AI-Based Automation of the European Small Claims Procedure: Legal Framework Mapping

This study deals with the protection of social rights in Europe and aims to outline the position currently held by these rights in the EU law. The first two chapters provide an overview of the regulatory framework in which the social rights lie, through the reorganisation of international sources. In particular the international instruments of protection of social rights are taken into account, both at the universal level, due to the activity of the United Nations Organisation and of its specialized agency, the International Labour Organization, and at a regional level, related to the activity of the Council of Europe. Finally an analysis of sources concludes with the reconstruction of the stages of the recognition of social rights in the EU. The second chapter describes the path followed by social rights in the EU: it examines the founding Treaties and subsequent amendments, the Charter of Fundamental Social Rights of Workers of 1989 and, in particularly, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the legal status of which was recently treated as the primary law by the Treaty of Lisbon signed in December 2007. The third chapter is, then, focused on the analysis of the substantive aspects of the recognition of the rights made by the EU: it provides a framework of the content and scope of the rights accepted in the Community law by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is an important contribution to the location of the social rights among the fundamental and indivisible rights of the person. In the last section of the work, attention is focused on the two profiles of effectiveness and justiciability of social rights, in order to understand the practical implications of the gradual creation of a system of protection of these rights at Community level. Under the first profile, the discussion is focused on the effectiveness in the general context of the mechanisms of implementation of the “second generation” rights, with particular attention to the new instruments and actors of social Europe and the effect of the procedures of soft law. Second part of chapter four, finally, deals with the judicial protection of rights in question. The limits of the jurisprudence of the European Union Court of Justice are more obvious exactly in the field of social rights, due to the gap between social rights and other fundamental rights. While, in fact, the Community Court ensures the maximum level of protection to human rights and fundamental freedoms, social rights are often degraded into mere aspirations of EU institutions and its Member States. That is, the sources in the social field (European Social Charter and Community Charter) represent only the base for interpretation and application of social provisions of secondary legislation, unlike the ECHR, which is considered by the Court part of Community law. Moreover, the Court of Justice is in the middle of the difficult comparison between social values and market rules, of which it considers the need to make a balance: despite hesitancy to recognise the juridical character of social rights, the need of protection of social interests has justified, indeed, certain restrictions to the free movement of goods, freedom to provide services or to Community competition law. The road towards the recognition and the full protection of social rights in the European Union law appears, however, still long and hard, as shown by the recent judgments Laval and Viking, in which the Community court, while enhancing the Nice Charter, has not given priority to fundamental social rights, giving them the role of limits (proportionate and justified) of economic freedoms.

Social Rights in Refugee Law and Human Rights Law: The Non-discrimination Principle as a Harmonization Tool

Purpose This article aims to examine the tension between freedom of expression and personal data protection, focusing on criminal conviction and offence data under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It analyses how legal frameworks, particularly Article 85 of the GDPR, attempt to reconcile public access to information with individual data privacy rights harmoniously. Design/methodology/approach Using a legal doctrinal approach primarily, this study examines GDPR provisions, especially Article 85, alongside relevant case law. The principle of proportionality serves as a key analytical tool to assess the necessity and justification of legal restrictions on data processing. Findings The research underscores the delicate balance between freedom of expression and data protection concerning criminal records. Article 85 plays a crucial role in establishing journalistic exemptions while ensuring data privacy. The principle of proportionality is vital in preventing disproportionate restrictions, requiring case-by-case evaluations. The study highlights the evolving nature of privacy-publicity conflicts, with the right to be forgotten serving as a safeguard against undue harm from outdated or minor convictions. Research limitations/implications This study has limitations, including its reliance on case-specific analyses, which overlook the broader impacts of the evolving digital media landscape, particularly social media and user-generated content. The focus on European legal frameworks (e.g. GDPR) restricts generalisability to non-EU jurisdictions with differing standards. Additionally, the analysis emphasises journalistic exemptions, neglecting other forms of expression – such as academic, artistic and literary – that also require balancing against personal data protection rights. Practical implications The research provides practical guidance for balancing data protection and freedom of expression, particularly under GDPR Article 85. It underscores the need for case-by-case assessments, ensuring proportionality and necessity when handling criminal conviction data. Policymakers and legal practitioners can use these insights to refine journalistic exemptions and prevent data misuse, especially in digital media contexts. Organisations, including media platforms, are encouraged to adopt responsible data-handling practices to safeguard privacy while enabling public interest reporting. Finally, the findings stress the importance of dynamic frameworks that adapt to evolving societal and technological contexts, supporting fair outcomes for both data protection and expression rights. Social implications This research highlights the delicate balance between individual data protection rights and freedom of expression, particularly regarding criminal conviction data. Its implications extend to societal concerns over data privacy, the potential misuse of personal information and the long-term impact on individuals, especially those with minor or outdated offences. As digital media evolves, these issues become more pressing, with the rise of social media and user-generated content complicating the legal landscape. Ensuring that privacy is upheld without stifling public access to essential information is crucial for maintaining both rights and societal transparency in an increasingly interconnected world. Originality/value This study enriches the debate on data protection and freedom of expression in crime-related data processing. By addressing journalistic exemptions and the evolving media landscape, it provides a nuanced perspective on safeguarding privacy while maintaining transparency in an era of digital accessibility.

