Search

This article explores the application of semi-automated decision support systems in the administration of social insurance, focusing on the Swedish Social Insurance Agency’s utilisation of an AI system called SAMU (structured analysis of medical records). SAMU employs cognitive analysis models to assist administrators in identifying pertinent information in medical certificates for evaluating eligibility for sickness or activity compensation. The article assesses the implementation of SAMU, examining its potential impact on a comprehensive evaluation of an individual’s work capacity, as well as its implications for legally correct and secure decision-making. The analysis adopts a sociotechnical perspective, considering the mutual influence between society and technology and the resulting framework that shapes the decisions of caseworkers in the realm of automation-related risks in case management.

Whereas hackathons are widespread within and outside academia and have been argued to be a valid pedagogical method for teaching interdisciplinarity, no detailed frameworks or methods are available for conceptualizing and organizing educational hackathons, i.e., hackathons dedicated to best achieving pedagogic objectives. This paper is dedicated to introducing EDUCational Hackathons for learning how to solve Interdisciplinary Challenges (EDUCHIC) through: (1) defining the fundamental principles for framing an activity as an EDUCHIC, integrating principles from pedagogical methods, hackathon organization, and interdisciplinarity processes; (2) describing general properties that EDUCHIC possess as a consequence of the interaction of the fundamental principles; (3) developing operational guidelines for streamlining the practical organization of EDUCHIC, including an exhaustive end-to-end process covering all the steps for organizing EDUCHIC and practical frames for carrying the key decisions to be made in this process; and (4) a demonstration of these guidelines through illustrating their application for organizing a concrete EDUCHIC.

This article focuses on the legal implications of the growing reliance on automated systems in public administrations, using the example of social security benefits administration. It specifically addresses the deployment of automated systems for decisions on benefits eligibility within the frameworks of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA). It compares how these two legal frameworks, each targeting different regulatory objects (personal data versus AI systems) and employing different protective measures, apply for two common system types: rule-based systems utilised for making fully automated decisions on eligibility, and machine learning AI systems utilised for assisting case administrators in their decision-making. It concludes on the combined impact that the GDPR and the AIA will have on each of these types of systems, as well as on differences in how these instruments determines the basic legality of utilising such systems within social security administration.

This article explores the application of semi-automated decision support systems in the administration of social insurance, focusing on the Swedish Social Insurance Agency’s utilisation of an AI system called SAMU (structured analysis of medical records). SAMU employs cognitive analysis models to assist administrators in identifying pertinent information in medical certificates for evaluating eligibility for sickness or activity compensation. The article assesses the implementation of SAMU, examining its potential impact on a comprehensive evaluation of an individual’s work capacity, as well as its implications for legally correct and secure decision-making. The analysis adopts a sociotechnical perspective, considering the mutual influence between society and technology and the resulting framework that shapes the decisions of caseworkers in the realm of automation-related risks in case management.

The primary objective of this special issue is to bring to light the role the social insurance system has as a cornerstone of the Swedish welfare state. The legal configuration of this system is consequently often significant for individuals in order for them to attain economic and social stability. Through its regulation of access to various benefits, including sickness allowances, pensions and non-monetary benefits such as rehabilitation services, social insurance can profoundly influence an individual’s capacity to navigate financial adversities across different life stages. Furthermore, it serves as a pivotal mechanism for social justice through its objective of equitably allocating resources and protection. Consequently, the configuration of social insurance benefits shapes not only individuals’ interaction with the welfare state but also their relationship with society at large.

This article focuses on the legal implications of the growing reliance on automated systems in public administrations, using the example of social security benefits administration. It specifically addresses the deployment of automated systems for decisions on benefits eligibility within the frameworks of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA). It compares how these two legal frameworks, each targeting different regulatory objects (personal data versus AI systems) and employing different protective measures, apply for two common system types: rule-based systems utilised for making fully automated decisions on eligibility, and machine learning AI systems utilised for assisting case administrators in their decision-making. It concludes on the combined impact that the GDPR and the AIA will have on each of these types of systems, as well as on differences in how these instruments determines the basic legality of utilising such systems within social security administration.

