The Right to a Fair Trial in Automated Civil Proceedings
Challenges associated with the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in law are one of the most hotly debated issues today. This paper draws attention to the question of how to safeguard the right to a fair trial in the light of rapidly changing technologies significantly affecting the judiciary and enabling automation of the civil procedure. The paper does not intend to comprehensively address all aspects related to the right to a fair trial in the context of the automation of civil proceedings but rather seeks to analyse some legal concerns from the perspective of the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Section 1 discusses the issues of using artificial intelligence in the justice and automation of the judicial proceedings. Section 2 is devoted to the judge supporting system based on artificial intelligence and psychological requirements of its practical use. Section 3 presents the right to a fair trial in civil cases established by the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, while subsequent sections characterize its elements with respect to the possibility to automate civil proceedings: a right to have case heard within a reasonable time in section 4 and a right to a reasoned judgment in section 5.
 Adadi, A. and Berrada, M. (2018) Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). IEEE Access, 6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2870052
 Airey v. Ireland (1979) No. 6289/73.
 Barros, R. et al. (2018) Case Law Analysis with Machine Learning in Brazilian Court. In: Malek Mouhoub, Samira Sadaoui, Otmane Ait Mohamed and Moonis Ali (eds.) IEA/AIE 2018, Springer, Cham.
 Beian v. Romania (no. 1) (2007) No. 30658/05.
 Bellet v. France (1995) No. 23805/94.
 Brems, E. (2005) Conflicting Human Rights: An Exploration in the Context of the Right to a Fair Trial in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Human Rights Quarterly, 27 (1). https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2005.0003
 Brumărescu v. Romania (1999) No. 28342/95.
 Buchanan, B. and Headrick, T. (1970) Some Speculation About Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning. Stanford Law Review, 23 (1). https://doi.org/10.2307/1227753
 Calvez, F. and Regis, N. (2018) Length of court proceedings in the member states of the Council of Europe based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. [online] 3rd ed. Council of Europe Publishing. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/cepej-2018-26-enrapport-calvez-regis-en-length-of-court-proceedings-e/16808ffc7b [Accessed 30 January 2019].
 Committee of experts on internet intermediaries (MSI-NET). (2018) Algorithms and Human Rights – Study on the human rights dimensions of automated data processing techniques (in particular algorithms) and possible regulatory implications. Council of Europe. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/algorithms-and-human-rights-en-rev/16807956b5 [Accessed 30 January 2019].
 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, supplemented by Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13 and 16, 4 November 1950. Available from: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf [Accessed 30 January 2019].
 Dijkstra, J. (2001) Legal Knowledge-based Systems: The Blind leading the Sheep? International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 15 (2). https://doi.org/10.1080/13600860120070466
 Edel, F. (2007) The length of civil and criminal proceedings in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Human rights files, No. 16. 2nd ed. Council of Europe Publishing. Available from: https://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/DG2/HRFILES/DG2-EN-HRFILES-16(2007).pdf [Accessed 30 January 2019].
 Ewidencja spraw w sądach powszechnych według działów prawa i instancyjności w III kw. 2018 r. Available from: https://isws.ms.gov.pl/pl/baza-statystyczna/opracowaniajednoroczne/rok-2018/download,3756,0.html [Accessed 30 January 2019].
 Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Tom van Engers and Bart Verheij (eds.) (2017) special issue of Artificial Intelligence and Law Journal “AI4J“. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25 (1).
 Fomin v. Moldova (2011) No. 36755/06.
 Giovanni Sartor and Luther Karl Cranting (eds.) (1998) Judicial Applications of Artificial Intelligence. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
 H. v. France (1989) No. 10073/82.
 Hadjianastassiou v. Greece (1992) No. 12945/87.
 Hirvisaari v. Finland (2001) No. 49684/99.
 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 7 December 2000 (OJ C 326, 26. 10. 2012, pp. 391–407). Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT [Accessed 30 January 2019].
 Katte Klitsche de la Grande v. Italy (1994) No. 12539/86.
 Łazarska, A. (2012) Rzetelny proces cywilny. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
 Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania (2016) No. 76943/11.
 McCarty, L. T. (1977) Reflections on “Taxman”: An Experiment in Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning. Harvard Law Review, 90.
 McGinnis, J. O. and Pearce, R. G. (2014) The great disruption: how machine intelligence will transform the role of lawyers in the delivery of legal services. Fordham Law Review, 82 (6).
 Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey (2011) No. 13279/05.
 Niler, E. (2019) Can AI be a Fair Judge in Court? Estonia thinks so. [online] Avaliable from: https://www.wired.com/story/can-ai-be-fair-judge-court-estonia-thinks-so/ [Accessed 29 April 2019].
 Perez v. France (2004) No. 47287/99.
 Robinette, P. et al. (2016), Overtrust of Robots in Emergency Evacuation Scenarios. In: 11th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, Christchurch, New Zealand, 7–10 March.
 Rozakis, C. (2004) The right to a fair trial in civil cases. Judicial Studies Institute Journal, 4 (2).
 Ruiz Torija v. Spain (1994) No. 18390/91.
 Salem, M. et al. (2015) Would You Trust a (Faulty) Robot? Effects of Error, Task Type and Personality on Human-Robot Cooperation and Trust. In: 10th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Portland, Oregon, USA, 2–5 March.
 Sileno, G., Boer, A. and van Engers, T. (2018) The role of Normware in Trustworthy and Explainable AI. [online]. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.02471 [Accessed 30 January 2019].
 Suominen v. Finland (2003) No. 37801/97.
 Todd, P. and Benbasat, I. (1994) The influence of Decision Aids on Choice Strategies: An Experimental Analysis of the Role of Cognitive Effort. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60 (1). https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1074
 Tyrer v. United Kingdom (1978) No. 5856/72.
 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly (General Assembly resolution 217 A), 10 December 1948. Available from: http://www.un.org/en/udhrbook/pdf/udhr_booklet_en_web.pdf [Accessed 30 January 2019].
 United Nations (UN) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49, Available from: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx [Accessed 30 January 2019].
 Vernillo v. France (1991) No. 11889/85.
 Victor. [online] Avaliable from: http://gpam.unb.br/victor/ [Accessed 30 January 2019].
 Vitkauskas, D. and Dikov, G. (2017) Protecting the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights: A handbook for legal practitioners. [online] 2nd ed. Council of Europe. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/protecting-the-right-to-a-fair-trial-underthe-european-convention-on-/168075a4dd [Accessed 30 January 2019].
 Zubac v. Croatia (2018) No. 40160/12.
Copyright (c) 2019 Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology