Information systems in Estonia already make automatic decisions — for instance, calculating income tax refunds or granting child benefits. In these cases, the system checks a child's age and place of residence and grants the benefit without direct involvement from an official.

Currently, there is no specific legal provision explicitly allowing this kind of automation. The legal basis has been interpreted more indirectly.

Now, however, the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs wants to amend the law to clearly define which types of decisions may be made by computer programs instead of humans and which may not.

Among other things, the proposed changes would allow algorithms to make decisions in cases that require discretion, meaning a choice between multiple possible outcomes.

One of the most practical examples cited by the ministry involves financial claims such as tax or library late fees. Where a human official previously assessed whether and how much of a penalty should be imposed, in the future, this could be determined by an algorithm.

Margreth Adamson, an adviser at the Ministry of Justice, told ERR that the system could be programmed with specific rules — for example, how long a deadline was missed and whether the violation is a repeat offense.

"If we provide computer software with a set algorithm that has standardized rules — what it can and cannot weigh — then in simpler cases, discretionary decisions could be made automatically," Adamson explained.

Under the ministry's proposal, the size of a tax penalty, for instance, could be determined by a pre-programmed algorithm that sets rules for how the system should decide in various situations.

"I've seen examples like registering or removing someone as a library user and calculating library fines. These are simpler discretionary decisions that could be automated — we'd like as much of this as possible to be automated in the future," Adamson said.

Adamson rejected the notion that this would no longer count as a true discretionary decision where a human official weighs life circumstances or individual factors.

She emphasized that if the state makes a negative decision affecting someone — like imposing a penalty — it must still give that person a chance to be heard before the decision is finalized.

This means that if a machine were to issue a penalty for an overdue book, the person would have to be notified in advance. According to Adamson, they would then have about 10 to 14 days to inform the authorities if they object to the decision.

If the person does challenge the automated penalty, the process would pause and a human official would take over from the machine.

"That intermediate step, where the person is informed and given an explanation — 'You owe the Tax and Customs Board, please explain your reasons' — that doesn't go away," the adviser said.

However, the explanatory note accompanying the proposal states that in some cases, it may not be justified to grant the person a right to be heard or to submit objections — for example, if the process does not affect their rights or interests.

"When an administrative body makes automated decisions that don't impact a person's rights, like updating data or making simple technical changes, then a hearing may not be necessary because those decisions don't directly affect individuals," the note reads.

People will retain the right to demand to see another person

Under the Ministry of Justice's proposal, government agencies could make automated administrative procedures the default option for individuals, but not a mandatory one.

This means that if someone receives a notification about an automated procedure, such as the granting of a childbirth allowance or registration as a library user, they must have the option to stop the process and interact with a human service provider instead. According to the bill's explanatory note, agencies would be required to inform people of this right.

"If I'm someone who doesn't want an automated procedure applied to me, I can notify the authority that I don't consent," explained adviser Margreth Adamson. "The idea is that, for example, elderly or less digitally literate individuals who receive notice of an automated procedure can contact the agency. They might say they can't manage the technical side and would prefer the standard process."

Adamson added that the ministry does not expect people to reject automated decisions en masse, as most prefer speed and convenience.

More complex decisions will not be delegated to bots

While the legislative amendment opens the door to broader automation, it comes with clear limits, according to the Ministry of Justice's adviser.

Adamson pointed out that decisions requiring more complex judgment, such as initiating detailed spatial plans, are not suitable for automation.

"These kinds of processes require sensitivity to nuance and multifaceted evaluation, which algorithms are not yet capable of," Adamson said. "I don't rule out that this could change in the future," she added.

Automated procedures are also explicitly excluded from appeal processes, whose purpose is to assess whether a previous decision was lawful and fair. If a person is dissatisfied and files an appeal, it must always be reviewed by a human official to determine whether the machine or the previous official made a mistake.

The ministry sees the greatest risk not in the technology itself but in the use of incorrect data. If a registry contains inaccurate information, even the most sophisticated algorithm will produce a flawed decision.

For this reason, individuals remain responsible for keeping their data up to date in government systems and for stepping in when the machine gets it wrong.

Agencies will have to find the money for systems development themselves

According to the Ministry of Justice, it is currently difficult to estimate the financial impact of the proposed changes, as each agency will decide for itself whether and to what extent to implement automated procedures. Adamson said agencies would need to fund the necessary upgrades from their own budgets.

Although the initial investments required to develop technical solutions may be substantial, the ministry believes the changes will lead to cost savings over the long term.

"A machine is a technical tool that helps get the job done faster. At first, the costs are higher, but later — although the technology still needs updating — those costs are significantly lower than the initial investment. Maintenance and upgrades require fewer resources," Adamson explained.

The plan does not call for an immediate reduction in the number of officials. Instead, the technology is intended to ease their workload by handling routine decisions, freeing up staff to focus on other responsibilities.

In the draft legislation to amend the Administrative Procedure Act, which has been submitted for coordination, the Ministry of Justice states that the changes are necessary to ensure speed, efficiency and legal certainty in modern administrative procedures.

"This will make it possible to offer people more effective and personalized services and will strengthen trust in the state," the draft notes.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!