Whereas hackathons are widespread within and outside academia and have been argued to be a valid pedagogical method for teaching interdisciplinarity, no detailed frameworks or methods are available for conceptualizing and organizing educational hackathons, i.e., hackathons dedicated to best achieving pedagogic objectives. This paper is dedicated to introducing EDUCational Hackathons for learning how to solve Interdisciplinary Challenges (EDUCHIC) through: (1) defining the fundamental principles for framing an activity as an EDUCHIC, integrating principles from pedagogical methods, hackathon organization, and interdisciplinarity processes; (2) describing general properties that EDUCHIC possess as a consequence of the interaction of the fundamental principles; (3) developing operational guidelines for streamlining the practical organization of EDUCHIC, including an exhaustive end-to-end process covering all the steps for organizing EDUCHIC and practical frames for carrying the key decisions to be made in this process; and (4) a demonstration of these guidelines through illustrating their application for organizing a concrete EDUCHIC.

In this report leading researchers within law and digitalisation from Norway, Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Denmark present the fundamental characteristics of the digitalization of their national public administrations from a legal perspective. An important conclusion of the DigiLaw project is that the Nordic-Baltic countries possess different specialised expertise and experiences when it comes to public digitalisation, and from different angles and at various levels, all researchers recommend strengthening the Nordic-Baltic cooperation when it comes to sharing experiences and handling challenges related to public digitalization.

Whereas hackathons are widespread within and outside academia and have been argued to be a valid pedagogical method for teaching interdisciplinarity, no detailed frameworks or methods are available for conceptualizing and organizing educational hackathons, i.e., hackathons dedicated to best achieving pedagogic objectives. This paper is dedicated to introducing EDUCational Hackathons for learning how to solve Interdisciplinary Challenges (EDUCHIC) through: (1) defining the fundamental principles for framing an activity as an EDUCHIC, integrating principles from pedagogical methods, hackathon organization, and interdisciplinarity processes; (2) describing general properties that EDUCHIC possess as a consequence of the interaction of the fundamental principles; (3) developing operational guidelines for streamlining the practical organization of EDUCHIC, including an exhaustive end-to-end process covering all the steps for organizing EDUCHIC and practical frames for carrying the key decisions to be made in this process; and (4) a demonstration of these guidelines through illustrating their application for organizing a concrete EDUCHIC.

This article focuses on the legal implications of the growing reliance on automated systems in public administrations, using the example of social security benefits administration. It specifically addresses the deployment of automated systems for decisions on benefits eligibility within the frameworks of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA). It compares how these two legal frameworks, each targeting different regulatory objects (personal data versus AI systems) and employing different protective measures, apply for two common system types: rule-based systems utilised for making fully automated decisions on eligibility, and machine learning AI systems utilised for assisting case administrators in their decision-making. It concludes on the combined impact that the GDPR and the AIA will have on each of these types of systems, as well as on differences in how these instruments determines the basic legality of utilising such systems within social security administration.

Whereas hackathons are widespread within and outside academia and have been argued to be a valid pedagogical method for teaching interdisciplinarity, no detailed frameworks or methods are available for conceptualizing and organizing educational hackathons, i.e., hackathons dedicated to best achieving pedagogic objectives. This paper is dedicated to introducing EDUCational Hackathons for learning how to solve Interdisciplinary Challenges (EDUCHIC) through: (1) defining the fundamental principles for framing an activity as an EDUCHIC, integrating principles from pedagogical methods, hackathon organization, and interdisciplinarity processes; (2) describing general properties that EDUCHIC possess as a consequence of the interaction of the fundamental principles; (3) developing operational guidelines for streamlining the practical organization of EDUCHIC, including an exhaustive end-to-end process covering all the steps for organizing EDUCHIC and practical frames for carrying the key decisions to be made in this process; and (4) a demonstration of these guidelines through illustrating their application for organizing a concrete EDUCHIC.

This article focuses on the legal implications of the growing reliance on automated systems in public administrations, using the example of social security benefits administration. It specifically addresses the deployment of automated systems for decisions on benefits eligibility within the frameworks of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA). It compares how these two legal frameworks, each targeting different regulatory objects (personal data versus AI systems) and employing different protective measures, apply for two common system types: rule-based systems utilised for making fully automated decisions on eligibility, and machine learning AI systems utilised for assisting case administrators in their decision-making. It concludes on the combined impact that the GDPR and the AIA will have on each of these types of systems, as well as on differences in how these instruments determines the basic legality of utilising such systems within social security administration.