For centuries, the protection of fundamental human rights has been part of the historical conceptual and constitutional legacy of the peoples on both sides of the Atlantic. Great thinkers from all nations have contributed towards the generation of human and fundamental rights. Nowadays these rights (or at least their substance) are universally recognised, beyond the continents of Europe and America. Virtually all the UN nations recognise them at least verbally. The fact that they are not put into effect, let alone observed, everywhere, does not alter their claim to validity. Practice and theory operate at different speeds, and politics carries the duty to change this.^ The academic world is only able to send out reminders and to encourage progress. The General Assembly of the UN adopted a "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" on 10 December 1948. Following on from the origin of their spiritual forefathers, it was rooted in the European and American declarations of human rights, and embodied human dignity, protection of personality, individual rights to freedom, equality under the law, basic judicial rights and rights to political codetermination. However, these traditional rights were extended to include more recent legal rights, which had become manifestly threatened through experiences in the Thirties and Forties, namely bans on torture and deportation, the right of asylum and the right to citizenship. Certain social, economic and cultural rights were also added. However, it must be noted that the Declaration has not acquired the status of a binding international legal rule, despite the fact that a minimum standard (irrespective of how this may be circumscribed), has by now become a constituent of customary international law. Further markers en route to an international Charter of Human Rights have included numerous special declarations and conventions, and in particular the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic and Social and

Background: The rapid development of Artificial Intelligence has profoundly transformed various aspects of social life, including the criminal justice system. In criminal proceedings, the collection and processing of biometric, behavioral, and emotional data may threaten the right to privacy, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a fair trial. This study examines the intersection between technological innovation and personal data protection in criminal justice through a comparative legal analysis of the European Union and Vietnam. By analyzing the EU’s GDPR, Law Enforcement Directive, and AI Act 2024 alongside Vietnam’s legal framework, the paper identifies key areas of convergence, divergence, and regulatory gaps. Methods: The study employs comparative legal analysis, combined with a human rights–based approach, to clarify the relationship between technological innovation and the right to personal data protection in criminal justice. The sources of reference include the legal frameworks of the European Union and Vietnam, case law and reports from bodies of EU and United Nations. Results and Conclusions: The study aims to establish fundamental legal principles that balance technological innovation with the protection of the right to personal data in criminal justice—an approach that has received limited attention in Vietnam. Based on this foundation, it proposes legal reforms toward a framework of “human rights–oriented digital justice”, ensuring that the digitalization and application of AI in the justice system not only enhance operational efficiency but also strengthen the rule of law and protect people.

