11 Amendments of Emil RADEV related to 2020/2014(INL)
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas any future-orientated civil liability legal framework has to strike a balance between efficiently protecting potential victims of harm or damage and, at the same time, providing enough leeway to make the development of new technologies, products or services possibleit possible for enterprises, and particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, to develop new technologies, products or services; whereas this will help build confidence and create stability for investment; whereas ultimately, the goal of any liability framework should be to provide legal certainty for all parties, whether it be the producer, the deployer, the affected person or any other third party;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas the lack of clear provisions on risk limitation may create legal uncertainty for enterprises offering AI-systems on the EU market and pose a danger to the persons using them;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Firmly believes that in order to efficiently exploit the advantages and prevent potential misuses, uniform, principle-based and future-proof legislation across the EU for all AI-systems is crucial; is of the opinion that, while sector specific regulations for the broad range of possible applications are preferable, a horizontal legal framework based on common principles seems necessary to establish equal standards across the Union and effectively protect our European values and citizens’ rights;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that there is no need for a complete revision of the well-functioning liability regimes but that the complexity, connectivity, opacity, vulnerability and autonomy of AI-systems nevertheless represent a significant challenge; considers that specific adjustments, not only to the current legal framework, are necessary to avoid a situation in which persons who suffer harm or whose property is damaged end up without compensation;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that all physical or virtual activities, devices or processes that are driven by AI-systems may technically be the direct or indirect cause of harm or damage, yet are always the result of someone building, deploying or interfering with the systems; is of the opinion that the opacity, connectivity and autonomy of AI-systems could make it in practice very difficult or even impossible to trace back specific harmful actions of the AI-systems to specific human input or to decisions in the design; recalls that, in accordance with widely- accepted liability concepts, it is necessary to take into account the complexity of value chains; considers that one is nevertheless able to circumvent this obstacle by making the persons who create, maintain or control the risk associated with the AI-system, accountable;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recognises that the type of AI- system the deployer is exercising control over is a determining factor; notes that an AI-system that entails a high risk potentially endangers the general public to a much higher degree; considers that, based on the legal challenges that AI-systems pose to the existing civil liability regimes, it seems reasonable to set up a common strict liability regime for those high-risk AI-systems;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Believes that an AI-system presents a high risk when its autonomous operation involves a significant potential to cause harm to one or more persons, in a manner that is random and impossible to predict in advance; considers that when determining whether an AI-system is high-risk, the sector in which significant risks can be expected to arise and the nature of the activities undertaken must also be taken into account; considers that the significance of the potential depends on the interplay between the severity of possible harm, the likelihood that the risk materializes and the manner in which the AI-system is being used;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Determines that all activities, devices or processes driven by AI-systems that cause harm or damage but are not listed in the Annex to the proposed Regulation should remain subject to fault- based liability; believes that the affected person should nevertheless benefit from a presumption of fault of the deployer and that while that presumption of fault is rebuttable, the burden of proof lies with the deployer;
Amendment 367 #
1. Civil liability claims, brought in accordance with Article 4(1), concerning harm to life, health or physical integrity, shall be subject to a specialn absolute limitation period of 30 years from the date on which the harm occurred.
Amendment 371 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Annex I – part B – Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Civil liability claims, brought in accordance with Article 4(1), concerning damage to property shall be subject to a specialn absolute limitation period of:
Amendment 377 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 7 – paragraph 3
Annex I – part B – Article 7 – paragraph 3