Human oversight has been much stressed and discussed as a safeguarding measure to ensure human centrism in AI deployment. Through its proposal of a new EU Artificial Intelligence Act, the Commission is breaking new ground by promoting the introduction of the first general and sharp worded human oversight requirement over AI systems in European law. This Article discusses the content, limitations and implications of this oversight requirement. It does this by addressing the questions of what the Regulation prescribes on 'what' is to be overviewed, 'when' the overview is to be exercised and 'by whom'. The article points to some of the AIA's unclarities and gaps, and to the implications of vesting too much trust in providers to secure the oversight infrastructure of high-risk AI systems., 2020-02278_VR

Human oversight has been much stressed and discussed as a safeguarding measure to ensure human centrism in AI deployment. Through its proposal of a new EU Artificial Intelligence Act, the Commission is breaking new ground by promoting the introduction of the first general and sharp worded human oversight requirement over AI systems in European law. This Article discusses the content, limitations and implications of this oversight requirement. It does this by addressing the questions of what the Regulation prescribes on 'what' is to be overviewed, 'when' the overview is to be exercised and 'by whom'. The article points to some of the AIA's unclarities and gaps, and to the implications of vesting too much trust in providers to secure the oversight infrastructure of high-risk AI systems., 2020-02278_VR

This contribution examines the relationship between automation, discretion, and proportionality. It argues that automation efforts in public administration need to be further discussed and analyzed in relation to requirements of proportionality flowing from both national and European law, as the principle carries important implications for both the implementation of automated systems and the responsibilities of decision-makers within those systems. The different facets of proportionality flowing from, inter alia, constitutional, and human rights law, administrative law, and data protection law are explored, with four distinct stages of proportionality analysis identified: legislative, system, decision, and ex post proportionality. These stages all carry different implications for discretion and the prospects of automation. Through the requirements in these different stages, the authors conclude that proportionality ought to act as another driver of keeping human oversight of automated systems. This human oversight will however, in relation to proportionality, require further contextual awareness and control of correct output proportionality, a role which may be significantly more demanding than a more limited oversight implied by current legal discussions on "humans in the loop"., HYDE – Human agency and the rule of law in semi-automated decision-making systems

Human oversight has been much stressed and discussed as a safeguarding measure to ensure human centrism in AI deployment. Through its proposal of a new EU Artificial Intelligence Act, the Commission is breaking new ground by promoting the introduction of the first general and sharp worded human oversight requirement over AI systems in European law. This Article discusses the content, limitations and implications of this oversight requirement. It does this by addressing the questions of what the Regulation prescribes on 'what' is to be overviewed, 'when' the overview is to be exercised and 'by whom'. The article points to some of the AIA's unclarities and gaps, and to the implications of vesting too much trust in providers to secure the oversight infrastructure of high-risk AI systems., 2020-02278_VR

This contribution examines the relationship between automation, discretion, and proportionality. It argues that automation efforts in public administration need to be further discussed and analyzed in relation to requirements of proportionality flowing from both national and European law, as the principle carries important implications for both the implementation of automated systems and the responsibilities of decision-makers within those systems. The different facets of proportionality flowing from, inter alia, constitutional, and human rights law, administrative law, and data protection law are explored, with four distinct stages of proportionality analysis identified: legislative, system, decision, and ex post proportionality. These stages all carry different implications for discretion and the prospects of automation. Through the requirements in these different stages, the authors conclude that proportionality ought to act as another driver of keeping human oversight of automated systems. This human oversight will however, in relation to proportionality, require further contextual awareness and control of correct output proportionality, a role which may be significantly more demanding than a more limited oversight implied by current legal discussions on "humans in the loop"., HYDE – Human agency and the rule of law in semi-automated decision-making systems

Human oversight has been much stressed and discussed as a safeguarding measure to ensure human centrism in AI deployment. Through its proposal of a new EU Artificial Intelligence Act, the Commission is breaking new ground by promoting the introduction of the first general and sharp worded human oversight requirement over AI systems in European law. This Article discusses the content, limitations and implications of this oversight requirement. It does this by addressing the questions of what the Regulation prescribes on 'what' is to be overviewed, 'when' the overview is to be exercised and 'by whom'. The article points to some of the AIA's unclarities and gaps, and to the implications of vesting too much trust in providers to secure the oversight infrastructure of high-risk AI systems., 2020-02278_VR

