GODEFROY LÊMY

The article examines the introduction of digitalization into justice processes and the processing of judicial decisions in administrative and civil personal injury compensation disputes. The purpose of the implementation of the algorithms was an attempt to develop indicative criteria and ways to determine the amount of compensation for bodily injury. It is noted that the new rules were met ambiguously by the professional community. For example, delegations of lawyers from G7 countries expressed concerns about the future of justice. The reason for their discontent was the possibility of excluding adversarial discussion from judicial proceedings if artificial intelligence was used. In this context, the regulation of algorithms used in the justice sector, designated by the term “algorithmic models of judicial decision analysis” (MAAD) seems to be a priority for the preservation of democracy and the rule of law. The author believes that MAAD will promote greater openness of the judge, both to the plaintiffs and to the judicial institution, as well as - “coherence” of the case law, making it available for judges to examine. It is emphasized that the introduction of such algorithms is a form of digital judicial collegiality, not the standardization of judicial thinking.