Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
EPPiSM Baner

No. 2/2026/78 (2026)

Artykuły

Judicial Impartiality and Artificial Intelligence from the Perspective of Article 6 of ECHR

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52097/eppism.11078  [Google Scholar]
Published: 2026-06-30

Abstract

Recent developments in artificial intelligence (AI) have introduced systems that analyze legal information, identify correlations across documents, and support decision-making. New possibilities for automation present opportunities and challenges for the administration of justice. These possibilities raise complex questions about the compatibility of the deployment of AI in courts with fair trial guarantees under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This article examines whether and under what conditions the use of AI systems in courts may create legitimate doubts as to a court’s impartiality within the meaning of Article 6
(1) of the ECHR. Drawing on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, a distinction was made between the subjective and objective elements of impartiality, and an analysis was carried out of how the use of AI in the decision-making process might affect each of them. The paper argues that the use of AI in courts is a question of confidence in the justice system, and perceived impartiality may stem from limited transparency about the role of AI in decision-making, insufficient oversight, and excessive reliance on AI outputs.

References

  1. AI Act Commentary: A Thematic Analysis, G. Malgieri, G. G. Fuster, G. Zanfir-Fortuna (eds.), Hart–Bloomsbury, Oxford 2026, May; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=5146118. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alon-Barkat S., Busuioc M., Human-AI Interactions in Public Sector Decision Making: “Automation Bias” and “Selective Adherence” to Algorithmic Advice, ‘Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory’ 2023, 33. [Google Scholar]
  3. Beriain I. M., Does the Use of Risk Assessments in Sentences Respect the Right to Due Process? A Critical Analysis of the Wisconsin v. Loomis Ruling, Law, ‘Probability and Risk’ 2018, March, vol. 17, 1. [Google Scholar]
  4. CEPEJ, European ethical Charter on the use of Artificial Intelligence in judicial systems and their environment, 3-4 December 2018. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chouldechova A., Fair Prediction with Disparate Impact: A Study of Bias in Recidivism Prediction Instruments, ‘Big Data’ 2017, 5, 2. [Google Scholar]
  6. Christian A., Biedebach L., Küpfer A., and Neunhoeffer M., The Role of Hyperparameters in Machine Learning Models and How to Tune Them, ‘Political Science Research and Methods’ 2024, vol. 12, 4. [Google Scholar]
  7. Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), Opinion No. 3 of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) to the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the principles and rules governing judges’ professional conduct, in particular ethics, incompatible behaviour and impartiality, CCJE (2002) Op. No. 3, 19 November 2002. [Google Scholar]
  8. Council of Europe, Resource Center on Cybersecurity and Artificial Intelligence – available online at https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/resource-centre-on-cyberjustice-and-ai. [Google Scholar]
  9. Creamer C. D., Godzimirska Z., Trust in the Court: The Role of the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, ‘The European Journal of International Law’ 2019, vol. 30, 2, Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  10. Deeks A. S., Hollis D. B., Large Language Models and International Law, ‘Chicago Journal of International Law’ 2025, vol. 26, 1. [Google Scholar]
  11. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), Guidelines on how to drive change towards Cyberjustice, CEPEJ-GT-QUAL, 7 December 2016. [Google Scholar]
  12. European Commission, Knowledge Center on Translation and Interpretation, available online at https://knowledge-centre-translation-interpretation.ec.europa.eu/en/news/what-large-language-model. [Google Scholar]
  13. Fernandez, J. V., Artificial Intelligence in Government: Risks and Challenges of Algorithmic Governance in the Administrative State, 30 Ind. J., ‘Global Legal Studies’ 2023, 65. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ferrara E., Fairness and Bias in Artificial Intelligence: A Brief Survey of Sources, Impacts, and Mitigation Strategies, ‘Sci’ 2024, 6, 1. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gelderland Court, 10664071 CV23-2321, 7 June 2024, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ghezelbash D., Dorostkar K., and Walsh Sh., A Data Driven Approach to Evaluating and Improving Judicial Decision-Making: Statistical Analysis of the Judicial Review of Refugee Cases in Australia, ‘University of New South Wales Law Journal’ 2022, 45, 3. [Google Scholar]
  17. Green B., The Flaws of Policies Requiring Human Oversight of Government Algorithms, ‘Computer Law & Security Review’ 2022, 45. [Google Scholar]
  18. High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence, Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, European Commission, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  19. Holroyd J., Implicit Bias, Awareness and Imperfect Cognition, ‘Consciousness and Cognition’ 2015, May, vol. 33. [Google Scholar]
  20. Law, Science, and Rationality, A. M. Waltermann, D. Roef, J. Hage, and M. Jelicic (eds.), Eleven International Publishing, Maastricht Law Series 2019. [Google Scholar]
  21. Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, R. S. Michalski, J. G. Carbonell, T. M. Mitchell (eds.), Berlin–Heidelberg 1983. [Google Scholar]
  22. Mavrogiorgos K., Kiourtis A., Mavrogiorgou A. et al., Bias in Machine Learning: A Literature Review, ‘Applied Sciences’ 2024, 14, 19. [Google Scholar]
  23. Opinion of Advocate General of 11 May 2006, Graham J. Wilson v. Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg, C-506/04, ECLI:EU:C:2006:31. [Google Scholar]
  24. Prakken H., Sartor G., Law and Logic: A Review from an Argumentation Perspective, ‘Artificial Intelligence’ 2015, vol. 227, Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  25. Redish A. D., The Mind within the Brain, Oxford University Press 2013. [Google Scholar]
  26. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), 4 May 2016, OJ L 119. [Google Scholar]
  27. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) [Google Scholar]
  28. 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act), 12 June 2024, OJ L, 2024/1689. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sartor G., Galli, F., AI Approaches to Predictive Justice: A Critical Assessment, ‘Humanities and Rights Global Network Journal’ 2023, vol. 5, 2. [Google Scholar]
  30. Sourdin T., Judges, Technology and Artificial Intelligence: The Artificial Judge, Elgar Law, Technologies and Society, Cheltenham 2021. [Google Scholar]
  31. UNESCO, Draft UNESCO Guidelines for the Use of AI systems in Courts and Tribunals, CI/DIT/2024/GL/01, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  32. UNESCO, Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, SHS/BIO/PI/2021/1, 23 November 2021. [Google Scholar]
  33. Verona D., Suarez J. L., Discrimination, Bias, and Trustworthy AI, ‘Applied Sciences’ 2022, 12, 12. [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.