Human oversight has been much stressed and discussed as a safeguarding measure to ensure human centrism in AI deployment. Through its proposal of a new EU Artificial Intelligence Act, the Commission is breaking new ground by promoting the introduction of the first general and sharp worded human oversight requirement over AI systems in European law. This Article discusses the content, limitations and implications of this oversight requirement. It does this by addressing the questions of what the Regulation prescribes on 'what' is to be overviewed, 'when' the overview is to be exercised and 'by whom'. The article points to some of the AIA's unclarities and gaps, and to the implications of vesting too much trust in providers to secure the oversight infrastructure of high-risk AI systems., 2020-02278_VR

This contribution examines the relationship between automation, discretion, and proportionality. It argues that automation efforts in public administration need to be further discussed and analyzed in relation to requirements of proportionality flowing from both national and European law, as the principle carries important implications for both the implementation of automated systems and the responsibilities of decision-makers within those systems. The different facets of proportionality flowing from, inter alia, constitutional, and human rights law, administrative law, and data protection law are explored, with four distinct stages of proportionality analysis identified: legislative, system, decision, and ex post proportionality. These stages all carry different implications for discretion and the prospects of automation. Through the requirements in these different stages, the authors conclude that proportionality ought to act as another driver of keeping human oversight of automated systems. This human oversight will however, in relation to proportionality, require further contextual awareness and control of correct output proportionality, a role which may be significantly more demanding than a more limited oversight implied by current legal discussions on "humans in the loop"., HYDE – Human agency and the rule of law in semi-automated decision-making systems

This contribution examines the relationship between automation, discretion, and proportionality. It argues that automation efforts in public administration need to be further discussed and analyzed in relation to requirements of proportionality flowing from both national and European law, as the principle carries important implications for both the implementation of automated systems and the responsibilities of decision-makers within those systems. The different facets of proportionality flowing from, inter alia, constitutional, and human rights law, administrative law, and data protection law are explored, with four distinct stages of proportionality analysis identified: legislative, system, decision, and ex post proportionality. These stages all carry different implications for discretion and the prospects of automation. Through the requirements in these different stages, the authors conclude that proportionality ought to act as another driver of keeping human oversight of automated systems. This human oversight will however, in relation to proportionality, require further contextual awareness and control of correct output proportionality, a role which may be significantly more demanding than a more limited oversight implied by current legal discussions on "humans in the loop"., HYDE – Human agency and the rule of law in semi-automated decision-making systems

This contribution examines the relationship between automation, discretion, and proportionality. It argues that automation efforts in public administration need to be further discussed and analyzed in relation to requirements of proportionality flowing from both national and European law, as the principle carries important implications for both the implementation of automated systems and the responsibilities of decision-makers within those systems. The different facets of proportionality flowing from, inter alia, constitutional, and human rights law, administrative law, and data protection law are explored, with four distinct stages of proportionality analysis identified: legislative, system, decision, and ex post proportionality. These stages all carry different implications for discretion and the prospects of automation. Through the requirements in these different stages, the authors conclude that proportionality ought to act as another driver of keeping human oversight of automated systems. This human oversight will however, in relation to proportionality, require further contextual awareness and control of correct output proportionality, a role which may be significantly more demanding than a more limited oversight implied by current legal discussions on "humans in the loop"., HYDE – Human agency and the rule of law in semi-automated decision-making systems

While there are many feasible reasons for employers to process employee health data, the protection of such data is a fundamental issue for ensuring employee rights to privacy in the workplace. The sharing of health data within workplaces can lead to various consequences, such as losing a sense of privacy, stigmatisation, job insecurity and social dumping. At the European level, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)–two interconnected instruments–offer the most enforceable protection of employee health data. The article analyses the limits of employees’ right to privacy regarding health data, as delineated by the ECHR and GDPR. Using three fictive examples, we illustrate how the level of protection differs in these two instruments. In particular, we show that the protection of health data offered by the GDPR is seen as an objective act of processing at the time it is carried out, where the actual impact caused by the processing on private life is not considered. On the contrary, the ECHR’s applicability and offered level of protection in the employment context depend on subjective factors, such as the consequences of sharing the data.

