24 – Δημόσιες Διαβουλεύσεις

Ο περί της Τεχνητής Νοημοσύνης Νόμος του 2026
24. (1) Κάθε Αρμόδια Αρχή διασφαλίζει ότι κατά την άσκηση των αρμοδιοτήτων της διασφαλίζονται οι αρχές της διαφάνειας, της ισότιμης μεταχείρισης, της αντικειμενικότητας και της αναλογικότητας.

(2) Στο πλαίσιο τον αρμοδιοτήτων της, κάθε Αρμόδια Αρχή διεξάγει Δημόσια Διαβούλευση πριν την έκδοση δευτερογενής νομοθεσίας, στην οποία έχουν δικαίωμα συμμετοχής όλοι οι ενδιαφερόμενοι φορείς:

Νοείται ότι κάθε Αρμόδια Αρχή δύναται επίσης να έχει διαβουλεύσεις με οργανωμένα σύνολα, επιχειρήσεις, καθώς και με άλλες αρχές της Δημοκρατίας, τις αρχές άλλων κρατών μελών ή τρίτων χωρών, ως εκάστοτε κρίνει σκόπιμο.

Τέλος


4 Σχόλια

  1. Η διεξαγωγή διαβούλευσης κρίνεται απαραίτητη, προκειμένου να εντοπίζονται εγκαίρως τυχόν πρόσθετες ή δυσανάλογες απαιτήσεις. Προς τον σκοπό αυτό, θα πρέπει να προβλέπεται εύλογη περίοδος διαβούλευσης, καθώς και η έκδοση αιτιολογημένης τελικής απόφασης.

  2. Είναι σημαντικό κατά την έκδοση της προβλεπόμενης δευτερογενούς νομοθεσίας και των κατευθυντήριων γραμμών να διασφαλιστεί η συμμετοχή των αρμόδιων φορέων υγείας και η δυνατότητα αξιοποίησης του εθνικού AI Sandbox από δημόσιους οργανισμούς που παρέχουν κρίσιμες υπηρεσίες προς τους πολίτες.

  3. The comment already on this thread asking for minimum notice, consultation and publication requirements, and for reasoned consideration of material submissions, is well made and this practice supports it rather than repeating it. What follows is why it carries more weight for one sector than the drafter may have supposed.

    Article 24(2) obliges every Competent Authority to consult before issuing secondary legislation. For most sectors that duty sits alongside a designated sectoral authority: financial services have the Central Bank under article 5(1)(c), and Annex III point 1 so far as used for law enforcement, border management, justice and democracy, together with points 6, 7 and 8, has the Commissioner for Personal Data Protection under article 5(1)(b). Those sectors have a standing interlocutor whether or not a consultation is well run.

    Education has none. Annex III point 3 is assigned to no sectoral authority, a question this practice has put on the article 5 thread. For that sector, article 24(2) is not one procedural guarantee among several. It is the only one. A consultation duty with no minimum notice, no publication requirement and no duty to give reasons is therefore weaker in this sector than anywhere else in the Bill, and the sector least able to notice that is the one whose deployers are schools.

    Suggestion. Prescribe minimum notice and publication, and require a published reasoned response to material submissions, as the existing comment proposes. Provide in addition that where secondary legislation concerns an Annex III sector for which no sectoral Competent Authority has been designated, the Authority identifies and notifies the responsible ministry directly, so that the absence of a designated authority does not also mean the absence of a consulted one.

    Uncommon People Consulting is an independent practice working on the deliverability of national AI-in-education policy. On 27 August 2026 it made a submission to the consultation on the draft National AI Strategy 2032 carrying twelve numbered comments, and that record is public. We are an independent practice, not a candidate delivery vehicle, and we take no part in recurring delivery work; our interest is strategic work on ordinary commercial terms openly stated. That position is unchanged. This comment is filed on the evidence.

  4. The Article makes public consultation mandatory but does not define minimum procedural standards or address circumstances requiring urgent regulatory action.

    Prescribe minimum notice, consultation and publication requirements, including reasoned consideration of material submissions. Permit narrowly defined exceptions for urgency, national security, cybersecurity or genuinely technical measures, with written reasons and, where appropriate, subsequent consultation.

    Clarify the legal consequence of material non-compliance with mandatory consultation requirements. This would strengthen procedural fairness, legal certainty and the defensibility of resulting secondary legislation.

Back to top button