The Bottom Line
- Closed Market for LegalTech: AI tools for judicial use must be officially supplied or approved by Spain’s judicial authorities. This creates a high barrier to entry for private AI vendors aiming to sell directly to judges.
- Human Accountability is Non-Negotiable: For CEOs and companies involved in litigation, this instruction guarantees that final judicial decisions will be made by a human judge, who remains solely responsible. There will be no “black box” justice decided by an algorithm.
- Efficiency, Not Automation: Lawyers practicing in Spain should anticipate a more efficient judiciary using AI for research and case management. However, legal strategy must continue to focus on persuading a human jurist, as core reasoning and decision-making cannot be delegated to a machine.
The Details
Spain’s General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has taken a decisive step in regulating the use of artificial intelligence within its courts. By issuing a formal instruction to all judges and magistrates, the Council aims to create a clear and consistent framework for leveraging AI’s power while safeguarding judicial integrity. This move is not a reaction but a proactive measure to align the Spanish justice system with emerging national and European standards, including the EU’s landmark AI Act. The core objective is to ensure that technological adoption enhances the judicial process without compromising the fundamental principles of independence, responsibility, and the protection of citizens’ rights.
The cornerstone of the new framework is the principle of “effective human control.” The instruction makes it unequivocally clear that AI is to be treated as a support tool, not a substitute for a judge. AI systems are expressly forbidden from operating autonomously in any core judicial function, such as making final decisions, weighing evidence, or interpreting the law. Judges must maintain “real, conscious, and effective” control at all times and bear exclusive responsibility for the final verdict. This is reinforced by principles prohibiting the delegation of judicial authority and requiring active measures to prevent algorithmic bias from producing arbitrary or discriminatory outcomes.
In practical terms, the instruction outlines clear “dos and don’ts.” Judges may only use AI applications provided by competent justice administrations or the CGPJ itself. Permitted uses include legal research, retrieving case precedents, and preparing internal drafts or summaries. However, any AI-generated text used in a judgment must undergo a “critical, complete, and personal” review and validation by the judge. Crucially, the use of AI for high-risk applications like profiling individuals, predicting behavior, or processing specially protected personal data is strictly prohibited, drawing a firm line on where technology’s role in the courtroom ends.
Source
Consejo General del Poder Judicial (CGPJ)
