Dear participants, dear organizers, dear distinguished speakers,

I’m speaking on behalf of Equinet, the European network of equality bodies, representing 49 equality bodies in 36 European countries. In the next couple of minutes, I will focus on two things – first is the importance of equality and strong redress mechanisms in any future EU regulation on AI. Secondly, I want to make you more familiar with the role that we, as equality bodies across the EU, have in making sure AI systems are equality-compliant.

Why (pay special attention to) equality in the new proposal for an EU regulation on AI?  The proposal itself addresses non-discrimination, explicitly and prominently, as one of the leading fundamental rights concerns related to the impact of AI systems.

Now, why (pay special attention to) equality bodies in the new proposal for an EU regulation on AI? First, “who” are equality bodies? Equality bodies are national public bodies, institutions specialized in non-discrimination law and the provision of redress to victims of discrimination. EU equal treatment directives oblige all EU countries to set them up, to promote equality and fight discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnic origin and sex.

Equality bodies bring many added values:

• they can often work with the private sector, including through oversight and capacity-building;
• they can bring cases to court or themselves decide on complaints like quasi-judicial tribunals, in some cases with legally binding decisions and sanctions;
• they provide independent legal support to victims of discrimination;
• and they provide legal and policy advice to governments.

When it comes to work relating to AI, some of our members have already brought legal cases (concerning both the private and the public sector) related to AI, have contributed to the development of national strategies on AI or have given inputs to national legal reforms. They are also building national partnerships across sectors with relevant national regulators such as national data protection authorities, national financial supervisory authorities, etc. More examples are presented in Equinet’s Report “Regulating for an Equal AI: A New Role for Equality Bodies”, mentioned in the European Commission’s White Paper on AI.

With that said, and with the specific focus of this Forum being the future new AI Regulation of the EU, I want to make two suggestions.

My first suggestion is to make equality bodies part of the national supervisory mechanism. This can remedy the fact that the draft AI Regulation proposes no mechanism for consumer/citizen complaints and the provision of redress. This denied access to justice for potential victims of discrimination is especially problematic in the context of an AI-specific regulation.

Designating equality bodies as part of national supervisory authorities would also ensure a more harmonized regulatory approach across EU jurisdictions. It can even contribute to the consistent interpretation of existing national human rights law provisions, including those on equality and non-discrimination.

Of course, this role should only come after safeguarding adequate and meaningful powers and (human, financial and technical) resources to equality bodies, needed to address the new challenges posed by AI.

My second suggestion is to set ground for a cooperation framework, in order to enable collaboration between various national competent authorities under the proposed AI Regulation, and to develop the needed capacity. AI systems have a complex nature and cross-sectoral use. This means that respecting equality requires active collaboration and partnerships. Therefore, there is no doubt that working together is the way to go. Equality bodies should be part of this national governance framework, as they are key partners in the enforcement of national human rights legislation.

Of course, an important first step to facilitate and streamline the European effort on AI is the adoption of national strategies on AI, a step that many member states still have to take.

Finally, this new proposal on AI and timely and meaningful discussions, like the one today, are essential to what we all hope will be a groundbreaking and positive European approach to AI.

It is imperative to place equality and its effective protection through empowered equality bodies at the heart of any such approach.

Seriously thinking of equality implications of AI after public cases of discrimination by AI might lead to building of distrust towards AI and technology by the general public. On the other hand, by including equality experts early on, we can ensure that development and use of AI in the EU contributes to the wellbeing of all.

Thank you for your attention.

Tena Šimonović Einwalter

Equinet Chair & Ombudswoman of the Republic of Croatia

In data 29 giugno 2021 il Difensore civico ha incontrato la Commissione consiliare per la vigilanza, la trasparenza, la partecipazione, l'informazione e l'innovazione del Comune di Trento, su richiesta del Presidente della stessa. In questa sede ha illustrato ​in modo approfondito l'ambito delle proprie competenze e attività, nonché le relative modalità di svolgimento. All’incontro hanno partecipato anche la dott.ssa Livia Ferrario, direttrice generale del Comune di Trento, e la dott.ssa Lorenza Moresco, segretario generale. Il Difensore civico si è soffermata, in particolare, sul tema del diritto all’accesso agli atti amministrativi e sul rimedio giustiziale del ricorso al Difensore civico rispetto ai dinieghi espressi o taciti adottati dalle amministrazioni pubbliche. Si è altresì soffermata sulle criticità conseguenti all’articolato e complesso quadro normativo. 

All’illustrazione ha fatto seguito la formulazione di domande e quesiti da parte dei consiglieri comunali e gli interventi delle figure dirigenziali presenti.​​

London Borough of Camden failed to carry out a recommendation to apologise to a man for its poor handling of a complaint, until the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman chased it for a response.

Following an earlier complaint to the Ombudsman in 2019, the council had agreed to apologise to the man and ensure staff would properly address and respond to complaints in future.

The council should have apologised to the man by November 2019. However, it was a year later when the apology was finally issued, and it did not acknowledge the council’s failure to properly respond to the original complaint.

The council has still not provided the Ombudsman with details of how it will ensure its staff deal with complaints properly in future.

Michael King, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said:

“This case is an example of how we are thoroughly checking councils’ compliance with the actions they have agreed to take.

“How a council reflects on and learns from complaints is a measure of the maturity of its corporate culture. It is disappointing therefore that I have had to chase Camden council for the simplest of apologies – and even when this was provided, it did not acknowledge the previous problems I had found.

“It has also failed to provide me with assurance it will deal with complaints properly in future, so I look forward to receiving this confirmation in due course.”

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s role is to remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to help improve public, and adult social care, services. In this case the council has agreed to apologise to the man and pay him £250 to recognise the further injustice he was caused as a result of the delay.

The Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations to improve processes for the wider public. In this case the council has agreed to explain the steps it will take to ensure staff are clear about how to properly address and respond to complaints in future. It will also explain how it monitors and implements Ombudsman recommendations to prevent similar mistakes happening again.

Article date: 01 July 2021

Today, the Protector of Citizens additionally requested the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development to indicate the legal grounds on which primary and secondary schools in the Republic of Serbia cooperate with the citizens' association "Petnica Research Station", and to state the requirements for allocating the competent Ministry’s financial support to this and other entities engaged in the extracurricular education of children.

In order to protect the rights and best interests of the child, the Protector of Citizens continues to take further activities and measures within its competence in the investigation to control competent bodies’ work regularity and legality launched on 25 June 2021 after media articles on attendees of the Petnica Research Station programs suffering sexual abuse.

The Protector of Citizens has requested the competent ministry to inform him within 15 days on the legal grounds on which primary and secondary schools in Serbia submit to the citizens' association “Petnica RS" a detailed assessment by the subject teacher on students’ achievement, work and preferences , or expert opinion by a school psychologist or pedagogue whenever a child applies for one of the programs implemented by "Petnica RS" association.

The Ministry should also state the legal grounds on which the schools in Serbia inform students about the existence of competitions for programs implemented by "Petnica RS" citizens' association as well as whether other entities engaged in extracurricular education of children and youth have been given the same opportunity.

The Ministry should also submit to the Protector of Citizens the legal grounds according to which schools give their consent and certify with the school seal that the school will justify students’ absences from classes for their participation in " Petnica RS " programs.

The Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development should also provide the Protector of Citizens with the legal grounds on which schools justify students’ absences from classes if they participate in some of the programs of "Petnica RS”, as well as in what way the Ministry provides support to this citizens’ association for organizing a range of programs intended for primary and secondary school teachers, what the programs are, who they are intended for and who implements them.

In addition, the Protector of Citizens has requested the Ministry to notify him whether and in what amount of money the Ministry supported financially the work of Petnica citizens’ association in the last ten years, and to submit evidence about it and about the manner of controlling the spending of allocated and disbursed funds.

The Protector of Citizens also expects the Ministry to respond whether the approval of financial support to "Petnica RS" and other entities engaged with extracurricular education of children was conditional on the existence of a program to protect children from violence, discrimination, abuse and neglect.

Also, the competent Ministry should state whether and with what amount of money it financially supported the work of other institutions and organizations (regional talent centers, citizens’ association, etc.) that engage in extracurricular education of children and how much money has been paid to them over the last decade, submitting pertinent evidence, as well as the evidence of control over the spending of approved and disbursed funds.

The Protector of Citizens has requested the Ministry of Science, Education and Technological Development to notify him whether they keep a register of entities engaged in extracurricular education of children and if yes, to provide the applicable data.

