[ParlTrack]

Motion for a resolution
Recital S

S. whereas the more autonomous robots are, the less they can be considered simple tools in the hands of other actors (such as the manufacturer, the owner, the user, etc.); whereas this, in turn, makes the ordinary rules on liability insufficient and calls for new rules which focus on how a machine can be held – partly or entirely – responsible for its acts or omissions; whereas, as a consequence, it becomes more and more urgent to address the fundamental question of whether robots should possess a legal status;deleted

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Recital T

T. whereas, ultimately, robots' autonomy raises the question of their nature in the light of the existing legal categories – of whether they should be regarded as natural persons, legal persons, animals or objects – or whether a new category should be created, with its own specific features and implications as regards the attribution of rights and duties, including liability for damage;deleted

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Recital V

V. whereas in the scenario where a robot canould take autonomous decisions, the ~~traditional rules will not suffice to activate a robot’s liability, since they would not~~ humans responsible for any damakge ~~it possible to identify the party responsible for providing compensation and to require this party to make good the damage it has caus~~caused as a result of the decisions taken should be clearly specified;

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Recital X

X. whereas the shortcomings of the current legal framework are apparent in the area of contractual liability insofar as they are machines designed to choose their counterparts, negotiate contractual terms, conclude contracts and decide whether and how to implement them ~~make~~and the ~~traditional rules inapplicable, which highlights the need for new, more up-to- date ones~~rules on human responsibility applicable to such machines need to be specified;

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Recital Z

Z. whereas, notwithstanding the scope of the Directive 85/374/EEC, the current legal framework would not be sufficient to cover the damage caused by the new generation of robots, insofar as they can be equipped with adaptive and learning abilities entailing a certain degree of unpredictability in their behaviour, since these robots would autonomously learn from their own, variable experience and interact with their environment in a unique and unforeseeable manner;deleted

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls for the creation of a European Agency for robotics and artificial intelligence in order to provide the technical, ethical and regulatory expertise needed to support the relevant public actors, at both EU and Member State level, in their efforts to ensure a timely and well-informed response to the new opportunities and challenges arising from the technological development of robotics;deleted

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers that the potential of robotics use and the present investment dynamics justify the European Agency being equipped with a proper budget and being staffed with regulators and external technical and ethical experts dedicated to the cross-sectorial and multidisciplinary monitoring of robotics-based applications, identifying standards for best practice, and, where appropriate, recommending regulatory measures, defining new principles and addressing potential consumer protection issues and systematic challenges; asks the Commission and the European Agency to report to the European Parliament on the latest developments in robotics on an annual basis;deleted

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Considers that, in principle, once the ultimately responsible parties have been identified, their liability would be proportionate to the actual level of instructions given to the robot and of its autonomy, so that the greater a robot's learning capability or autonomy is, the lower other parties' responsibility should be, and the longer a robot's 'education' has lasted, the greater the responsibility of its 'teacher' should be; notes, in particular, that skills resulting from 'education' given to a robot should be not confused with skills depending strictly on its self-learning abilities when seeking to identify the person to whom the robot's harmful behaviour is actually due;deleted

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 – point b

b) ensuring that a compensation fund would ~~not only~~ serve the purpose of guaranteeing compensation if the damage caused by a robot was not covered by an insurance – which would in any case remain its primary goal – but also that of allowing various financial operations in the interests of the robot, such as investments, donations or payments made to smart autonomous robots for their services, which could be transferred to the fund;

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 – point f

f) Creating a specific legal status for robots, so that at least the most sophisticated autonomous robots could be established as having the status of electronic persons with specific rights and obligations, including that of making good any damage they may cause, and applying electronic personality to cases where robots make smart autonomous decisions or otherwise interact with third parties independentlyIn any event, no legal status must ever be given to robots; Human responsibility must not be transferred to robots;

2016/10/26
Committee: JURI

Activities of Gilles LEBRETON related to 2015/2103(INL)

Legal basis opinions (0)

Amendments (10)

ParlTrack - 2011-2024