en

Scientific Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs

  • Received 05.12.2024,
  • Revised 21.02.2025,
  • Accepted 25.03.2025
Download article Download article
Vol. 30, No. 1, 2025
  • civil law; civil proceedings; stages of civil proceedings; participants in the trial; court decisions; appeal; technology in law
  • https://doi.org/10.63341/naia-herald/1.2025.45
  • Pages 45-59

The rapid development of artificial intelligence technologies makes legal adaptation essential, which is crucial for civil law systems where codified principles require clarity and precision. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the current legal mechanisms that provide the basis for the application of artificial intelligence within the framework of EU civil legislation. The study was conducted using doctrinal and empirical methodology, and reviewed legislative acts, court precedents, and academic discourse on the regulation of artificial intelligence. The study critically analysed the regulatory limits of the use of artificial intelligence in civil court proceedings in EU Member States. Attention was focused on legislative initiatives such as the Artificial Intelligence Act. The study examined the principles of civil law (good faith, proportionality, and legal certainty) integrated into the regulation of artificial intelligence, which helped to determine whether current practices are consistent with fundamental rights and the rule of law. A comparative analysis of the strategies for introducing artificial intelligence in Germany, Estonia, and Spain helped to identify distinct, but complementary approaches. This demonstrated the ability of civil law systems to adapt to the latest technologies. The study also found that, despite great strides, certain problems in the field of legal regulation continue to be unresolved, including the combination of conventional liability models with autonomous decision-making by artificial intelligence and provision of uniform application of rules in different jurisdictions. The study offered practical recommendations for improving the civil law framework for the use of artificial intelligence, which may be useful for legislators, lawyers, and artificial intelligence developers

References

[1] Casals, M.M. (2023). The European Union’s proposals to regulate civil liability for damage caused by artificial intelligence systems. InDret, 3, 55-100. doi: 10.31009/indret.2023.i3.02.

[2] Chamberlain, J. (2022). The risk-based approach of the European Unionʼs proposed artificial intelligence regulation: Some comments from a tort law perspective. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 14(1). doi: 10.1017/err.2022.38.

[3] Chiappini, D. (2022). Artificial intelligence and civil liability: Regulatory perspective in the light of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Rivista Italiana di Informatica e Diritto, 4(2), 95-108. doi: 10.32091/ riid0082.

[4] Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination. (2020). Preventing discrimination caused by the use of artificial intelligence. Retrieved from https://pace.coe.int/en/files/28715/html.

[5] DailyAI. (2023). Evidence of AI misuse unearthed in the UK public sector. Retrieved from https://dailyai.com/2023/10/evidence-of-ai-misuse-unearthed-in-the-uk-public-sector/.

[6] Dolfing, H. (2024). Case study: IBM Watson for oncology failure. Retrieved from https://www.henricodolfing.com/2024/12/case-study-ibm-watson-for-oncology-failure.html.

[7] e-Estonia. (2025). Artificial intelligence as the new reality of e-justice. Retrieved from https://e-estonia. com/artificial-intelligence-as-the-new-reality-of-e-justice/.

[8] European Commission. (2019). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. Brussels: EU Publications Office.

[9] Gerke, S., Minssen, T., & Cohen, G. (2020). Ethical and legal challenges of artificial intelligence- driven healthcare. In A. Bohr & K. Memarzadeh (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in healthcare (pp. 295-336). Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818438-7.00012-5.

[10] Hösch, A., Schrader, M., & Zickert, P. G. (2025). The evolving role of AI in German dispute resolution. Retrieved from https://surl.li/osuaev.

[11] IGNESA. (2025). Predictive policing – using data to target crime, not communities. Retrieved from https:// ignesa.com/insights/predictive-policing/.

[12] JustDigi. (2025). Retrieved from https://www.justdigi.ee.

[13] Kuteynikov, D., Izhaev, O., Lebedev, V., & Zenin, S. (2021). Human rights during the mass introduction of artificial intelligence and robotic systems into public life. Cuestiones Políticas, 39(71), 609-620. doi: 10.46398/cuestpol.3971.36.

[14] Marchenko, V., Dombrovska, A., & Prodaivoda, V. (2024). Comparative analysis of regulatory acts of the EU countries on the protection of intellectual property in the conditions of the use of artificial intelligence. Public Administration and Law Review, 3(19), 44-66. doi: 10.36690/2674-5216- 2024-3-44-66.

