AI use and transparency

On April 7, 2025, the Use of AI Applications Directive of the National Register of Court Experts was adopted and published.

We previously wrote about the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). The AI Act aims to promote the development of AI, especially also by startups.

The AI Act defines certain applications as prohibited applications and other applications must be assessed in terms of the risk their deployment and use poses to the fundamental rights and freedoms of EU citizens. AI literacy and transparency are of great importance here.

The current geopolitical situation, where hybrid warfare is becoming increasingly manifold, is destabilizing and AI applications are often deployed and abused in the process. For example, by posting fake news and deep fake news. It is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish truth from fiction.

The application

The application of AI in the context of truth-telling is particularly precarious in the judicial enterprise given the above. Just as AI carries the promise of faster, better and independent judicial information, it also carries the seeds of mixing with disinformation and incompetent prompting.

It is therefore interesting to see how the National Register of Judicial Experts has responded to the use of AI by judicial experts. The aforementioned guideline is very short, which promotes readability.

Responsibility

It is emphasized that the use of AI applications is and remains at all times the responsibility of the judicial expert himself. This includes the obligation to have appropriate knowledge of the AI application and the ability to handle it responsibly and, in particular, to be able to recognize the risks involved in using the AI application. The result of AI application should always be verified by the expert himself, including the sources given by AI. The expert justifies the use and deployment of the results of the use of AI.

Confidentiality

The judicial expert should also ensure confidentiality by using only those AI applications that can ensure it. Business-sensitive information should be shielded and personal data should also only be processed in accordance with regulations. Another obligation is to ensure that IE rights of third parties are respected.

Transparency about AI

In addition to these obligations, the judicial expert must also be transparent about the use of the AI application by stating it in the report. That statement may include:

a. The AI application used, version and model,
b. The information entered,
c. The question asked (prompt),
d. The result obtained,
e. Any sources cited in the process,
f. The manner in which the expert processed or used the result,
g. The rationale for why the results used are appropriate and relevant.

The entry allows the user of the report or expert opinion to assess and weigh the use of the AI application.

Conclusion

All in all, principles from the AI Act reappear in a principle-based manner in this regulation, which can also be useful to justify the deployment of AI in other industries and mitigate the dangers of deploying AI.

Do you have questions following this article? If so, please contact one of our attorneys by email, phone or fill out the contact form for a no-obligation initial consultation. We are happy to think along with you.