اتحادیۀ اروپایی در سیاست‌های اعلامی خود رعایت حقوق بشر را شرطی ضروری در مناسبات داخلی و خارجی‌اش خوانده و برای نمونه پیوستن کشورهای اروپایی به اتحادیه، بهره‌مندی از امکانات آن و حتی انعقاد معاهده با سایر کشورها را منوط به احترام به حقوق بشر می‌کند. در این مقاله، جایگاه مقولۀ دفاع از حقوق بشر در نظام حقوقی اتحادیۀ اروپایی مورد بررسی قرار می‌گیرد. رژیم دفاع از حقوق بشر در اتحادیه از چهار مجموعه اسناد تشکیل شده است: 1) معاهدات دوگانۀ شکل‌دهندۀ اتحادیه، 2) منشور حقوق بنیادین اتحادیۀ اروپا، 3) رویۀ قضایی دیوان دادگستری اروپایی و 4) کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر که پیوستن به آن توسط پیمان «لیسبون» ضروری شمرده شده، ولی تا کنون تحقق نیافته است. با توجه به اهمیت سند چهارم،‌ تسریع در روند پیوستن اتحادیۀ اروپا به کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر لازم به نظر می‌رسد. هر چند که کنوانسیون در حال حاضر نیز در نظام حقوقی اتحادیه و به‌ویژه رویۀ قضایی دیوان دادگستری اروپایی مورد استناد قرار می‌گیرد، اما پیوستن اتحادیه به کنوانسیون، جایگاه آن‌را در نظام حقوقی اتحادیه نهادینه خواهد ساخت و نیز نظارت بر رعایت حقوق بشر در فعالیت‌های اتحادیه را، برای تضمین بیش‌تر بر عهده نهادی خارج از اتحادیه (یعنی دادگاه اروپایی حقوق بشر) قرار خواهد داد. با این حال، همچنان خلائی در زمینۀ حقوق بشر در نهادهای اتحادیۀ اروپایی وجود دارد و به‌عنوان نمونه، توجه مکفی به حقوق اقتصادی و اجتماعی نشده است. به‌علاوه لازم است که اسناد مختلف تضمین‌کنندۀ رعایت حقوق بشر در این اتحادیه در قالب یک نظام یکپارچه حقوقی عمل کنند.

The article is devoted to the study of trends and prospects for the use of artificial intelligence in the organization of pharmaceutical business. The relevance and significance of the research topic is substantiated. The key advantages of integrating artificial intelligence and other end-to-end technologies into the practice of pharmaceutical organizations in the context of drug discovery and development processes are considered. The author analyzes the trends in the use of artificial intelligence to improve (simplify and reduce the cost of) production, analytical, research and other business processes of a pharmaceutical organization, and provides practical examples. The article provides a brief overview of analysts' and experts' forecasts regarding the application of artificial intelligence in the pharmaceutical business organization in the short term. It is established that in order to realize these forecasts and, in general, to accelerate the industrialization of the pharmaceutical industry with the help of end-to-end technologies, as well as to stimulate the use of artificial intelligence to improve the organization of pharmaceutical business, a number of measures should be taken; to increase the availability of medicines in the pharmaceutical market, to ensure a higher level of compliance with regulatory requirements, as well as to increase the medical effectiveness and social significance of innovative developments in the field of circulation of medicines in the context of the The author analyzes possible threats to the right to privacy arising from the use of artificial intelligence and suggests ways to eliminate them by improving the legislative mechanisms for personal data protection. Protection of the right to privacy is becoming particularly important due to the rapid development of technology. Massive collection of personal data via the Internet and mobile applications, data analysis using AI, the use of biometric technologies, as well as the increase in cybercrime and illegal surveillance pose serious threats to an individual's privacy. Therefore, there is an urgent need for further research to ensure the right to privacy in the context of artificial intelligence. This right is enshrined in both universal and regional international agreements, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and others. Society is increasingly aware of the importance of protecting confidentiality (privacy) and the potential risks in case of its violation. The use of personal data for government or commercial purposes raises ethical questions about the boundaries of what is permissible and inviolable. Increasing globalization requires coordinated approaches to privacy protection at the international level. The adoption of regulations such as the GDPR and the Artificial Intelligence Act in Europe, as well as the CCPA and CPRA in California, confirms the importance of personal data protection and the right to privacy.

