priority to the legal order that better protects the values at stake. In law making, global law may be more and more responsive. Gone are the days of executives crafting ready-made treaties and bullying ratification back home; communities will react and force lawmakers to adjust and consult. The spectacular fiasco of Acta is a good example. The ACTA case, however, also instils the doubt whether this ‘responsiveness’ will be a general feature of global law or only of global information society law (cyberspace). Referring to the work of Andrew Murray on internet regulation and his discussion of failed enforcement against Wikileaks, one cannot but be prudent. The specific features of the internet make cyberspace another space than regular space. However, it is perhaps not to bold a pick to hold that the mechanism of responsiveness is, in due time and in some unexpected ways, to become a general characteristic of all law.

The laws of 1999 and 2004 concerning the implementation of municipal administrative sanctions (in short GAS legislation) gave local authorities new legal instruments to act more vigourously against phenomena of nuisance. Local authorities can now impose an administrative fine of up to 250 euros for behaviour which is contrary to public order (cleanliness, safety and quiet enjoyment) or which causes “public nuisance”. This publication purports to assess how the 19 municipalities of Brussels Capital Region formulate and apply this local “nuisance law”. Many differences emerge in terms of the content, the procedure and the modalities of municipal administrative sanctions (mediation, taking the minutes, amounts) and in terms of the choice between fines or police punishments. Even though some de facto harmonisation has taken place among Brussels police and security matters and the Region intervenes to make adjustments where necessary, the Brussels Region needs more institutionally-based guidance.

The laws of 1999 and 2004 concerning the implementation of municipal administrative sanctions (in short GAS legislation) gave local authorities new legal instruments to act more vigourously against phenomena of nuisance. Local authorities can now impose an administrative fine of up to 250 euros for behaviour which is contrary to public order (cleanliness, safety and quiet enjoyment) or which causes “public nuisance”. This publication purports to assess how the 19 municipalities of Brussels Capital Region formulate and apply this local “nuisance law”. Many differences emerge in terms of the content, the procedure and the modalities of municipal administrative sanctions (mediation, taking the minutes, amounts) and in terms of the choice between fines or police punishments. Even though some de facto harmonisation has taken place among Brussels police and security matters and the Region intervenes to make adjustments where necessary, the Brussels Region needs more institutionally-based guidance.

The laws of 1999 and 2004 concerning the implementation of municipal administrative sanctions (in short GAS legislation) gave local authorities new legal instruments to act more vigourously against phenomena of nuisance. Local authorities can now impose an administrative fine of up to 250 euros for behaviour which is contrary to public order (cleanliness, safety and quiet enjoyment) or which causes “public nuisance”. This publication purports to assess how the 19 municipalities of Brussels Capital Region formulate and apply this local “nuisance law”. Many differences emerge in terms of the content, the procedure and the modalities of municipal administrative sanctions (mediation, taking the minutes, amounts) and in terms of the choice between fines or police punishments. Even though some de facto harmonisation has taken place among Brussels police and security matters and the Region intervenes to make adjustments where necessary, the Brussels Region needs more institutionally-based guidance.