AUTOMATION IN ACTION: EXPERIENCE WITH QUICK AND COST-EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS IN HUNGARY

Abstract

Automated decision-making can streamline administrative

procedures, reducing the burden on authorities in straightforward

cases. However, a concerning trend emerges: negative decisions

challenged by clients are often so simplified that they render

judicial review meaningless, leaving issues unresolved. This is not

merely a technical issue but a constitutional one. Clients are

frequently deprived of meaningful reasoning, procedural

safeguards, and effective legal remedies. Administrative decisions

should uphold legality and transparency, ensuring fair

proceedings. When a decision lacks proper justification and courts

cannot assess its legality, it becomes unsuitable for review,

undermining due process. If automation leads to decisions lacking

transparency and accountability, it threatens fundamental legal

principles.

This study aims to show how automated -decision making is done

in practice and what legal problems has emerged already by

exploring casefiles and judicial decisions to highlight the risks of

automated decision-making and calls for a balanced approach to

maintain efficiency while safeguarding constitutional rights and

judicial oversight.