European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly opened the conference by reflecting on the diverse crises the EU has faced over the past decade and by emphasising the crucial role ombudsmen play in upholding the rule of law, holding administrations accountable, and exposing harm. Introducing keynote speaker Sally Hayden, the European Ombudsman stressed the human aspect of migration, emphasising the need to reflect upon how the decisions we take impact those attempting to reach the EU.  She outlined her ongoing investigation into the role the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) plays in search and rescue missions, following the drowning of over 500 people off the coast of Greece in June 2023, as well as her investigation into the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding and its implications on fundamental rights. Ms O’Reilly concluded by underlining the EU's ongoing struggle to uphold its foundational values in the face of the politics around migration, asylum, and integration.

Migration and fundamental rights

Author of My Fourth Time, We Drowned: Seeking Refuge on the World’s Deadliest Migration Route and journalist for the Irish Times Sally Hayden delivered the keynote speech for the day’s first session.
 
She began by reflecting on the year of her birth, 1989, contrasting the optimism about the future of Europe in the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall with what she describes as increasing human rights violations on Europe’s borders today. She said that over 28,200 people have died or gone missing on the Mediterranean Sea migration route and went on to describe some of the ordeals faced by those that attempt the journey, based on interviews she conducted with refugees. She also criticised deals the EU has made with third countries to control migration, saying that they often violate international law.

Ms Hayden emphasised the need to view the so-called migration crisis as a global inequality crisis, saying that the problems that drive migration, such as climate change and economic disparity, are often exasperated by EU policies or EU Member States. She said there was a lack of accountability when it comes to EU policies that result in harm, as well as a lack of inclusion of migrants and refugees when it comes to policy discussions around the issue. She urged the EU to adopt a more empathetic and inclusive approach on migration.

Director-General for Migration and Home Affairs at the European Commission Monique Pariat began by acknowledging the global inequality crisis as a key driver of migration. She said the EU has robust human rights protections in place, noting that all Member States are part of the Geneva Conventions, as well as the fact that the European Convention of Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights apply to all EU policies. With regard to agreements with third countries, Ms Pariat emphasised the Commission's commitment to upholding the EU’s legal framework and fundamental rights during negotiations. On the Migration Pact, she said negotiations were ongoing and it was important to reach an agreement soon. She also brought up the European Social Fund, which she said Member States can utilise to fund migrant inclusion and integration.

Member of the European Parliament's Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs Committee Tineke Strik critiqued the lack of consideration given to the human aspect of discussions concerning migration to Europe, suggesting that this contradicts EU values. She noted that there was also often a lack of accountability when it comes to violations of EU and international law. In deals with third countries, Ms Strik emphasised the need for fundamental impact assessments and raised concerns about the possibility of getting countries to align with EU laws and standards.

European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly said Sally Hayden's book was a powerful example of direct engagement with the people affected by EU migration policies.  She emphasised that EU institutions, particularly the Commission, face significant challenges when dealing with these issues, and that their well-intentioned proposals sometimes face opposition from governments as well as citizens in Member States. With regard to her investigation into Frontex's role in search and rescue, Ms O’Reilly underscored the need to find out how a tragedy such as the loss of life that following the sinking of the Adriana could happen and to sort out what exactly Frontex’s responsibilities are.

Greek Ombudsman Andreas Pottakis brought up the distinction between migrants on the one hand and refugees and asylum seekers on the other. He said that while the number of migrants who enter the EU can be regulated, refugees and asylum seekers are always entitled to protection under international law. Mr Pottakis emphasised that the challenges faced by various institutions regarding migration are not the result of a legal vacuum but rather a political one. He noted that reactive policies unfortunately tend to prevail over proactive ones when it comes to migration. Mr Pottakis also discussed the growing budget of Frontex and asked whether similar spending could be used to provide Member States with more assistance for integration and inclusion.

Dutch Ombudsman Reinier van Zutphen emphasised that many individuals who end up leaving their countries don't actually want to depart, but feel forced to due to bad circumstances or threats. He stressed the importance of community solidarity when it comes to integrating people and underscored the role of ombudsmen in helping people and giving a voice to the voiceless. With regard to the political debate around migration, Mr van Zutphen argued for more honest and transparent communication about the current situation.

During the discussion that followed, Lazio Ombudsman Marino Fardelli expressed concern over what he perceived as Italy's isolation in dealing with migration issues, while Romanian Ombudsman Renate Weber said the EU cannot claim to be recognised as an international actor so long as it does not have a coherent policy on migration and asylum. The Ombudsman of Malta Joseph Zammit McKeon asked about potential revisions to the Dublin Treaty and the Deputy Ombudsman of Aragon Javier Hernández García asked whether it is fair that the EU’s approach to migration seems to give priority to those facing political persecution when compared to those facing hunger or dire economic circumstances. Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights Dmytro Lubinets asked whether proposed funding in Member States designed to encourage Ukrainian refugees to return home would be better directed toward helping Ukraine win the war against Russia as well as its future reconstruction. Other aspects of the discussion focused on EU citizens’ perception of migration and migration policies, and how this could affect the results of elections, as well as a supposed lack of urgency when it comes to dealing with fundamental rights violations.

Closing the panel discussion, European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly called for more honesty when it comes to the effect of migration-related policies on human rights and stressed the need for genuine solidarity among EU Member States.

