[
ABRUSCI, E., MACKENZIE-GRAY SCOTT, R. The questionable necessity of a new human right against being subject to automated decision-making. International Journal of Law and Information Technology. 2023, vol. 31, issue 2, pp. 114–143.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
AEDMAA, A., LOPMAN, E., PARREST, N., PILVING, I., VENE, E. Haldusmenetluse käsiraamat. Tartu: University of Tartu Press, 2004, pp. 3–511.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
ALEXY, R. kollisioon ja kaalumine kui põhiõiguste dogmaatika põhiprobleemid. Juridica. 2001, issue, 1, 2001; pp. 5–13.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
ALLIKMETS, S. Tuntud või tundmatu hea halduse põhimõte. Juridica. 2014, issue 3, 2014, pp. 221–231.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
ANDRAŠKO, J., HAMUĽÁK, O., MESARČÍK, M., KERIKMÄE, T., KAJANDER, A. Sustainable Data Governance for Cooperative, Connected and Automated Mobility in the European Union. Sustainability. 2021, vol. 2021, no. 19, pp. 1–25. ISSn 2071-1050. DoI 10.3390/su131910610.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
ANDRAŠKO, J., MESARČÍK, M., HAMUĽÁK, O. The regulatory intersections between artificial intelligence, data protection and cyber security: challenges and opportunities for the EU legal framework. AI & Society. 2021, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 623–636. ISSn 0951-5666. DoI 10.1007/s00146-020-01125-5.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
ANNUS, R. Uurimispõhimõte haldusmenetluses. Juridica. 2008, issue 7, 2008, pp 499–506. AnnUS, T. Riigiõigus. Tallinn: AS Juura, 2006, pp. 5–480.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
BATALLI, M., FEJZULLAHU, A. (2018). Principles of good administration under the european code of good administrative behaviour. Pecs Journal of International and European Law. 2018, no. 1, pp 26–35.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
BUOSO, E. Fully Automated Administrative Acts in the German Legal System. European review of Digital Administration & Law – Erdal. 2020, vol. 1, issue 1–2, pp. 113–122.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
DICKINSON, H., YATES, S. From external provision to technological outsourcing: lessons for public sector automation from the outsourcing literature. Public Management Review. 2023, vol. 25, issue 2, pp. 243–261.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
FINCK, M. Automated Decison-Making and Administrative Law. Forthcoming, P. Cane et al. (eds), Oxford Handbook of Comparative Administrative Law. oxford: oxford University Press, 2020. Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper no 19–10, pp. 1–24.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
GONTARZ, I. Judical Review of Automated Administrative Decision-making: The Role of Administrative Courts in the Evaluation of Unlawful Regimes. Elte Law Journal. 2023, no. 1, pp. 151–162.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
HARLOW, C., RAWLINGS, R. Proceduralism and Automation: Challenges to the Value of Administrative Law. Forthcoming, E. Fisher, J King and A Young (eds.). The Foundations and Future of Public Law (in honour of Paul Craig) (OUP 2019). LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers, 2019, no. 3, 2019, pp. 1–22.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
HONG, M., HUI, C. Towards a digital government: reflections on automated decision-making and the principles of administrative justice. Singapore Academy of Law Journal. 2019, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 875–906.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
KERIKMÄE, T., PÄRN-LEE, E. Legal dilemmas of Estonian artificial intelligence strategy: in between of e-society and global race. AI & SOCIETY: Knowledge, Culture and Communication. 2021, vol. 36, pp. 561–572.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
LEMBER, K. Tehisintellekti kasutamine haldusakti andmisel. Juridica. 2019, issue 10, pp. 749–760.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
MALGIERI, G. Automated decision-making in the EU Member States: The right to explanation and other „suitable safeguards“ in the national legislations. Computer Law & Security Review. 2019, vol. 35, issue 5, pp. 2–26.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
MARUSTE, R. Konstitutsionalism ning põhiõiguste ja vabaduste kaitse. Tallinn: AS Juura, 2004, pp. 3–606.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
MCCANN, S. Discretion in the Automated Administrative State. The Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence. 2023, vol. 36, issue 1, pp. 171–194.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
MONARCHA-MATLAK, A. Automated decision making in public administration. Procedia Computer Science. 2021, vol. 192, pp. 2077–2084.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
NG, Y. Institutional adaptation and the administrative state. Melbourne University Law Review. 2021, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 889–927.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
NG, Y., GRAY, S. Disadvantage and the automated decision. Adelaide Law Review. 2022, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 641–677.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
NYMAN METCALF, K. How to build e-governance in a digital society: the case of Estonia. Revista Catalana de Dret Públic. 2019, no. 58, pp. 1–12.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
OSBORNE, S.; BROWN, L. (eds.). Handbook of Innovation in Public Services. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013, pp. 1–593.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
OSBORNE, S., BROWN, L., WALKER, R. (eds.). Innovation in Public Services Theoretical, managerial, and international perspectives. oxon: Routledge, 2016, pp. 1–277.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
PARREST, N. Hea halduse põhimõte Euroopa Liidu põhiõiguste hartas. Juridica. 2006, issue 1, 2006, pp 24–33.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
PONCE, J. Good administration and administrative procedures. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies. 2005, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 551–588.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ramon Gil-Garcia, J. Enacting Electronic Government Success. Boston: Springer, 2012, pp. 1–252.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
RANERUP, A., HENRIKSEN, H. Z. Digital Discretion: Unpacking Human and Technological Agency in Automated Decision Making in Sweden’s Social Services. Social Science Computer Review. 2020, vol. 40, issue 2, pp. 445–461.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
SCHASMIN, P., GINTER, C. Euroopa Liidu õigusest tulenevad võimalused jõustunud kohtuotsuste ja haldusaktide uueks läbivaatamiseks. Juridica. 2015, issue III/2015, pp. 184–195.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
SEIN, K., RISTIKIVI, M. Õigusriigi taastamine. Eesti seaduste ja institutsioonide reformid 1992–2002. Tartu: University of Tartu Press, 2022, pp. 8–279.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
STRANDBURG, K. J. Rulemaking and inscrutable automated decision tools. Columbia Law Review. 2019, vol. 119, no. 7, pp. 1851–1886.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
SUKSI, M. Administrative due process when using automated decision-making in public administration: some notes from a Finnish perspective. Artificial Intelligence and Law. 2020, vol. 29, pp. 87–110.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
TORFING, J., PETERS, B. G., PIERRE, J., SØRENSEN, E. Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm. oxford: oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 1–272.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
TORFING, J., TRIANTAFILLOU, P. (eds.). Enhancing Public Innovation by Transforming Public Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016, pp. 1–351.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
VARDANYAN, L., KOCHARYAN, H., HAMUĽÁK, O., MESARČÍK, M., KERIKMÄE, T., KOOKMAA, T. The Unwanted Paradoxes Of the Right to Be Forgotten. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology. 2023, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 87–109. ISSn 1802-5943. DoI 10.5817/MUJLT2023-1-3.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
VETRO, A. Imbalanced data as risk factor of discriminating automated decisions: measurement-based approach. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law. 2021, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 272–288.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
WACHTER, S., MITTELSTADT, B., FLORIDI, L. Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law. 2017, vol. 7, issue 2, pp. 76–99.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
WACHTER, S., MITTELSTADT, B., RUSSELL, C. Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: automated decisions and the GDPR. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology (Harvard JOLT). 2018, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 841–888.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
WILLIAMS, R. Rethinking Administrative Law for Algorithmic Decision Making. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2022, vol. 42, issue 2, pp. 468–494.
]Search in Google Scholar
