Vers une intelligence artificielle « fabriquée en Europe » : pistes d’action et lignes directrices éthiques

By Alyson Berrendorf

L’intelligence artificielle (IA) est une nouvelle donnée qu’il n’est – depuis plusieurs années – plus possible de négliger. La croissance de la puissance de calcul, la maximisation ainsi que la disponibilité des données, la rapidité de traitements des informations et les progrès réalisés dans les algorithmes ont fait de l’IA l’une des technologies les plus stratégiques du 21ème siècle. Face à ce constat, l’Union européenne se doit ne pas rater cette révolution technologique, et, mieux encore, elle se doit de devenir un acteur de pointe sur la scène internationale afin de développer une IA performante, éthique et sûre, au profit tant du citoyen (dans sa vie privée et professionnelle) que de la société dans son ensemble.

A cet effet, la Commission européenne a pris plusieurs initiatives ces deux dernières années. La communication de la Commission européenne intitulée « L’intelligence artificielle pour l’Europe », publiée en avril 2018, préconisait de ce fait une stratégie européenne à l’appui de cet objectif, ainsi qu’un plan coordonné pour le développement de l’IA en Europe, présenté en décembre dernier. Plus récemment encore, en avril 2019 cette fois, la Commission a encore franchi une étape supplémentaire en souhaitant lancer sa phase pilote afin de faire en sorte que les lignes directrices en matière éthique pour le développement de l’IA sûre puissent être concrètement mises en œuvre dans la pratique (COM(2019) 168 final).

Au travers de ce bref article, nous ferons une première évaluation des diverses avancées concernant le déploiement de l’intelligence artificielle au sein de l’Union européenne. Nous analyserons notamment le fil conducteur de ce plan, ainsi que la liste d’évaluation et les lignes directrices en matière d’éthique récemment mises en avant par le groupe d’experts indépendants de haut niveau sur l’intelligence artificielle, afin de générer, selon leurs termes, « une IA digne de confiance » et « axée sur l’humain ». Face à cette dénomination, une question mérite d’être soulevée… Une IA axée sur autre chose – ou pour le dire autrement, une IA au service d’autre chose que l’humain – est-elle possible ? Continue reading

Refining transparency and responsible investment?: The case of EIB and sustainable finance

By Chrysa Alexandraki

Background

On 8 January 2019, an action was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereafter CJEU) by an environmental law charity, ClientEarth (hereafter applicant) against a multilateral development bank (hereafter MDB) and European institution, the European Investment Bank (hereafter EIB). The case concerns the financing by the bank of a biomass energy generating project in Northern Spain – Galicia -, of the cost of 60 million euros, followed by the bank’s refusal to refine its decision to finance the aforementioned investment, regardless the applicant’s request for an internal review of this decision on April 2018. The applicant bases the request for an internal review on alleged ‘errors in the assessment of the financing combined with the provision of minimal information regarding the funding decision’. The main claim brought by the applicant involves the annulment of EIB’s refusal to conduct an internal review and subject its decision to scrutiny, as requested under Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation (hereafter Regulation), bringing into discussion implementation issues of both International and European law.Continue reading

The US, China, and Case 311/18 on Standard Contractual Clauses

By Peter Swire

On July 9, the Court of Justice for the European Union (CJEU) held eight hours of oral argument in hearing case C-311/18, on whether US surveillance practices violate the fundamental rights of EU citizens.  This case could potentially rupture the mechanisms that allow personal data to flow across the Atlantic. Should the Court so decide, it would soon be illegal for companies and services we use every day to transfer personal data from the EU to the US.  Such a determination, however, may result in an absurdity; EU citizens’ data could not travel to the US for fear of intrusive surveillance, but could flow unimpeded to China, a nation with surveillance practices ripped from the pages of a dystopian science fiction novel. Continue reading

The cross border operations Directive: wider scope but more restrictions

By Segismundo Alvarez

In an increasingly changing and global business environment, companies need to be able to reorganise, also internationally, through cross border, mergers, divisions and conversions. At the same time, these operations pose a risk to stakeholders’ rights, and international reorganisations are increasingly seen by the public, NGOs and EU institutions as a means to avoid social and tax legislation, especially for transnational companies. This tension has been obvious in the preparation of the Directive on cross-border mobility (hereinafter: the new Directive)approved by the European Parliament on April 18th –see the final text here , subject only to the corrigendum procedure– that amends Directive 2017/1132 relating to certain aspects of Company Law (hereinafter: the 2017 Directive).