The personal scope of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) is an area that still needs to be defined by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The issue surrounding the personal scope entails the question of who can claim the protection of fundamental rights. A particularly controversial matter has proved to be the question whether, and if so under what circumstances, private legal entities and public authorities can invoke fundamental rights. This article aims to provide a detailed examination of the ‘landscape’ the CJEU must take into account when dealing with the personal scope of the Charter in the future. Firstly, this landscape is made up of the background and objectives of the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) legal systems. Secondly, it is shaped by the personal scope application of the Charter as interpreted by the CJEU so far, and the personal scope application of the ECHR as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Finally, the application by Member State courts of fundamental rights, via the Charter, ECHR and constitutional rights, forms an element in this landscape. An examination of these aspects will provide answers to the question of how the three main players on the European fundamental rights stage – the CJEU, the ECtHR and the national courts – have applied the personal scope of their fundamental rights up to now. This also encompasses answers to the question of how these applications relate to the different background and objectives of the ECHR and the EU legal systems. These answers will provide the CJEU with tools to deliver well-informed rulings on the personal scope of Charter provisions in the future.

Unlike conventional methods and technologies of collecting, processing and analysing the personal data of natural persons as part of law enforcement activities, the broader use of different artificial intelligence methods brings into focus the need for specific rules regulating the application of various artificial intelligence methods to protect two independent fundamental rights as regulated by EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Art. 7 and 8 – data protection and privacy. Privacy, the protection of personal data and the security of their processing and transmission within law enforcement activities, whether it is non-automated, partially or fully automated, is prescribed by Directive (EU) 2016/680 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 by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data. When considering personal data protection in the context of Directive 2016/680 it is referred to the protection of information on the confirmed identity of a natural person (data protection) and the protection of all information by which identity can be confirmed (privacy). Thus, this information should not be part of the defined personal data category, and all methods and technologies that can be used for direct and indirect confirmation of the identity of a natural person should be taken into account. The paper aims to determine whether there is relationship between privacy and security and whether there are differences in the personal data collection, processing and analysis methods by law enforcement authorities, when used methods are conventional or artificial intelligence. The first hypothesis emphasises causality between privacy and security when collecting, processing and analysing their personal data by conventional methods and artificial intelligence methods for law enforcement purposes. The second hypothesis implies a statistically significant difference in making personal data available to law-enforcement bodies in cases they are collected, processed and analysed by conventional methods and in cases they are collected, processed or analysed by artificial intelligence methods. The methods used are: descriptive method for describing the process of collecting, processing and analysing personal data in law enforcement activities, as well as for describing the differences between conventional and artificial intelligence methods and evaluating hypotheses; induction for creating hypothesis; deduction for observing specific relations; content analysis and synthesis in the evaluation phase; survey method; statistical and comparative method in the testing phase and for determining the compliance with the hypotheses.

Europe’s national, supranational, and international governance structures produce parallel and often overlapping systems of rights protection. After more than sixty years’ experience with the European Convention on Human Rights, the advent in 2009 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights added new complexity to the human rights system. Examined here are the three dimensions of rights protection in this multi-layered system and the challenges resulting from this complexity, including: (1) uncertainty and confusion over the scope and level of rights protection, (2) general lack of uniformity in the recognition and enforcement of rights from one country to the next, and (3) questions over who has the last word on the protection of rights in Europe. Assessed in the conclusion are how and to what extent the unique interactions of national courts, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Court of Justice of the European Union affect outcomes such as the protection of fundamental rights.

