Certain AI systems intended for the administration of justice and democratic processes should be classified as high-risk, considering their potentially significant impact on democracy, the rule of law, individual freedoms as well as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. In particular, to address the risks of potential biases, errors and opacity, it is appropriate to qualify as high-risk AI systems intended to be used by a judicial authority or on its behalf to assist judicial authorities in researching and interpreting facts and the law and in applying the law to a concrete set of facts. AI systems intended to be used by alternative dispute resolution bodies for those purposes should also be considered to be high-risk when the outcomes of the alternative dispute resolution proceedings produce legal effects for the parties. The use of AI tools can support the decision-making power of judges or judicial independence, but should not replace it: the final decision-making must remain a human-driven activity. The classification of AI systems as high-risk should not, however, extend to AI systems intended for purely ancillary administrative activities that do not affect the actual administration of justice in individual cases, such as anonymisation or pseudonymisation of judicial decisions, documents or data, communication between personnel, administrative tasks.
AI Act Recital EN
Recital 61
Related across sources
Guidance Guidelines 05/2022 on the use of facial recognition technology in the area of law enforcement News A call to EU legislators: protect rights and reject the call to delete transparency safeguard in AI Act Guidance Guidelines 05/2020 on consent under Regulation 2016/679 Guidance Guidelines 4/2019 on Article 25 Data Protection by Design and by Default Version 2.0 Adopted on 20 October 2020 Guidance Version history Guidance Guidelines 1/2019 on Codes of Conduct and Monitoring Bodies under Regulation 2016/679