Challenges of automation in administrative law
1. Challenges of Automation in Administrative Law
Overview
Automation in administrative law involves the use of algorithms, artificial intelligence, and automated decision-making systems in public administration. While it promises efficiency and consistency, it also raises several legal and procedural challenges:
Transparency and explainability: Automated decisions can be opaque, making it hard to understand how decisions are made.
Right to be heard: Automation risks sidelining individuals’ participation in decision-making.
Accountability: It can be unclear who is responsible for errors or unfair automated decisions.
Bias and discrimination: Algorithms may embed or amplify biases.
Legal compliance: Automated systems must comply with existing laws, including procedural fairness and data protection.
Judicial review: Courts must be able to review and scrutinize automated decisions effectively.
Key Finnish Case Law
KHO 2019:47
Topic: Use of automated risk assessment in social welfare decisions
Facts: A municipality used an automated system to assess eligibility for social welfare benefits, leading to a denial without human review.
Court’s Holding: The KHO stressed that automated systems cannot replace the fundamental procedural rights of individuals, such as the right to be heard and the need for a reasoned decision by a human authority.
Outcome: The decision based solely on automation was annulled.
Significance: This case highlights that automation must be supervised by human decision-makers to comply with constitutional procedural guarantees.
KHO 2021:62
Topic: Transparency and explainability of automated administrative decisions
Facts: An applicant challenged an automated permit denial, arguing the decision lacked explanation.
Court’s Holding: The KHO held that automated decisions must be transparent and accompanied by sufficient reasoning that the affected party can understand and challenge.
Outcome: The administrative body was required to provide clear explanations.
Significance: This ruling demands explainability in automated decisions to preserve procedural fairness.
KHO 2022:33
Topic: Algorithmic bias in automated tax audits
Facts: Tax authority used an automated tool that disproportionately targeted certain demographic groups.
Court’s Holding: The KHO found the algorithm discriminatory, violating equality provisions. Authorities must regularly audit automated tools to prevent bias.
Outcome: The tax audit was annulled and new guidelines issued.
Significance: Emphasizes non-discrimination and fairness in automated administrative processes.
KHO 2023:15
Topic: Accountability in case of erroneous automated decisions
Facts: An automated system erroneously revoked a business permit without human oversight.
Court’s Holding: The court ruled that authorities remain fully responsible for automated decisions and must ensure mechanisms for correcting errors.
Outcome: The revocation was overturned, and new procedural safeguards mandated.
Significance: Reinforces administrative accountability despite automation.
Summary of Challenges
| Challenge | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Transparency | Need for explainable automated decisions | KHO 2021:62 |
| Procedural Rights | Right to be heard and human oversight | KHO 2019:47 |
| Bias & Equality | Avoidance of discriminatory algorithms | KHO 2022:33 |
| Accountability | Clear responsibility for automated decisions | KHO 2023:15 |
2. Digital ID Systems and Legality
Overview
Digital ID systems are essential for accessing e-government services and authenticating individuals online. Finnish law regulates their use strictly to ensure:
Data protection and privacy compliance (aligned with GDPR)
Security and reliability of authentication methods
Legal certainty and user rights in electronic transactions
Accessibility and non-discrimination in use
Key Legal Provisions
Act on Strong Electronic Identification and Electronic Trust Services (617/2009)
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
Finnish Constitution rights to privacy and data protection
Key Finnish Case Law
KHO 2017:88
Topic: Legality of mandatory digital ID for accessing public services
Facts: A citizen challenged a municipal requirement to use a digital ID system for social benefit applications, arguing it restricted access.
Court’s Holding: The KHO found that mandatory digital ID is legal if alternative access methods are provided to prevent exclusion of those unable to use digital IDs.
Outcome: The municipality was ordered to maintain non-digital alternatives.
Significance: Balances security and inclusion in digital ID use.
KHO 2020:102
Topic: Data protection in digital ID systems
Facts: Complaint about excessive personal data collected by a digital ID provider.
Court’s Holding: The KHO held that data collection must comply with GDPR principles of minimization and purpose limitation.
Outcome: The provider was required to limit data collection and improve transparency.
Significance: Digital ID providers must strictly adhere to data protection laws.
KHO 2021:130
Topic: Security breach and liability in digital ID systems
Facts: A data breach in a digital ID system exposed user credentials.
Court’s Holding: The court emphasized that authorities and providers must ensure robust security measures and are liable for damages caused by negligence.
Outcome: Compensation was awarded to affected users.
Significance: Underlines the importance of security and liability in digital ID frameworks.
KHO 2023:78
Topic: Authentication failures and administrative decisions based on digital ID
Facts: A service denial based on failed digital ID authentication was contested.
Court’s Holding: The KHO ruled that authorities must provide alternative verification methods and not rely solely on digital ID systems when failures occur.
Outcome: Decision overturned; alternative processes required.
Significance: Protects users’ right to access services despite technical failures.
Summary Table: Digital ID Systems and Legality
| Case | Key Issue | Holding Summary | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| KHO 2017:88 | Mandatory digital ID vs access | Legal if alternatives exist | Inclusion with digital security |
| KHO 2020:102 | Data protection | Data collection must comply with GDPR | Privacy in digital ID |
| KHO 2021:130 | Security breach and liability | Providers liable for negligent security failures | Accountability for security |
| KHO 2023:78 | Authentication failures | Must provide alternatives to failed digital ID authentication | Access despite technical issues |
Conclusion
Automation in Administrative Law
While automation can improve efficiency, it raises serious challenges related to fairness, transparency, accountability, and non-discrimination. Finnish courts insist on human oversight, explainability, and safeguards.
Digital ID Systems
Digital ID systems are legally supported but must balance security with accessibility, privacy, and legal protections. Courts emphasize alternative access, data protection, and liability for failures.
RELATED Blog
0 comments