While there are many feasible reasons for employers to process employee health data, the protection of such data is a fundamental issue for ensuring employee rights to privacy in the workplace. The sharing of health data within workplaces can lead to various consequences, such as losing a sense of privacy, stigmatisation, job insecurity and social dumping. At the European level, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)–two interconnected instruments–offer the most enforceable protection of employee health data. The article analyses the limits of employees’ right to privacy regarding health data, as delineated by the ECHR and GDPR. Using three fictive examples, we illustrate how the level of protection differs in these two instruments. In particular, we show that the protection of health data offered by the GDPR is seen as an objective act of processing at the time it is carried out, where the actual impact caused by the processing on private life is not considered. On the contrary, the ECHR’s applicability and offered level of protection in the employment context depend on subjective factors, such as the consequences of sharing the data.

While there are many feasible reasons for employers to process employee health data, the protection of such data is a fundamental issue for ensuring employee rights to privacy in the workplace. The sharing of health data within workplaces can lead to various consequences, such as losing a sense of privacy, stigmatisation, job insecurity and social dumping. At the European level, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)–two interconnected instruments–offer the most enforceable protection of employee health data. The article analyses the limits of employees’ right to privacy regarding health data, as delineated by the ECHR and GDPR. Using three fictive examples, we illustrate how the level of protection differs in these two instruments. In particular, we show that the protection of health data offered by the GDPR is seen as an objective act of processing at the time it is carried out, where the actual impact caused by the processing on private life is not considered. On the contrary, the ECHR’s applicability and offered level of protection in the employment context depend on subjective factors, such as the consequences of sharing the data.

Författarna beskriver utmaningar med att använda AI samt att digitalisera och automatisera beslutsfattande. Rättsstatliga principer som legalitet, proportionalitet och likabehandling riskerar att inte uppfyllas i såväl utformningen av systemen som i tillämpning och uppföljning av beslut som fattas maskinellt. Exempel från svenska myndigheters användning av digitala beslutsstöd visar att brister kan få långtgående konsekvenser.

Public and private organizations are increasingly implementing various algorithmic decision-making systems. Through legal and practical incentives, humans will often need to be kept in the loop of such decision-making to maintain human agency and accountability, provide legal safeguards, or perform quality control. Introducing such human oversight results in various forms of semi-automated, or hybrid decision-making – where algorithmic and human agents interact. Building on previous research we illustrate the legal dependencies forming an impetus for hybrid decision-making in the policing, social welfare, and online moderation contexts. We highlight the further need to situate hybrid decision-making in a wider legal environment of data protection, constitutional and administrative legal principles, as well as the need for contextual analysis of such principles. Finally, we outline a research agenda to capture contextual legal dependencies of hybrid decision-making, pointing to the need to go beyond legal doctrinal studies by adopting socio-technical perspectives and empirical studies.

Public and private organizations are increasingly implementing various algorithmic decision-making systems. Through legal and practical incentives, humans will often need to be kept in the loop of such decision-making to maintain human agency and accountability, provide legal safeguards, or perform quality control. Introducing such human oversight results in various forms of semi-automated, or hybrid decision-making – where algorithmic and human agents interact. Building on previous research we illustrate the legal dependencies forming an impetus for hybrid decision-making in the policing, social welfare, and online moderation contexts. We highlight the further need to situate hybrid decision-making in a wider legal environment of data protection, constitutional and administrative legal principles, as well as the need for contextual analysis of such principles. Finally, we outline a research agenda to capture contextual legal dependencies of hybrid decision-making, pointing to the need to go beyond legal doctrinal studies by adopting socio-technical perspectives and empirical studies.

Public and private organizations are increasingly implementing various algorithmic decision-making systems. Through legal and practical incentives, humans will often need to be kept in the loop of such decision-making to maintain human agency and accountability, provide legal safeguards, or perform quality control. Introducing such human oversight results in various forms of semi-automated, or hybrid decision-making – where algorithmic and human agents interact. Building on previous research we illustrate the legal dependencies forming an impetus for hybrid decision-making in the policing, social welfare, and online moderation contexts. We highlight the further need to situate hybrid decision-making in a wider legal environment of data protection, constitutional and administrative legal principles, as well as the need for contextual analysis of such principles. Finally, we outline a research agenda to capture contextual legal dependencies of hybrid decision-making, pointing to the need to go beyond legal doctrinal studies by adopting socio-technical perspectives and empirical studies.

