Mechanisms to control public power have been developed and shaped around human beings as decision-makers at the centre of the public administration. However, technology is radically changing how... Show moreMechanisms to control public power have been developed and shaped around human beings as decision-makers at the centre of the public administration. However, technology is radically changing how public administration is organised and reliance on Artificial Intelligence is on the rise across all sectors. While carrying the promise of an increasingly efficient administration, automating (parts of) administrative decision-making processes also poses a challenge to our human-centred systems of control of public power. This article focuses on one of these control mechanisms: the duty to give reasons under EU law, a pillar of administrative law designed to enable individuals to challenge decisions and courts to exercise their powers of review. First, it analyses whether the duty to give reasons can be meaningfully applied when EU bodies rely on AI systems to inform their decisionmaking. Secondly, it examines the added value of secondary law, in particular the data protection rules applicable to EU institutions and the draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act, in complementing and adapting the duty to give reasons to better fulfil its purpose in a (partially) automated administration. This article concludes that the duty to give reasons provides a useful starting point but leaves a number of aspects unclear. While providing important safeguards, neither EU data protection law nor the draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act currently fill these gaps. Show less
In order to answer the research question, the dissertation is divided into four parts. Part I examines the ratio legis of the 1999 Montreal Convention to determine to what extent uniformity is a... Show moreIn order to answer the research question, the dissertation is divided into four parts. Part I examines the ratio legis of the 1999 Montreal Convention to determine to what extent uniformity is a principal aim of the convention that must be pursued in its application. Part II analyses the factors which already existed at the time of the signing and prevented its uniform application. Part III scrutinizes the fragmentation factors that only appeared during the lifespan of the convention. Part IV makes different suggestions to improve the uniform application of the convention and to reduce its fragmentation. The author concludes the research with a list of not less than 10 recommendations to protect the aim of uniformity of the international air carrier liability regime established by the convention. Show less
