Abstract

This conclusive chapter offers a comprehensive comparative analysis of how the digital transformation of public administration—and, in particular, the widespread use of algorithms and AI systems—reshapes the traditional architecture of due process. Drawing on national reports and hypothetical cases, it demonstrates that core procedural guarantees (transparency, participation, duty to give reasons, judicial review) are neither neutralised nor preserved unchanged by automation, but are instead profoundly transformed. New substantive standards emerge—most notably traceability and human oversight—which complement and reinforce classical principles. The chapter examines how administrative discretion is increasingly exercised ex ante through algorithmic design, raising questions of legitimacy, accountability, and democratic control. It also analyses the evolving models of contestability and the capacity of courts to review highly technical decisions. Finally, it argues that the traditional summa divisio between binding and discretionary acts is no longer adequate, proposing instead a tripartite taxonomy of human, automated, and hybrid decision-making. Within the broader Coceal research framework, the chapter identifies a converging common core of procedural safeguards across jurisdictions, while highlighting persistent divergences rooted in administrative cultures, regulatory choices, and political contexts.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction: The State as a promoter of AI development

2. Automated administrative decisions and due process: the transformation of traditional principles
   2.1 From transparency to intelligibility (or substantial algorithmic transparency)
   2.2 From the duty to give reasons to the comprehensibility of the choice
   2.3 From deductive to inductive reasoning
   2.4 Extension of responsibility for algorithmic decision-making

3. Automated administrative decisions and due process: new principles
   3.1 Traceability
   3.2 Human supervision

4. Anticipation of discretion

5. Contestability

6. From a summa divisio to a division in partes tres

7. Conclusions