The Quest for Information Privacy in Africa: A Review Essay

In 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered several highly important judgments and opinions in the field of human rights law. The present article aims to provide an overview of this jurisprudence. It considers the most important cases in the fields of asylum law, the right to hold a European Citizens ‘ Initiative, data protection, non-discrimination, and the rule of law. Following a summary of each case discussed, it analyses the relevant aspects concerning human rights protection. The article finally concludes that the case law of the CJEU in the field of human rights law remains ambivalent. While some cases show further improvement in protecting the individual, other cases still show a strong tendency of relying on a utilitarian approach to human rights. THE RIGHT TO ASYLUM The Right to Asylum under Article 18 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) is of immense practical importance as the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is still struggling with the consequences of the refugee crisis of 2015. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 2017 on the matter has also clarified issues that are of general importance for EU human rights law and doctrine. THE REFUGEE STATUS Many systems of human rights protection have a general concept that individuals responsible for acts of persecution and violations of human rights should not benefit from fundamental rights and freedoms themselves. Enemies of freedom should not benefit from fundamental rights while they are trying to subvert them. At the very least, the rights of the enemies of human rights can be restricted more severely than those of other beneficiaries. Thus, Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) contains a prohibition of abuse of rights, which makes it clear that the ECHR may not be interpreted as allowing any act aimed at the destruction of the rights guaranteed in the Convention. In the same vein, Article 1 section F of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (CSR51) states that the provisions of the Convention shall not apply to any person who is guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations (UN). The CFR, however, does not contain a similar clause.

In the constitutional shaping of the concept of essence of fundamental rights, the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU” or “the Court”) in the field of privacy and data protection plays a crucial role. The Court’s interpretation of this notion had a considerable impact not only jon perception of the essence in other fields of law, but also on the constitutional doctrine more generally. This Article focuses on specificities of the notion of essence of fundamental rights to privacy and the protection of personal data from Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. After a general analysis, situating this notion into the framework of multi-level protection of fundamental rights in Europe, the Article addresses further interpretative challenges relating to the essence in the Court’s case law. At the core of the analysis are the Schrems and Digital Rights Ireland cases, where the CJEU developed, for the first time, the modalities of the breach of essence of fundamental rights to privacy and data protection and laid down constitutional foundations for interpretation of this notion. Further jurisprudence, including the Tele2 Sverige and Opinion 1/15 cases, is analyzed as an example of fine-tuning of the CJEU’s approach towards the normative understanding of this concept. Against this backdrop, the Article elaborates on the importance of insights in the fields of privacy and data protection for the general constitutional understanding of the concept of essence and proposes a generalized method for determination of infringement of essence in fundamental rights jurisprudence.

As technology has developed so too have the concerns about that technology. If political advertisements have the potential to change our political beliefs and opinions this will have an inevitable consequence for our democratic society. The need to regulate online targeted political advertising has surfaced frequently during the past years. In the EU, legal regulation frames the phenomenon in at least four different ways. This chapter compares regulation focusing on the protection of personal data under the General Data Protection Regulation; economic digital spaces under the Digital Services Act; the freedom of expression and information under the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights; and finally, regulation which looks at political advertising per se under the Union’s new Political Advertising Regulation. The chapter then considers the effects that the different framing has on emphasis or enforcement priorities. The chapter argues that evidencing the harm created by online targeted political advertising may be harder than initially assumed.

Article 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) guarantees the protection of personal data and sets forth the main principles of data protection. This chapter explores the implications of this fundamental right for a digitized society. First, it addresses specific problems of the understanding of Article 8 CFR. This includes the concept of data protection as a fundamental right itself: What are the (tangible) harms of data processing? What is the object of protection? Further, it elaborates on its meaning and scope with respect to private parties. According to Article 51 CFR, the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the institutions and bodies of the Union and the Member States when they are implementing Union law. Private parties are not explicitely mentioned. However, fundamental rights standards of data protection apply also to private companies. As a fundamental right, Article 8 CFR produces a “horizontal effect”. Despite several decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in particular the Google Spain judgement, the conceptual frame and the scope of the horizontal effect remain unclear. In order to clarify the possible effects of Article 8 CFR between private parties, it is necessary to explicate the doctrinal grounds on which these effects can be construed (direct and indirect horizontal effects, negative and positive obligations). On this basis, the chapter highlights regulatory implications for the data economy.