Skip to content
EUAILaw.com
Articles / Annexes

Chapter I — GENERAL PROVISIONS

Chapter II — PROHIBITED AI PRACTICES

Chapter III — HIGH-RISK AI SYSTEMS

Chapter IV — TRANSPARENCY OBLIGATIONS FOR PROVIDERS AND DEPLOYERS OF CERTAIN AI SYSTEMS

Chapter VIII — EU DATABASE FOR HIGH-RISK AI SYSTEMS

Chapter IX — POST-MARKET MONITORING, INFORMATION SHARING AND MARKET SURVEILLANCE

Chapter XI — DELEGATION OF POWER AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE

Annexes

Recitals →
Artificial Intelligence Act·Recital 61

Recital (61)

Recitals 61 / 180

Certain AI systems intended for the administration of justice and democratic processes should be classified as high-risk, considering their potentially significant impact on democracy, the rule of law, individual freedoms as well as the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. In particular, to address the risks of potential biases, errors and opacity, it is appropriate to qualify as high-risk AI systems intended to be used by a judicial authority or on its behalf to assist judicial authorities in researching and interpreting facts and the law and in applying the law to a concrete set of facts. AI systems intended to be used by alternative dispute resolution bodies for those purposes should also be considered to be high-risk when the outcomes of the alternative dispute resolution proceedings produce legal effects for the parties. The use of AI tools can support the decision-making power of judges or judicial independence, but should not replace it: the final decision-making must remain a human-driven activity. The classification of AI systems as high-risk should not, however, extend to AI systems intended for purely ancillary administrative activities that do not affect the actual administration of justice in individual cases, such as anonymisation or pseudonymisation of judicial decisions, documents or data, communication between personnel, administrative tasks.