Summary

The idea of a computer replacing a human judge may have seemed utopian just a few years ago, but the time has come to talk about robot judges not in conditional but in definitive terms. Many artificial intelligence (AI) systems are used in courts today, with the most advanced ones being capable of automatically generating credible court judgments. Although no machine currently administers justice without human supervision, recent achievements indicate that it should come as no surprise if one day it is not human eyes, but dull computer screens that peek out from under the judges’ robes. Even the Supreme Court has left the door open to robot judges, stating that while the use of technology in the exercise of state power must meet all the requirements of applicable law, the direct involvement of a human being is not necessarily required to fulfil this condition.

At the same time, there are considerable risks associated with using AI in the administration of justice, as evidenced by the fact that the AI Act classifies AI systems intended for the administration of justice as high-risk AI systems. Thus, the impact of AI on the administration of justice and the role of the judges needs to be assessed at an early stage. Otherwise, the legal order may stifle innovation or, even worse, the rights of individuals may be violated.

Since a robot judge adjudicates in a fully automated way, without any human input, and thus replaces the judge, the key question in the implementation of robot judges is whether AI systems may adjudicate in place of a judge; this is a question concerning the monopoly of the administration of justice, i.e. who has the competence to administer justice. Consequently, the aim of this article is to answer the question to what extent is the use of a robot judge (i.e. an AI system that autonomously adjudicates on civil cases) in civil proceedings compatible with the principle of the monopoly of the administration of justice, one of the most important requirements of adjudication.