The trend towards the digitization of society and the introduction of artificial intelligence tools is now ubiquitous and is becoming the strongest driver of societal transformation, producing many excellent solutions in the public sector, including healthcare. The use of artificial intelligence tools in the delivery of healthcare services requires numerous adjustments and changes in the public healthcare system. It is an extremely complex and dynamic societal challenge (wicked problem) that is already being implemented with the rapid development of advanced technologies, offering solutions that seemed unimaginable a decade ago. In this paper, we introduce healthcare as part of administrative sciences and focus on the challenges of implementing artificial intelligence in healthcare. In the search for the possible benefits of the use of artificial intelligence tools in health care, it is also necessary to consider the possible risks and dangers, which must be defined in the light of interdisciplinary administrative science through a synthesis of the characteristics of all the mother disciplines - public policy, economics, and law. This paper provides an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of each mother discipline in general and in the context of artificial intelligence (AI) implementation in healthcare. To achieve this goal, an analysis and synthesis of literature and sources on the research topic was conducted.

This paper aims to conduct a comprehensive comparative analysis of the court's authority to modify penalties imposed by administrative bodies in several countries of the Central Europe region (planned countries are: Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Germany, and Austria). By examining the legal frameworks in these countries and their connection to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), this study seeks to address the underlying problems. Court's authority to modify administrative penalties is closely connected to the principle of full jurisdiction. According to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the principle of full jurisdiction, also known as the principle of full review, refers to the right of individuals to have their cases concerning administrative penalties heard by a court that possesses the power to fully examine both the facts and the law of the case. In the context of administrative penalties, the principle of full jurisdiction means that individuals have the right to have their cases reviewed by a court with the authority to assess not only the legality of the administrative decision but also the merits of the case. Under the principle of full jurisdiction, the court's role is not limited to a mere review of the administrative decision's legality or procedural regularity. Instead, it extends to a comprehensive examination of the case, including the power to reconsider the appropriateness and proportionality of the penalty imposed. The court may modify, annul, or uphold the administrative decision (part about imposed penalty) based on its assessment of the facts and the law. Although these are the basics of the full jurisdiction principle, surveyed countries differ in how they approach judicial review of administrative penalty and court's role in it.

The underlying problems at hand revolve around the balance between administrative bodies and the judiciary, as well as the potential implications for the principles of legal certainty, proportionality, and the right to an effective remedy. Understanding the extent to which the court can modify administrative penalties in some Central European countries is essential for ensuring the rule of law and safeguarding individuals' fundamental rights.

The research questions to be addressed are for example:

1. What are the legal provisions and case law in the selected Central European countries governing the court's authority to change administrative penalties?

2. To what extent does Article 6 of the ECHR influence the interpretation and application of the court's power in these countries?

3. How do the selected countries differ in their approaches to granting or limiting the court's authority to modify administrative penalties?

The research design will involve a comparative legal analysis of statutes, case law, and legal commentaries in the selected countries (planned countries mentioned earlier). Methodologically, this study will adopt a mixed-methods approach, combining legal doctrinal analysis with qualitative data collection techniques such as research of court's decisions. This study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the legal and conceptual foundations that shape the court's authority in modifying administrative penalties.

While this research is in its early stages, several hypotheses and propositions can be formulated. It is hypothesized that the interpretation and application of the court's power to modify administrative penalties will vary across the selected countries due to differences in legal systems, administrative law doctrines, and constitutional frameworks. Moreover, it is expected that the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights under Article 6 of the ECHR will play its role in shaping the national courts approach to this issue.

The expected findings and results of this research will contribute to the existing scholarship on administrative law and comparative law. This study will provide insights into the interplay between national legal systems, facilitating the identification of potential areas for legal harmonization and improvement (mainly from Czech point of view). However, several challenges may arise during the course of this research. These include the availability and accessibility of case law and legal materials in each country, potential language barriers, and the need for expert collaboration and consultation. In conclusion, this comparative study aims to examine the court's authority to change penalties imposed by administrative bodies in some Central European countries