While there are many feasible reasons for employers to process employee health data, the protection of such data is a fundamental issue for ensuring employee rights to privacy in the workplace. The sharing of health data within workplaces can lead to various consequences, such as losing a sense of privacy, stigmatisation, job insecurity and social dumping. At the European level, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)–two interconnected instruments–offer the most enforceable protection of employee health data. The article analyses the limits of employees’ right to privacy regarding health data, as delineated by the ECHR and GDPR. Using three fictive examples, we illustrate how the level of protection differs in these two instruments. In particular, we show that the protection of health data offered by the GDPR is seen as an objective act of processing at the time it is carried out, where the actual impact caused by the processing on private life is not considered. On the contrary, the ECHR’s applicability and offered level of protection in the employment context depend on subjective factors, such as the consequences of sharing the data.

While there are many feasible reasons for employers to process employee health data, the protection of such data is a fundamental issue for ensuring employee rights to privacy in the workplace. The sharing of health data within workplaces can lead to various consequences, such as losing a sense of privacy, stigmatisation, job insecurity and social dumping. At the European level, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)–two interconnected instruments–offer the most enforceable protection of employee health data. The article analyses the limits of employees’ right to privacy regarding health data, as delineated by the ECHR and GDPR. Using three fictive examples, we illustrate how the level of protection differs in these two instruments. In particular, we show that the protection of health data offered by the GDPR is seen as an objective act of processing at the time it is carried out, where the actual impact caused by the processing on private life is not considered. On the contrary, the ECHR’s applicability and offered level of protection in the employment context depend on subjective factors, such as the consequences of sharing the data.

While there are many feasible reasons for employers to process employee health data, the protection of such data is a fundamental issue for ensuring employee rights to privacy in the workplace. The sharing of health data within workplaces can lead to various consequences, such as losing a sense of privacy, stigmatisation, job insecurity and social dumping. At the European level, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)–two interconnected instruments–offer the most enforceable protection of employee health data. The article analyses the limits of employees’ right to privacy regarding health data, as delineated by the ECHR and GDPR. Using three fictive examples, we illustrate how the level of protection differs in these two instruments. In particular, we show that the protection of health data offered by the GDPR is seen as an objective act of processing at the time it is carried out, where the actual impact caused by the processing on private life is not considered. On the contrary, the ECHR’s applicability and offered level of protection in the employment context depend on subjective factors, such as the consequences of sharing the data.

While there are many feasible reasons for employers to process employee health data, the protection of such data is a fundamental issue for ensuring employee rights to privacy in the workplace. The sharing of health data within workplaces can lead to various consequences, such as losing a sense of privacy, stigmatisation, job insecurity and social dumping. At the European level, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)–two interconnected instruments–offer the most enforceable protection of employee health data. The article analyses the limits of employees’ right to privacy regarding health data, as delineated by the ECHR and GDPR. Using three fictive examples, we illustrate how the level of protection differs in these two instruments. In particular, we show that the protection of health data offered by the GDPR is seen as an objective act of processing at the time it is carried out, where the actual impact caused by the processing on private life is not considered. On the contrary, the ECHR’s applicability and offered level of protection in the employment context depend on subjective factors, such as the consequences of sharing the data.

Författarna beskriver utmaningar med att använda AI samt att digitalisera och automatisera beslutsfattande. Rättsstatliga principer som legalitet, proportionalitet och likabehandling riskerar att inte uppfyllas i såväl utformningen av systemen som i tillämpning och uppföljning av beslut som fattas maskinellt. Exempel från svenska myndigheters användning av digitala beslutsstöd visar att brister kan få långtgående konsekvenser.

