‘Computer says no’: Is automation in the public interest?

By Kit Fotheringham, Bristol Doctoral College (University of Bristol)

Photo by Francisco De Legarreta C. on Unsplash

In common with many developed nations, the public sector in the UK takes up a sizable proportion of economic activity. Therefore, the way the public sector is run is of interest to the public, both as citizens, who expect good administration of public services, and as taxpayers, who contribute to public finances. Of course, not all citizens are taxpayers (especially children and those on low incomes), nor can all taxpayers be regarded as citizens (notably, companies). Some scholars even question whether the balance sheet of a sovereign government with its own currency is comparable to the household pocketbook, positing that government spending contributes to overall money supply. Nevertheless, politicians play to the narrative that public money is the collective property of taxpayers, and seeking to persuade voters that their policies will offer the best protection against further encroachment on the economic interests of individuals. (more…)

Resh(AI)ping good administration: beyond systemic risks vs individual rights?

By Professor Albert Sanchez-Graells, Co-Director of the Centre for Global Law and Innovation (University of Bristol Law School).

The Digital Constitutionalist (DigiCon) has recently hosted a symposium on ‘Safeguarding the Right to Good Administration in the Age of AI’, co-edited by Dr Simona Demková (Leiden), Dr Melanie Fink (Leiden) and Dr Giulia Gentile (Essex). Professor Sanchez-Graells contributed his thoughts on the need to extend good administration requirements to the phases of decision-making that are not yet directly relevant to the individual, as well as the need to broaden good administration guarantees to a collective dimension, to account for the new risks arising in the AI-driven administrative context. In this post, first published in the DigiCon symposium, Albert looks at ways to achieve this, whether through an expansive interpretation of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union or through a European legislative reform. (more…)

The EU public procurement remedies directive needs some revision, and the Commission should not shy away from it

By Dr Albert Sanchez-Graells, Senior Lecturer in Law (University of Bristol Law School).

my-performance-reviewEU public procurement law relies on the specific enforcement mechanisms of the Remedies Directive, which sets out EU requirements of administrative oversight and judicial protection for public contracts. Recent developments in the case law of the CJEU and the substantive reform resulting from the 2014 Public Procurement Package may have created gaps in the Remedies Directive, which led the European Commission to publicly consult on its revision in 2015. One year after, the outcome of the consultation has not been published, but such revision now seems to have been shelved. In a chapter* I am contributing to an edited collection, I take issue with the shelving of the revision process and critically assesses whether the Remedies Directive is still fit for purpose. (more…)