The automated, AI-based administrative process New legal options
The Legal Framework for AI in Public Administration
The new regulations of February 10, 2026, establish a legal framework at the state level in Baden-Württemberg under which certain administrative procedures may in the future—and initially as part of pilot projects—be designed using AI and automation. The focus here is on Section 35a of the Baden-Württemberg Administrative Procedure Act (LVwVfG BW), which establishes as a mandatory prerequisite under administrative law that a fully automated administrative act may be issued only if the official decision involves neither discretion nor any margin for judgment. It must therefore be a decision based on fixed criteria.
The amending act has now introduced the new Section 17a of the Electronic Government Act of Baden-Württemberg (EGovG BW). This provision legally standardizes the targeted testing and subsequent approval of AI-based administrative acts. To protect the affected parties, it requires that the overriding interests of those affected must not conflict with automation. The absence of such an interest is presumed if the administrative application is granted in full, if only typical standard cases without deviations are involved, or if the data subject has given consent.
Permissible use cases currently focus on traditional mass procedures where there is no discretion. Examples include automated registry entries, such as for unmanned aerial vehicles or for batteries and electronic devices, as well as binding decisions in the area of fiscal equalization.
Automated Decisions Under the GDPR
Under Article 22 of the GDPR, natural persons have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing. Exceptions may be regulated by law.
Such a legal provision has now been established with § 17a EGovG BW. Provided the requirements of § 17a EGovG BW are met, there is thus an exception to the otherwise existing prohibition under the GDPR.
Example: Parking enforcement via scan cars and AI-generated fines
A current use case for the deployment of AI and automation is parking enforcement via so-called scan cars. Here, the first question that arises is whether automated recording of illegally parked vehicles, etc., is permissible, followed by the question of whether fines may be issued automatically. It is therefore important to first distinguish between the automated determination of facts and the automated issuance of a notice.
Scan cars use roof-mounted cameras and AI-supported image recognition to capture license plates en masse in stationary traffic. For this purely factual determination, a specific legal basis was established at the state level in Baden-Württemberg through § 13 LMG BW. This has already been utilized in pilot projects in Heidelberg and Mannheim, among other places, in 2025. In the future, § 63g StVG is intended to create a standard at the federal level corresponding to § 13 LMG BW.
However, it must not be concluded from the automated fact-finding that the fine notice for illegal parking may subsequently be generated and sent fully automatically by artificial intelligence. In the prosecution of administrative offenses, the principle of discretion under § 47 OWiG applies. This provision explicitly stipulates that prosecution is subject to the authority’s discretion in accordance with its duties. Consequently, there is a margin of discretion, which is why a fully automated, AI-based issuance of the administrative act pursuant to § 35a LVwVfG BW is impermissible. The final fine notice must therefore always be reviewed and approved by a human case worker.
In addition to national law, the requirements of the new European AI Regulation (AI Regulation) must be strictly observed in all such projects. For example, pursuant to Article 6(2) of the AI Regulation in conjunction with Annex III, No. 5 of the AI Regulation, AI systems are classified as high-risk systems if they determine access to and use of essential public services and benefits. If a system is classified as high-risk AI, human oversight is mandatory, along with increased transparency and CE marking of the AI system. However, with regard to the aforementioned parking space management, no high-risk AI will be present, as decisions are not made regarding essential support services, such as social assistance or housing benefits. This assessment should, however, be made with regard to the specific system, as high-risk AI may also exist based on other regulations.
Conclusion and Outlook for Strategic Direction
In summary, it can be stated that the legislature has paved the way for the use of artificial intelligence in the issuance of administrative acts; however, the hurdles for legally compliant use in practice remain high. The close interplay between § 17a EGovG BW, § 35a LVwVfG BW, the GDPR, and the AI Regulation creates an extremely dense network of requirements. Software manufacturers and municipal authorities must ensure that AI systems for final automated decisions are used only in administrative procedures involving decisions without any discretionary leeway. This must be distinguished from automated fact-finding and decision preparation.
Expert Support for the Digitalization of Administrative Processes
The law firm VOELKER reliably supports developers of AI systems, IT service providers, and public administration bodies in the legally compliant design and implementation of digital administrative processes. VOELKER’s specialized attorneys ensure that complex software architectures fully comply with the requirements of, among others, the Administrative Procedure Act (LVwVfG), the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the AI Regulation, as well as other public law provisions. From the initial feasibility study through to the final legal approval of innovative projects, VOELKER develops practical, secure, and robust legal solutions.
Please also note our forum on digital administration: The LDSG Reform in Practice—From AI Decisions to Video Surveillance on April 28, 2026.