Lessons from public administrations using AI

The Director of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights Michael O’Flaherty delivered the session’s keynote speech. After describing some of the benefits that artificial intelligence (AI) can provide to public administration, Mr O’Flaherty said it was necessary to ‘tame AI’ to deal with its possible risks. He cautioned, for example, that the focus on speed and efficiency (as opposed to quality) when it came to AI use could lead to human rights violations. He also said that biases unintentionally incorporated into software could produce discriminatory outcomes, and warned that these biases could then progressively get worse through positive feedback loops. Another issue he identified is that AI frequently uses English language datasets, which raises concerns about the applicability of this data in non-English speaking countries. On a societal level, Mr O’Flaherty said that AI is also having a negative effect on human agency and causing some people psychological problems. He argued that we need to have an ongoing debate about what boundaries should apply when it comes to AI applications, i.e. where can AI never be allowed to go?

When it comes to regulating the deployment of AI, Mr O’Flaherty mentioned eight elements that should be covered:

• Regulations must have the capacity to address the full range of risks
• Every human right must be considered and protected by the regulations
• AI should be defined in a way that covers all applications
• Regulations must engage all use-specific applications of the technology
• Lifecycle testing should be used to catch problems that occur later on
• Strong expert oversight is needed in cases where there is high risk
• There must be accessible remedies for violations of fundamental rights
• Transparency is needed around how AI applications work

Mr O’Flaherty concluded by stating that given that AI is designed by humans for human purposes and that it is also overseen by humans, it should be possible to regulate it and to hold the humans behind it accountable.

Member of European Parliament and Rapporteur on Digitalisation and Administrative Law Karen Melchior spoke about the discussions at the European Parliament regarding the AI Act and the importance of ensuring expert oversight that can change decisions made by algorithms. She stressed that regulating the public sector is fundamental, as the focus has too often been on the private sector. Ms Melchior said we must consider digitalisation as a whole when regulating AI and not just focus on machine learning. She also argued that we may have more trust in machines and algorithms than we should and that human oversight is essential in fair decision making and administration.

Director-General of the European Court of Justice’s Directorate-General for Information Raluca Peica spoke about the use of new AI technologies at the Court, which are implemented in line with a prudent risk-based approach. She said ‘governable AI’ involves including an ethical and human rights dimension in the rules and that it is important to put governance in place before using AI technologies. She identified some specific areas where AI use benefits the work of the Court, such as effectiveness and efficiency in judiciary and administrative processes, improved quality and consistency in judiciary decisions, and greater access to justice and transparency. When it comes to risks, she discussed potential biases, the treatment of sensitive data, and the importance of assessing the results produced by AI.

Member of Cabinet for Commissioner Johannes Hahn, Responsible for AI and Digital Transformation Max Strotmann focused on the role of public institutions, which see themselves both as regulators and implementers, giving them the possibility to experiment and receive feedback on the use of new digital technologies. Mr Strotmann stated that new technologies should be co-shaped by the public sector. He stressed that implementation at the local level is fundamental to learning about how new technologies work and obtaining feedback. He called for a cooperation framework at all levels across Europe to ensure we can all learn from each other. He also said that society as a whole is already learning from new AI technology such as ChatGPT, helping it identify the problems that regulation should tackle.

Danish Parliamentary Ombudsman Niels Fenger spoke about the experience in Danish public administration, which has been progressively implementing AI-assisted technologies, with 25% of all Danish bodies using at least one kind of AI. He mentioned some examples including a now-cancelled programme that sought to identify children in need based on how often they went to the dentist. He then described the possibility for biases to occur when you have bad data in the first place, too little data leading to positive feedback loops, or ‘algorithmically enhanced risks’ where machines use criteria beyond those intended. Another issue Mr Fenger identified is transparency, as it is not always clear what processes AI uses to arrive at its results.

Estonian Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise stated that within the Estonian public sector, there are around 120 services based on AI algorithms. An example causing concerns for her office is the unemployment insurance fund, which utilises AI as a decision supporting mechanism, as it is not clear exactly which data is used to train this algorithm and what  biases could be perpetrated though it. Ms Madise stated that her own office plans to implement AI in their new website, especially for translation and speech-to-text conversion. She said this could increase accessibility for people with disabilities and for people not fluent in Estonian, such as refugees. She also warned about the loss of trust that could be caused by poor AI use, whether due to technical errors, data leaks, unintended discrimination, or inaccurately translated messages.

Some of the themes in the discussion that followed were potential biases, the role of Ombudsmen when it comes to oversight, the work on AI and human rights happening within the Council of Europe, expertise and training, and the loss of human interaction due to AI. Ms Melchior stressed the importance of maintaining quality interactions between public administration and citizens in order to promote trust in public authorities, as well as transparency. Mr Strotmann mentioned the need to have regulatory clarity on the issue so that we can tackle its various challenges, as well as the necessity of public officials learning new skills to effectively and safely use new technologies. Ms Peica also spoke about the need for strategies to re-skill the workforce. She suggested it is also time to encourage European innovation in the AI field, beyond solely the regulatory aspects. Mr Fenger stated that transparency and oversight is essential when it comes to public administration experimenting with AI applications. Finally, Ms Madise brought up the benefits of proactive services and personalised public services informed by AI. She also stressed the need for urgent and proper regulation, where the scope does not exclude national security services.

European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly wrapped up the discussions by stating that it was crucial for ombudsmen to ensure the human element remains front and centre in public administration. She said that poor communication and a feeling of fundamentally not being heard is often at the heart of complaints, and it is therefore always important to show people that someone is listening.