The digital transformation of the public sector and automation of decision-making (ADM) processes have recently become common. The benefits of the ADM have typically been considered to be efficiency in decision-making, equal treatment of citizens and error prevention. At the same time, new legislation is needed to control e.g. problems with good government, equality, rule of law and liability. In this paper, we have chosen to compare two European countries, Finland and Hungary. What kind of debate occurs in these countries related to the use of ADM? Is there a difference in how the legislators and legal scholars have seen the concerns and benefits of ADM in these countries? The chosen countries have different backgrounds, e.g. different cultural and legal history, which makes the comparison fruitful.

Both countries are members of the EU. However legal safeguards within administrative due process are typically provided by national legislator. In 2023, a proposal for general legislation on automated decision-making within public administration was accepted in Finland. If individual consideration is not needed, automated decision-making is allowed. Also, the Hungarian public procedural law allows use of ADM under certain conditions, e.g. if there is no party with opposing interest.

In the Nordic countries the legislative development related to ADM in the public sector, usually has started from the areas of special legislation, e.g. procedural tax law. Also, in Hungary this is apparent, because automatic decision-making can be considered a special form of the summary procedure, a framework, whose specific cases are not in fact defined by the Code of General Administrative Procedure, but sectoral legislation. It seems that in general, increased interest towards use of ADM/AI has led only minor legislative changes to the administrative law framework, although for example supervisory authorities in the Nordic countries have found special challenges related to automated procedures e.g. concerning risk evaluation of discrimination and correct decisions. However, related to the Finnish system, it is worth of mentioning that liability issues have obtained much more interest in Finland than in other Nordic countries and Hungary.

There are many new challenges to the classic approach to decision-making in administrative law. Public authorities are discovering the potential of AI systems to improve the efficiency and accuracy of administrative proceedings. However, automated decision making (ADM) and AI-supported decision making create new dilemmas, especially in relation to accountability, data protection and general principles of administrative law. The benefits of AI should therefore be assessed together with the risks and threats, as well as with the provision of adequate means of control and supervision.

The use of AI tools is growing also in Polish administration, as well as the interest in simplification of the conduct of administrative proceedings and automated issuance of administrative decisions. However, these tendencies should be carefully monitored especially from the perspective of citizens’ rights and potential errors which might be different from the classical, non-automated administrative proceedings.

The changes to the laws are often lagging behind the technical developments and practice of action. In the case of public administration, however, the constitutional principle requires it to act only on the basis of the law and within the limits of the law. Therefore, the use of AI should be limited to directly permitted situations and with accompanying legal remedies.

This paper focuses on the challenges of the introduction of AI instruments to the administrative law and proceedings, as well as examines the need for specific legal remedies.

Should the remedies be the same as they are in case of a traditional administrative proceedings, or do the instruments provided in existing legislation be enough for adequate protection of the citizens?

Digitization is both a challenge for public administration and a necessity in the modern world. The importance of digitization is emphasized by the legislative activity of the European Union. Decision (EU) 2022/2481 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 establishing the Digital Decade Policy Program 2030 sets a high standard for digitization. The European Union rightly recognizes that there are significant differences between Member States, which makes it necessary to define common priorities, e.g. in the provision of basic public e-services. By decision, the European Union has defined the objectives to be pursued by the EU institutions and the Member States. However, the choice of instruments and methods of regulation is left to individual Member States.

For these reasons, the proposed paper is an analysis of various administrative regulatory approaches to digitization. This is an important issue from the point of view of the digital challenges adopted in the EU. Moreover, this issue - related to the Polish reality - may provide important conclusions and postulates for scientists and practitioners from other Member States.

Considerations around digitization will focus primarily (although extension of research is not excluded) on the aspect of electronic communication of e-services, i.e. submitting and accepting letters in various proceedings conducted by public administration.

Adopting obligations regulations is understood to mean a situation in which a specific entity (citizen, entrepreneur, non-governmental organization, public entity) is obliged to use electronic communication, essentially without the possibility of communicating in a traditional way (i.e. on paper).

The proposed paper will have the following structure:

1. Theoretical part. Determining the regulatory challenges of digitization (desk research, literature analysis).

2. Risks and opportunities of introducing the obligation to use electronic communication. Determining which groups of entities (citizens, entrepreneurs, non-governmental organizations, public entities) the obligations may be addressed to.

3. Analysis of the legislative practice in Poland to identify the situation in which the obligation to digitize was introduced (dogmatic and legal method related to the previous theoretical framework).

4. Summary and proposals for practitioners regarding the legal regulation of digitization of public administration activities.

An administrative appeal is most common legal remedy in administrative matters as regulated also in the Slovenian General Administrative Procedure Act (GAPA). There are several functions of such an appeal, from primary parties’ rights protection to systemic goals, as is the coherent sector specific legislation, established based on the overall outcome of appellate procedures in the field. In addition, the Slovenian GAPA regulates five more extraordinary legal remedies and restitutio in integrum, although some of the grounds are the same as in the case of an appeal. In sum, an issue of effective legal protection occurs, already regarding the optimal regulation as well as sometimes questionable administrative practice when implementing the law.

Paper will address normative and doctrinal analyses of relevant legal provisions (of EU law, Constitution of RS and GAPA) on the aims, locus standi, deadlines, reasons for, and other elements of an appeal. Moreover, we will explore basic learnings of case law in administrative disputes in Slovenia regarding an appeal as introduced by Supreme and Administrative courts. However, the majority of empirical research will be based on over 100 cases of questions and answers regarding the interpretation of the GAPA in administrative practice. These cases are part of a special project, “Administrative Consultation”, run since 2009-2014 and renewed in 2023 between the University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Public Administration, and Ministry of Public Administration, in order to gather dilemmas when enforcing the GAPA in various administrative bodies in all areas. With almost 1,500 Q&As, app. one fifth addresses legal protection, so we will carry out an analysis of the cases tackling specifically the appeal. There are systemic issues, such as legitimation to file an appeal (especially if not just the main party but other affected persons and other bodies can lodge it), appeal grounds (in particular which are stipulated as so called significant procedural errors that lead to the renewal of the procedure regardless of substantive legality), competence regarding appellate decisions (when can the first instance body take care of an appeal and when a devolution is required), ADR options in appeals (especially so called surrogate decision issued when already the first instance body acknowledges that an appeal is grounded), deadlines when to lodge an appeal and when to decide upon it, possibility of waiver to an appeal, connection to other legal remedies, also (lack) of options regarding digitalised appellate proceedings. The said analysis could serve as an empirical base to propose changes of the Slovenian GAPA to offer more effective and less dubious solutions to both, parties to the procedures and officials, conducting administrative procedures.