The key novelty is that the scope of regulated cross border transactions is broadened, as the new Directive adds cross-border divisions and conversions to the already harmonised regulation of cross-border mergers. The EU Court of Justice (hereinafter: ECJ) had declared that companies should be allowed to carry out cross-border transactions as a consequence of their right to freedom of establishment (cases SEVIC, Cartesio, VALE Építési and POLBUD) but the lack of regulation implied practical difficulties.Continue reading

Thickening up judicial independence: the ECJ ruling in Commission v. Poland (C-619/18)

By Marco Antonio Simonelli

On the 24 June, the European Court of Justice (‘the ECJ’ or ‘the Court’) delivered the long-awaited judgment in Commission v Poland (C-619/18). This judgment represents the most significant offspring of Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses (‘ASJP’); the ECJ in fact, for the first time declared the incompatibility of a national provision on the ground that it violated Article 19 TEU. Whoever has followed the proceedings since the beginning could not be surprised by this outcome – as the interim measure of the 19 October 2018 largely anticipated it – yet the judgment is much more than a simple application of the principles set out in ASJP. The judgment indeed makes clear that the legitimacy of any restriction of the principle of judicial independence is subject to a proportionality scrutiny, but at the same time it seems to consider judicial independence as a quasi-absolute value. Also, the ECJ took the chance the define the contours of Article 19 TEU scope of applicability; thus consolidating its Article 19 TEU case law.Continue reading

The first preliminary ruling on Directive 2014/104/EU: Case 637/17 Cogeco

By Guilherme Oliveira e Costa

Introduction

With two major decisions, March 2019 was an interesting month with regard to the Court of Justice’s (also ‘ECJ’) case-law on private enforcement of competition law: Skanska (C-724/17) and Cogeco (C-637/17). This post will comment on the judgment in Cogeco, whereas a previous post analysed the Skanska ruling.

Cogeco is, in fact, an unsurprising judgment, particularly regarding its conclusions. But the decision itself contains a lot of interesting points, and was preceded by a noteworthy Opinion of AG Kokott. Additionally, its importance must not be underestimated since it is the first preliminary ruling on Directive 2014/104/EU (‘Damages Directive’) and, as pointed out by AG Kokott, there are still several questions connected with this Directive which need clarification. Moreover, this ruling also shows a very clear example on how unsuitably some national legal systems (the Portuguese one in the case at hand) treated private enforcement before the harmonisation implemented by the Damages Directive.Continue reading

AG Opinion on C-18/18: Towards private regulation of speech worldwide

By Paolo Cavaliere

The case of Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook offers the opportunity for the Court of Justice to clarify the personal and material scope of monitoring obligations that may be imposed on Internet intermediaries, i.e. those private entities that ‘give access to, host, transmit and index content originated by third parties’.  The decision of the Court will determine whether domestic courts can impose monitoring obligations on digital platforms, and of what nature, and how much power courts should be given in imposing their own standards of acceptable speech across national boundaries. The opinion of the Advocate General, rendered earlier this month, raises some concerns for on-line freedom of expression because of its expansive approach to both monitoring obligations and jurisdictional limitations.Continue reading

The Court’s judgement in C-591/17 (Austria v Germany), or why the German light-vehicle vignette system is discriminatory

By Niels Kirst 

The recent judgement of the European Court of Justice in C-591/17 Austria v Germany was a Member State dispute about the enactment of a motorway charge in Germany. The Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter: CJEU) addressed one of the core concepts of the European legal order – the non-discrimination principle enshrined in Article 18 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (hereinafter: TFEU). Questions had to be answered: (1) Can the cumulative introduction of a vignette system and a vehicle-tax relief amount to an indirect discrimination? (2) Should political considerations be taken into account by the Court? (3) Is Article 259 TFEU a suitable tool to solve Member State disputes?

The case is particularly interesting due to the use of Article 259 TFEU, which Austria invoked to bring Germany before the CJEU. Article 259 TFEU is rarely used due to its blaming character of the alleged rule-breaker. Many Member States would prefer that the European Commission (hereinafter: EC), as guardian of the treaties, leads the investigations into an alleged breach of EU law by a Member States. However, Article 259 TFEU can be seen as a last resort measure by a Member State, if the Member State sees its interests or the interest of its citizens jeopardized.[1]

In the case at hand, Austria brought the measure before the CJEU since many Austrians use the German highways due to proximity and transnational road travels through Germany. Austria based its claim on two characteristics. First, (i) the new motorway charge would be payable by all users of the motorway network in Germany and second (AG opinion, para. 5); (ii) owners of vehicles registered in Germany are granted a tax relief equal to the amount of the motorway charge (AG opinion, para. 5). Austria argued that the combination of these two measure factually amounts to an indirect discrimination of EU citizens when they use German highways.

This commentary presents the relevant political backgrounds leading up to this case, discusses the Court’s judgement and reflects upon the wider implications of Case C-591/17 for the development of an EU-wide vignette system for light vehicles, the use of Article 259 TFEU and the questions of political accords between the EC and a Member State.Continue reading

X