Search

On 20 October 2020, the European Parliament approved a Resolution with recommendations to the Commission on a civil liability regime for artificial intelligence (2020/2014(INL)) (the 2020 Resolution). The Resolution highlighted the importance of defining a clear and harmonised civil liability regime in Europe for the development of artificial intelligence technologies and the products and services that benefit from them, so as to provide due legal certainty for producers, operators, affected persons and other third parties. The same motivation had previously led the European Parliament to put forward a series of proposals on the subject of liability in its 2017 Resolution (European Parliament Resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)). There are some important differences between the two documents. These differences reflect the deeper analysis that the European Commission, in particular, has been engaged in with regard to civil liability for harm attributable to artificial intelligence systems. On this subject, we may note, lastly, the “Report on the safety and liability implications of Artificial Intelligence, the Internet of Things and robotics” (COM(2020) 64 final - Report), which accompanies the European Commission White Paper on Artificial Intelligence – COM(2020) 65 final, of 19 February 2020 (White Paper). One important element underpinning the 2020 Resolution is the distinction made between two different regimes for establishing civil liability for harm attributed to artificial intelligence-systems: strict liability for high-risk situations, and subjective liability with a presumption of fault, in other situations. The aim of these brief notes is to, on one hand, provide a critical assessment of how far this option corresponds to the assumptions on which the Resolution is based, also taking a brief look at the concept of wrongdoing proposed and the scope of compensable harm, and, on the other hand, to assess the adequacy of the distinction indicated in the light of the choices made in the 2017 Resolution and, above all, in the light of the challenges that the development of artificial intelligence raises for the traditional foundations on which compensation regimes have been based up to the present.

O tempo vem demonstrando que nos sistemas jurídicos romano-germânicos o resgate do lucro ilícito carece de uma resposta adequada e eficaz. Em vários instrumentos, nomeadamente de direito europeu, o dever de indemnizar é concebido como um remédio que transfere o lucro para o lesado. Tivemos oportunidade de defender que a indemnização é, na verdade, o lugar natural para a restituição do lucro ilícito, mas, de qualquer forma, a emergência das novas soluções legislativas tornam essa resposta evidente. Deigual modo, o espaço próprio do direito civil exige a restrição das sanções administrativas, excluindo essa intervenção do direito público quando os bens ofendidos são de natureza exclusiva ou prevalentemente individual. Justificar-se-á, nesses casos, a aplicação alternativa de uma pena privada, repondo a dignidade do direito subjetivo violado. Este enquadramento reclama uma reforma do Código Civil português, o que aqui se propõe.

Recentemente tem sido muito propalada a ideia de que Cristóvão Colombo teria sido português, natural da vila de Cuba, e agente secreto de D. João II, aduzindo como prova sobretudo a toponímia das terras que descobriu. Na realidade, os topónimos que lhe têm sido atribuídos ou não são da sua autoria ou se justificam por razões que as fontes coevas nos explicam. Tampouco há razão para preferir o apelido Colón a Colombo, visto a documentação provar claramente que, sucessivamente, usou ambos. Quanto aos serviços a D. João II, prestou‑lhe o pior que se poderia imaginar: desviar para o Atlântico, onde entravam facilmente em choque com os interesses portugueses as atenções de uma Espanha unificada voltada para o interior da Península, para o Magrebe e para o Mediterrâneo., In Portuguese private law, as it happens in other legal systems in continental Europe, the removal of the benefits obtained by the injuring party as a result of his committing the unlawful act do not fall within the scope of civil liability. In general, the restitution of patrimonial advantages obtained via intervention in the legal rights of another has been dealt with in law according to the rules of unjust enrichment. However, in our view, there is a relationship between the presuppositions of civil liability and the recognition of the duty to disgorge illegal profits and, even, of punitive effects. According to Article 496 (1) of the Portuguese Civil Code, any non-patrimonial damage which, due to its severity, warrants legal protection is indemnifiable. We advocate that a relevant non-patrimonial damage occurs whenever an economic benefit for a third party is the result of the culpable sacrificing of rights of the injured party. It is damage which is born out of a rupture in the fair patrimonial relationship between individuals. Compensation for this damage may only, naturally, be achieved by passing into the sphere of the injured party the advantages that the third party obtained unlawfully. The restitution of profit as a consequence of civil liability is nothing more than complying with the need to satisfy the injured party, both with regard to the fixing of compensation for other non-patrimonial damage, and in the autonomous restoring of the situation prior to this harm.