To efficiently ensure that EU law will have an impact on the national level, the EU is dependent on the loyal cooperation of national administrative authorities, which has been described as a distributed administration. To further this, the CJEU has developed certain responsibilities flowing from EU law ensuring that national administrative authorities will give full effect to EU law within their respective areas of responsibility. This includes a responsibility that in many states would be otherwise reserved for courts – namely, to disapply national legislation when it conflicts with requirements under EU law. In this post, which is based on our recently published article ‘Administrative independence under EU law: Stuck between a rock and Costanzo?’ in European Public Law, we will illustrate how this may create a tension between the hierarchical structure of Member State administrations on the one hand, and the mandates and responsibilities provided to administrative authorities on the other. It may force a subordinate administrative authority to override their own government. Similar to courts, national administrative authorities thus have the invidious position of serving two masters at once, while not enjoying the same structural or legal independence towards the national government., Published 2022-08-08

While there are many feasible reasons for employers to process employee health data, the protection of such data is a fundamental issue for ensuring employee rights to privacy in the workplace. The sharing of health data within workplaces can lead to various consequences, such as losing a sense of privacy, stigmatisation, job insecurity and social dumping. At the European level, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)–two interconnected instruments–offer the most enforceable protection of employee health data. The article analyses the limits of employees’ right to privacy regarding health data, as delineated by the ECHR and GDPR. Using three fictive examples, we illustrate how the level of protection differs in these two instruments. In particular, we show that the protection of health data offered by the GDPR is seen as an objective act of processing at the time it is carried out, where the actual impact caused by the processing on private life is not considered. On the contrary, the ECHR’s applicability and offered level of protection in the employment context depend on subjective factors, such as the consequences of sharing the data.

Författarna beskriver utmaningar med att använda AI samt att digitalisera och automatisera beslutsfattande. Rättsstatliga principer som legalitet, proportionalitet och likabehandling riskerar att inte uppfyllas i såväl utformningen av systemen som i tillämpning och uppföljning av beslut som fattas maskinellt. Exempel från svenska myndigheters användning av digitala beslutsstöd visar att brister kan få långtgående konsekvenser.

Författarna beskriver utmaningar med att använda AI samt att digitalisera och automatisera beslutsfattande. Rättsstatliga principer som legalitet, proportionalitet och likabehandling riskerar att inte uppfyllas i såväl utformningen av systemen som i tillämpning och uppföljning av beslut som fattas maskinellt. Exempel från svenska myndigheters användning av digitala beslutsstöd visar att brister kan få långtgående konsekvenser.

While there are many feasible reasons for employers to process employee health data, the protection of such data is a fundamental issue for ensuring employee rights to privacy in the workplace. The sharing of health data within workplaces can lead to various consequences, such as losing a sense of privacy, stigmatisation, job insecurity and social dumping. At the European level, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)–two interconnected instruments–offer the most enforceable protection of employee health data. The article analyses the limits of employees’ right to privacy regarding health data, as delineated by the ECHR and GDPR. Using three fictive examples, we illustrate how the level of protection differs in these two instruments. In particular, we show that the protection of health data offered by the GDPR is seen as an objective act of processing at the time it is carried out, where the actual impact caused by the processing on private life is not considered. On the contrary, the ECHR’s applicability and offered level of protection in the employment context depend on subjective factors, such as the consequences of sharing the data.

While there are many feasible reasons for employers to process employee health data, the protection of such data is a fundamental issue for ensuring employee rights to privacy in the workplace. The sharing of health data within workplaces can lead to various consequences, such as losing a sense of privacy, stigmatisation, job insecurity and social dumping. At the European level, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)–two interconnected instruments–offer the most enforceable protection of employee health data. The article analyses the limits of employees’ right to privacy regarding health data, as delineated by the ECHR and GDPR. Using three fictive examples, we illustrate how the level of protection differs in these two instruments. In particular, we show that the protection of health data offered by the GDPR is seen as an objective act of processing at the time it is carried out, where the actual impact caused by the processing on private life is not considered. On the contrary, the ECHR’s applicability and offered level of protection in the employment context depend on subjective factors, such as the consequences of sharing the data.

Författarna beskriver utmaningar med att använda AI samt att digitalisera och automatisera beslutsfattande. Rättsstatliga principer som legalitet, proportionalitet och likabehandling riskerar att inte uppfyllas i såväl utformningen av systemen som i tillämpning och uppföljning av beslut som fattas maskinellt. Exempel från svenska myndigheters användning av digitala beslutsstöd visar att brister kan få långtgående konsekvenser.

