Judiciary and public administration

Starting point
Pleadings arrive electronically, but in many places the file is still kept on paper. Printing, scanning and sending cost time and create hybrid files.

How technology helps
The electronic file takes in submissions directly from electronic legal transactions. Lawyers, authorities and legal entities under public law are in any case required to file documents electronically (§ 130d ZPO).

• Benefit: seamless digital processing, electronic file access and fewer physical transfers.
• Requirements: reliable technology and workstations, clear rules for legacy files, and trained registries.
• Limits: Until 1 January 2027, the federal government and the Länder may still keep paper files in certain areas. Transitions between paper and electronic files remain prone to error.

Starting point
Passenger rights or diesel-emissions cases bring thousands of near-identical claims to individual courts. Each one must be reviewed, even though the questions keep repeating.

How technology helps
Assistance systems compare pleadings across cases, extract key data and suggest text modules or draft decisions. One example is the MAKI project (“Mass Proceedings Assistance Using Artificial Intelligence”) run by North Rhine-Westphalia, Lower Saxony, Brandenburg and Hesse; at Frankfurt am Main Local Court (Amtsgericht), the FRAUKE application has been supporting flight compensation cases since 2021.

• Benefit: Relief from repetitive checking steps, freeing up more time for the cases that genuinely differ.
• Requirements: training data from the organisation’s own proceedings, a secure IT environment within the judiciary, and judges who review the suggestions.
• Limits: AI systems that assist courts in establishing and interpreting facts and law are high-risk AI (Annex III no. 8 AI Act); the obligations apply from 2 December 2027. Purely preparatory or narrowly limited procedural tasks may be exempt (Art. 6(3)). Judicial decisions remain independent.

Starting point
In approval procedures, extensive documentation must be checked for completeness, submissions evaluated and decisions justified. Many steps repeat themselves.

How technology helps
AI can check documents for completeness, summarise submissions, assign legal bases, and prepare drafts for hearing letters or decisions. The decision and sign-off remain with the caseworker.

• Benefit: shorter turnaround times for routine steps and more time for expert judgement.
• Requirements: a clear legal basis for every automation, documented review steps and a data protection impact assessment where required. Where an authority uses automated systems, it must take into account significant information provided by those involved that the system does not capture (§ 24(1) sentence 3 VwVfG).
• Limits: Fully automated decisions are only permitted where there is no discretion or margin of assessment (§ 35a VwVfG). Exclusively automated decisions with legal effect are also limited under data protection law (Art. 22 GDPR). Where authorities use AI to decide on entitlements to public benefits, this may constitute high-risk AI (Annex III no. 5); public bodies must then carry out a fundamental rights impact assessment in advance (Art. 27 AI Act).

Starting point
Many enquiries to public authorities concern responsibilities, documentation and the status of a procedure. They tie up staff who are then missing from casework.

How technology helps
An assistant on the authority’s portal answers standard questions, helps with completing digital applications, and forwards enquiries to the relevant department.

• Benefit: Answers even outside office hours, and more complete applications.
• Requirements: a verified knowledge base, a clear handover to staff, and accessible design.
• Limits: People must be able to recognise that they are interacting with an AI system (Art. 50 AI Act, in force since 2 August 2026). Information provided by the assistant does not replace a binding decision by the authority.