[15] Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. (2024). Digital agenda 2030. Retrieved from https:// www.justdigi.ee/en/digital-communications-and-cyber/digital-agenda-2030.

[16] OECD (2024). OECD artificial intelligence review of Germany. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/609808d6-en.

[17] OECD. (2024). OECD artificial intelligence review of Germany. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/ content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/06/oecd-artificial-intelligence-review-of-germany_ c1c35ccf/609808d6-en.pdf.

[18] OECD. (2025). AI principles: Accountability. OECD AI policy observatory. Retrieved from https://oecd.ai/ en/dashboards/ai-principles/P7.

[19] Pagallo, U., Sciolla, J. C., & Durante, M. (2022). The environmental challenges of AI in EU law: Lessons learned from the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) with its drawbacks. Transforming Government People Process and Policy, 16(3), 359-376. doi: 10.1108/tg-07-2021-0121.

[20] Poesen, M. (2023). Private international law and artificial intelligence: An EU perspective. European Review of Private Law, 31(2-3), 365-386. doi: 10.54648/erpl2023013.

[21] Rimkutė, D. (2024). AI and liability in medicine: The case of assistive-diagnostic AI. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, 16(2), 64-81. doi: 10.2478/bjlp-2023-0013.

[22] Roksandic, S., Protrka, N., & Engelhart, M. (2022). Trustworthy artificial intelligence and its use by law enforcement authorities: Where do we stand? In 2022 45th jubilee international convention on information, communication and electronic technology (MIPRO) (pp. 1225-1232). Opatija: IEEE. doi: 10.23919/ mipro55190.2022.9803606.

[23] Schütte, B., Majewski, L., & Havu, K. (2021). Damages liability for harm caused by artificial intelligence – EU law in flux. Helsinki Legal Studies Research Paper, 69. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3897839.

[24] Sormunen, S., & Havu, K. (2022). Harm caused by (Intelligent) medical devices – looking for a level playing field and consumer trust? Helsinki Legal Studies Research Paper, 76. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4307159.

[25] Statista. (2025a). Artificial intelligence in Germany. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/topics/11207/artificial-intelligence-in-germany/#editorsPicks.

[26] Statista. (2025b). Artificial intelligence – Spain. Statista market forecast. Retrieved from https://www. statista.com/outlook/tmo/artificial-intelligence/spain.

[27] Studzińska, J. (2024). Artificial intelligence in civil procedure in Europe – some perspectives. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 396, 446-452. doi: 10.3233/faia241371.

[28] Top.legal. (2025). AI contract management: Benefits. Retrieved from https://www.top.legal/en/ knowledge/ai-contract-management-benefits.

[29] Turkanova, V. (2023). Prospects for the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms for effective resolution of civil disputes. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 6(2), 232-241. doi: 10.33327/ ajee-18-6.2-n000224.

[30] Turuta, O., & Turuta, O. (2022). Artificial intelligence through the prism of fundamental human rights. Uzhhorod National University Herald Series Law, 71, 49-54. doi: 10.24144/2307-3322.2022.71.7.

[31] Van Noordt, C., & Misuraca, G. (2022). Artificial intelligence for the public sector: Results of landscaping the use of AI in government across the European Union. Government Information Quarterly, 39(3), article number 101714. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2022.101714.

[32] van Quathem, K. (2023). Italian Garante fines three hospitals over their use of AI for risk stratification purposes; establishes that predictive medicine processing requires the patientʼs explicit consent. Retrieved from https://www.globalpolicywatch.com/2023/02/italian-garante-fines-three-hospitals-over-their-use-of- ai-for-risk-stratification-purposes-establishes-that-predictive-medicine-processing-requires-the-patients-explicit-consent/.

[33] White & Case LLP. (2025). AI watch: Global regulatory tracker – Spain. Retrieved from https://www. whitecase.com/insight-our-thinking/ai-watch-global-regulatory-tracker-spain.

[34] Zertia AI. (2025). Clearview AI fined €30.5 million for GDPR violations: Largest penalty in Europe. Retrieved from https://zertia.ai/clearview-ai-fined-e30-5-million-for-gdpr-violations-largest-penalty-in-europe/.

[35] Zyhrii, O., Trufanova, Yu., Parashchuk, L., Sampara, N., & Tsvigun, I. (2023). Law and technology: The impact of innovations on the legal system and its regulation. Social and Legal Studios, 6(4), 267-275. doi: 10.32518/sals4.2023.267.