Petri Jääskeläinen, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, presented the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2020 to Anu Vehviläinen, Speaker of Parliament, on Thursday 17 June.

Like the previous year, a record number of complaints were received in 2020, in total 7,059. This is around 800 (13%) more than in 2019 (6,267).

COVID-19 impact on the activities of the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman

The situation caused by COVID-19 was also unpredictable and unprecedented in the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman and in the oversight of legality. It resulted in major changes in the handled issues and working methods. From the beginning of the epidemic, the Ombudsman received complaints about the activities of the authorities. The epidemic also gave grounds for clarifying matters on the Ombudsman’s initiative. During the year under review, nearly one thousand (953) cases of oversight of legality were processed that were somehow related to the COVID-19 epidemic. The issues were very diverse and included questions related to almost all administrative branches.

Ombudsman as guardian of the rule of law

In his address in the Annual Report, Parliamentary Ombudsman Jääskeläinen states that the Ombudsman has a key role in upholding and promoting the rule of law. This is due to the fact that the Ombudsman's duties as the supreme overseer of legality are linked to all key elements of the rule of law. They include the legality of the exercise of public authority, an individual’s fundamental rights and freedoms and an independent judicial system.

Oversight of legality and overseeing the realisation of fundamental rights are the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s tasks laid down in the Constitution of Finland. The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s activities also support the independence of authorities in courts and judicial system. The Parliament’s Constitutional Law Committee has seen the Ombudsman’s activities to be a part of Finland's constitutional identity.

For these reasons, safeguarding the rule of law is linked to safeguarding the viability of the Ombudsman’s work. To do so, it essential that tasks closely related to the legal status of individuals are not excluded from the Ombudsman's competence and that the Ombudsman's independence is not jeopardised.
The rule of law has been carefully cared for in Finland, but there is also reason to prepare for other kinds of circumstances.

About restricting fundamental rights and exceptions to them

In her address, Deputy-Ombudsman Maija Sakslin examines how the coronavirus pandemic has challenged our system of fundamental rights. Typically, rights are under various threats during crises, but the measures used to combat the threats may also endanger the implementation of the rights. Rights of the entire population have been restricted in an unprecedented way during the coronavirus pandemic. Some restrictions have even been considered to violate human dignity. In-depth restrictions have been targeted at almost all fundamental rights and the rights of all people.

During the coronavirus pandemic, it has been widely agreed that public authorities have the obligation to protect the life and health of the population and therefore also the obligation to safeguard sufficient capacity in medical care. From the point of view of the system of fundamental rights, this is an extremely weighty ground. However, is it more difficult to reach agreement on whether the measures taken are necessary and in accordance with the principle of proportionality.

If the focus is on the successful protection of life and promotion of health achieved through restrictions on fundamental rights or exceptions to them, the picture provided is very different from when the focus is on the restrictions imposed on the rights and liberties and their impact on individuals and society.

It is too early to make a final assessment of how our system of fundamental rights has survived the coronavirus pandemic and state of emergency. However, a cause for concern is the number of observations made in the oversight of legality, which reveal that public powers have been used to halt the spread of the virus in ways that restrict fundamental rights without the powers to do it.

The Ombudsman as constitutional overseer of legality

Deputy-Ombudsman Pasi Pölönen examines the processing of constitutional issues in the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s oversight of legality. Despite the advance review of the constitutionality of the laws, there are situations in which the Ombudsman should intervene as a guardian of the rule of law. Most typically, the law’s application is considered to sometimes lead to problematic results in terms of fundamental and human rights. At times, the overseer of legality issues statements on performing public administrative duties outside the official organisation, from the perspective of section 124 of the Constitution of Finland.

Sometimes it can be a case of detecting completely new types of constitutional issues. This was the case in Deputy-Ombudsman Pölönen’s decision concerning the legal basis of the state’s Senate Properties’ operations. The constitutional and other legal issues relating to it partially were also identified in a parliamentary hearing. The Parliament required the Government to submit a comprehensive report on Senate Properties, its subsidiary Defence Properties and the Senate Group as a whole by the beginning of the autumn session of 2022.

The Annual Report of the Parliamentary Ombudsman was published  on 17 June 2021 on the Ombudsman’s websites at www.oikeusasiamies.fi and www.ombudsman.fi.

Further information is available from Secretary General Matti Marttunen, tel. 432 3333.