References of "Demkova, Simona 50029959"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailThe decisional value of information in European semi-automated decision-making
Demkova, Simona UL

in Review of European Administrative Law (2021), 2(14), 29-50

This article asserts that the automated processing of information, such as via large-scale information systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), alters the ‘value’ of information from a ... [more ▼]

This article asserts that the automated processing of information, such as via large-scale information systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), alters the ‘value’ of information from a means of assistance to a key decisional asset. Information in its different forms, whether paper-based or digital, has always been fundamental to decision-making conduct. Concretely, the premise holds that decisions shall be based on correct, full, and adequate knowledge and reasoning. Technological innovation has, however, magnified information capacities and significance. The article in that respect maintains that the ‘decisional value’ of automatically-processed information consequently also alters the nature of the respective decision-making – from a conventional type where the agent exercises discretion to a ‘semi-automated’ conduct in which automation inhibits the agent’s decision-making capacity. The recognition of such transformation is necessary for the law to keep up with the technological progress and safeguard rights of individuals who are subjects of such semi-automated decisions. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 82 (6 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailThe Grand Chamber’s Take on Composite Procedures under the Single Supervisory Mechanism
Demkova, Simona UL

in Review of European Administrative Law (2019), 12(1), 209-220

The recent landmark judgment of Berlusconi (Fininvest) reaffirms the Union Courts’ initial stance regarding the division of jurisdiction for matters arising from composite procedures. Remarkably, however ... [more ▼]

The recent landmark judgment of Berlusconi (Fininvest) reaffirms the Union Courts’ initial stance regarding the division of jurisdiction for matters arising from composite procedures. Remarkably, however, in Berlusconi, the CJEU for the first time offers a conceptual discussion on the long discussed issue of jurisdiction in composite matters, and does so in the new context of the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM). In this respect, the Court first clarifies that where an EU institution enjoys discretion in the final decision-making under the arrangement of a composite procedure, the Union Courts shall have an exclusive jurisdiction over the procedure as a whole. Consequently, Member State courts are prevented from reviewing any steps leading to the adoption of a final decision, regardless of the legal effects thereof in the domestic legal order or the domestic procedural rules allowing for such a review. While seemingly logical, the binary approach to judicial vompetence opens more doors to uncertainty, than it closes. One key concern is regarding the appropriate conduct of review under exclusive jurisdiction; concretely whether and how the Union Courts are competent to review preliminary acts taken under national law. Generally, where interpretation of the respective national rules is clear, such a review would consist of a verification of compliance with the essential procedural guarantees by the Union institution or body, which took the final decision. This approach seems to apply also in cases where the Union institution has a limited discretion to review the national preliminary acts when taking the final decision. The following discussion identifies that despite the black-and-white understanding of discretion developed by the Court in Berlusconi, under more general jurisdiction, the Union Courts will always verify that decisions of the Union institutions are taken with all due care. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 154 (21 UL)