Public and private organizations are increasingly implementing various algorithmic decision-making systems. Through legal and practical incentives, humans will often need to be kept in the loop of such decision-making to maintain human agency and accountability, provide legal safeguards, or perform quality control. Introducing such human oversight results in various forms of semi-automated, or hybrid decision-making – where algorithmic and human agents interact. Building on previous research we illustrate the legal dependencies forming an impetus for hybrid decision-making in the policing, social welfare, and online moderation contexts. We highlight the further need to situate hybrid decision-making in a wider legal environment of data protection, constitutional and administrative legal principles, as well as the need for contextual analysis of such principles. Finally, we outline a research agenda to capture contextual legal dependencies of hybrid decision-making, pointing to the need to go beyond legal doctrinal studies by adopting socio-technical perspectives and empirical studies.

Public and private organizations are increasingly implementing various algorithmic decision-making systems. Through legal and practical incentives, humans will often need to be kept in the loop of such decision-making to maintain human agency and accountability, provide legal safeguards, or perform quality control. Introducing such human oversight results in various forms of semi-automated, or hybrid decision-making – where algorithmic and human agents interact. Building on previous research we illustrate the legal dependencies forming an impetus for hybrid decision-making in the policing, social welfare, and online moderation contexts. We highlight the further need to situate hybrid decision-making in a wider legal environment of data protection, constitutional and administrative legal principles, as well as the need for contextual analysis of such principles. Finally, we outline a research agenda to capture contextual legal dependencies of hybrid decision-making, pointing to the need to go beyond legal doctrinal studies by adopting socio-technical perspectives and empirical studies.

EU law places a number of requirements on administrative authorities that puts them in potentially invidious positions; while EU law today does not require institutionally independent administrative authorities or provide protection for the independence of authorities beyond the field of data protection, it does require administrative authorities to act independently through the loyal and effective enforcement of EU law. This requirement of acting independently without institutional independence raises certain implications for the role of administrative authorities acting within the hierarchical administrative orders of Member States. Using the case of Sweden – a Member State where administrative authorities enjoy significant constitutionally protected independence in the application of law and decision of cases – this article argues that the effect of EU law obligations of effectiveness and loyalty is a weakening of the hierarchical influence of the government over its own authorities, with a resulting shift of influence towards the legal arena through the provision of politically expedient interpretations of EU law. The invidious position of administrative authorities within the scope of EU law is likely to make them vulnerable to such influence, which may ultimately interfere with the effective administration of EU law.

EU law places a number of requirements on administrative authorities that puts them in potentially invidious positions; while EU law today does not require institutionally independent administrative authorities or provide protection for the independence of authorities beyond the field of data protection, it does require administrative authorities to act independently through the loyal and effective enforcement of EU law. This requirement of acting independently without institutional independence raises certain implications for the role of administrative authorities acting within the hierarchical administrative orders of Member States. Using the case of Sweden – a Member State where administrative authorities enjoy significant constitutionally protected independence in the application of law and decision of cases – this article argues that the effect of EU law obligations of effectiveness and loyalty is a weakening of the hierarchical influence of the government over its own authorities, with a resulting shift of influence towards the legal arena through the provision of politically expedient interpretations of EU law. The invidious position of administrative authorities within the scope of EU law is likely to make them vulnerable to such influence, which may ultimately interfere with the effective administration of EU law.

EU law places a number of requirements on administrative authorities that puts them in potentially invidious positions; while EU law today does not require institutionally independent administrative authorities or provide protection for the independence of authorities beyond the field of data protection, it does require administrative authorities to act independently through the loyal and effective enforcement of EU law. This requirement of acting independently without institutional independence raises certain implications for the role of administrative authorities acting within the hierarchical administrative orders of Member States. Using the case of Sweden – a Member State where administrative authorities enjoy significant constitutionally protected independence in the application of law and decision of cases – this article argues that the effect of EU law obligations of effectiveness and loyalty is a weakening of the hierarchical influence of the government over its own authorities, with a resulting shift of influence towards the legal arena through the provision of politically expedient interpretations of EU law. The invidious position of administrative authorities within the scope of EU law is likely to make them vulnerable to such influence, which may ultimately interfere with the effective administration of EU law.