Legal analysis reveals governance gaps in public administration AI deployment, suggesting a two-way verification test to ensure equal legal accountability and effective judicial protection.
This independent legal working paper examines the use of artificial intelligence in public administration and consumer protection through the principles of legal accountability, human oversight, traceability and effective judicial protection. Using the Latvian Consumer Rights Protection Centre (PTAC/CRPC) as a case study, the paper considers an emerging rule-of-law question: if individuals are required to verify AI-assisted legal submissions, what standards of verification, transparency and human responsibility should apply when public authorities themselves use AI-assisted processes? The analysis examines the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, automation bias, complaint prioritisation, human oversight and the right to an effective remedy. The paper proposes a principle of equal legal accountability and a “Two-Way Verification Test” for AI-assisted public decision-making.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Diks Ancveirs (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: