I. Is there a national act containing a legal definition of Automated Administrative Decisions?

There is no legal definition as such, nor any single act on AI or automated decisions. The right to issue automated decisions is based on authorisation norms in the acts regulating the relevant field of activity and on the competence of the relevant administrative authorities. Estonia uses e-governance in many different forms (including automated decisions), and various definitions regarding the use of technology are found in different laws. This was a deliberate choice from the introduction of e-governance in the late 1990s/early 2000s: rather than creating legislation focused on specific forms of technology, the approach was to treat technology as a tool and integrate technological solutions into general legislation.

In March 2018 the Estonian Government Office and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications set up a cross-sectoral expert group to analyse and prepare for the introduction of AI in Estonia, including the development of a test environment and the identification of required legal changes. A 2019 study commissioned by the Government from the Tallinn University of Technology advised against enacting a single, comprehensive AI law; the study concluded that the issues were too disparate and that, in many cases, the technology was not developed enough to be meaningfully regulated. As the European Commission announced its plans for an AI Regulation in 2021, the Estonian Government abandoned the idea of a national general law and instead engaged actively in the EU legislative process.

On the government website for AI, AI is described as: “Artificial intelligence (AI) refers to a system based on an autonomous software algorithm capable of learning, allowing it to perform tasks that typically require human intelligence.” Estonia is one of the few countries (and languages) that has a special word for AI: kratt. The term comes from Estonian folklore and signifies a mythological creature that could help people but that still had to be watched. The metaphor is used to make AI more familiar to non-experts: “Since AI can seem extremely complex and mysterious to non-experts, familiar characters from folklore (in this case kratt) can help people understand this new realm of possibilities.” From this term the word bürokratt has been derived for administrative AI, specifically for the idea of AI “helpers.” This concept refers to a network of interoperable chatbots embedded on public authorities’ websites that provide access to information and services and allow communication with the State through a single channel.

Estonia has a strategy for 2024–2026. On the organisational side, work on the strategies has been led by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications and the Estonian Government Office. Estonian courts have also had occasion to define and explain AI in cases concerning whether decisions were taken by AI and whether this was permissible in a given situation. For example, the Tallinn Administrative Court in December 2022 explained AI as, for example, the ability of a computer to mimic human mental activity resulting from brain processes; human-like abilities of a machine, such as thinking, learning, planning and creativity7.