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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

I Sverige kan förebyggande sjukpenning lämnas till den som genomgår medicinsk behandlingeller medicinsk rehabilitering i syfte att förebygga sjukdom, förkorta sjukdomstiden, eller helt eller delvis förebygga eller häva nedsättning av arbetsförmågan. Syftet med förmånen ärsåledes att en enskild ska kunna vara frånvarande från sitt arbete i den utsträckning det behövsför att medverka i medicinska insatser som kan förebygga att arbetsoförmåga på grund avsjukdom alls uppstår. Genom detta förebyggande syfte är förmånens ersättningsvillkor i högutsträckning knutna till prognostiska bedömningar i flera steg. Försäkringskassan, som är den myndighet som ska administrera ersättningen, ska bland annat bedöma om det finns en risk försjukdom, om den medicinska behandling som erbjuds kan förkorta eller förebygga sådan sjukdom i det enskilda fallet, samt om sjukdomen i sig kan förväntas sätta ner arbetsförmågan – vilket placerar förmånen mycket nära hälso- och sjukvårdens medicinska expertis. I artikeln visas att dessa omständigheter har förklaringsvärde för att Försäkringskassan samt hälso- ochsjukvården uppvisar vissa brister i samsyn när det gäller hur begreppet vetenskap och beprövad erfarenhet ska förstås samt om förmånens syfte och funktion – och att detta inverkar på hur förmånens förebyggande (profylaktiska) syfte får genomslag i rättstillämpningen samt i sjukförsäkringen.

Som bekant måste vård till barn ges med stöd i samtycke. Bedömningen av vem som ska lämna samtycke görs av vårdpersonal i det enskilda fallet. En sådan bedömning kan resultera i att samtycke ska inhämtas från barnets vårdnadshavare. Om barnet har två vårdnadshavare har de gemensam bestämmanderätt över barnet. Men vad gäller då om någon av vårdnadshavarna motsätter sig vård?

I HFD 2020 ref. 11, har Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen prövat om Försäkringskassan– sedan den ändrat ett avvisningsbeslut genom omprövning ochprövat en ansökan i sak – är skyldig att ompröva det sistnämnda beslutet.Domstolen fastslog att 113 kap. 7 § socialförsäkringsbalken, SFB, föreskriveren omprövningsskyldighet i dessa fall, och har tagit avgörande hänsyn tillatt bestämmelsen enligt motiven ska innebära att den enskilde har rätt att fåsamma fråga prövad två gånger. I kommentaren analyseras avgörandet utifrån att domstolen har därmed markerat att tyngdpunkten i ärendehandläggningen ska ligga hos förvaltningen.

This doctoral thesis investigates and analyzes the legal conditions under which the Swedish Social Insurance Agency may engage in cooperation with the Swedish Public Employment Service and Swedish Health Care Providers (both public and private), regarding rehabilitation, information exchange and investigation measures in individual sick leave insurance cases. It also presents an analysis of whether these legal conditions contribute to safeguarding legality and legal certainty when the Social Insurance Agency is involved in cooperation. Overall the thesis concludes that the legal conditions for such cooperation are good in terms of assistance regarding rehabilitation, information exchange and investigation measures. The designated assignment of the Social Insurance Agency relating to the distribution of sickness benefits is also such that any cooperation that helps the individual's rehabilitation or the investigation and assessment of entitlement to such benefits is encouraged. The legality and legal certainty in such cooperation is also found to be fundamentally safeguarded, since it follows from the principle of legality in Swedish administrative law that any measures taken by the Social Insurance Agency in cooperation with other bodies must be founded in the constitutional legal order. However, since the Social Insurance Agency's assignment pertains to the distribution of positive rights and benefits, the requirements governing how clearly stated and distinct such legal support must be are generally less stringent. This is reflected in the rules and principles identified as supporting or limiting the legal conditions for cooperation, as in many cases they lack detailed prerequisites for when they may be used or what should be done. Many of the legal rules or legal principles that limit the authority and power to freely design the possible content, aims and process practice of cooperation are also not specifically aimed at regulating such situations. Moreover, in m