Courts and authorities involved in the administration of justice handle and retain personal data, including sensitive data whose misuse could lead to data and privacy breaches and discrimination.[1] Article 8 is violated when sensitive data is retained without adequate safeguards. A fair balance must be maintained between the need to make judicial decisions public and respect for the fundamental rights of parties or witnesses.[2]

Anonymisation or pseudonymisation tools integrating AI technology such as those already in place in several Member States of the Council of Europe can prove useful in systematically concealing any information making individuals identifiable. However, general concerns about the risk of AI systems for privacy and data protection continue to apply as these tools are developed. The best approach to enhancing privacy is by “minimizing or eliminating the need for an organization training an AI model to collect personal data.”[3]

 

[1] Convention 108(+), Article 6.

[2] Except in cases where the necessity of protecting the confidentiality of certain types of personal data is outweighed by the interest in the investigation and prosecution of crime and in the publicity of court proceedings. Avilkina and Others v. Russia, 7 October 2013, § 45; Z v. Finland, No. 22009/93, 25 February 1997, § 97.

[3] “Sharing trustworthy AI models with privacy-enhancing technologies”, OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, No. 38, 2025.