The President of the Personal Data Protection Office (UODO), Mirosław Wróblewski, has submitted comments to the Chancellery of the Sejm regarding the draft law on artificial intelligence systems. In a letter addressed to Dariusz Salamończyk, Deputy Head of the Chancellery of the Sejm, the supervisory authority stated that the draft should define more precisely the rules of cooperation between the President of UODO and the Commission for the Development and Security of Artificial Intelligence.
UODO gave a positive assessment to one of the changes already introduced into the draft. This concerns the recognition of the supervisory authority’s exclusive competence in market oversight over the use of AI systems for law enforcement purposes, inspections, and within the justice system. In the office’s view, this is an important clarification of powers in particularly sensitive areas of artificial intelligence use.
At the same time, the President of UODO pointed out that the draft law still does not regulate in detail the principles of cooperation with the Commission for the Development and Security of Artificial Intelligence. The concerns relate in particular to oversight of personal data processing and the operation of so-called regulatory sandboxes. According to the office, merely repeating the general obligation to cooperate, which already follows from the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, is not sufficient.
The supervisory authority stresses that it is necessary to define by statute the rules, nature, and procedures for the exchange of information between institutions. Without such provisions, cooperation may prove too vague, which in practice could hinder effective oversight in areas where AI systems involve the processing of personal data and the protection of fundamental rights.
In its comments, UODO also addressed its position within the proposed institutional model. Under the draft, the President of UODO would be allowed to participate in Commission meetings, but without voting rights. In the office’s view, such a formula is insufficient given its role as the authority responsible for safeguarding personal data protection and fundamental rights.
The President of UODO is therefore calling for this role to be explicitly established in the law. In the office’s opinion, the supervisory authority should have the right to present its views on personal data processing in matters considered by the Commission. Moreover, those views should be taken into account by the Commission when issuing administrative decisions that resolve cases on their merits.
As the office indicates, such a solution would be consistent with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In practice, this would mean a stronger involvement of the personal data protection authority in the AI oversight system, especially where the use of new technologies may affect citizens’ rights.
The comments submitted by the President of UODO form part of the broader debate on the shape of national provisions implementing EU regulations on artificial intelligence. One of the key challenges remains not only the division of powers between institutions, but also the creation of clear rules for cooperation between authorities responsible for the development, security, and legal compliance of AI systems.
Case reference: DOL.401.354.2024
