Burhan Doğuş Ayparlar - July 20, 2026
In an era where technology constantly tests the boundaries of law, the concept of "continuous infraction" is being radically redefined through the lens of AI.
The "Continuous Infraction" Doctrine in Algorithmic Decisions
In traditional law, distinguishing whether an administrative or corporate error is a "singular act" or a "continuous action" is critical for determining statutes of limitations for penalties and compensation. The scenario where an AI-driven decision-making mechanism (such as automated tax calculation, visa approval, or public procurement scoring algorithms) victimizes hundreds of citizens or businesses due to a systemic flaw in its code has been contextualized by courts. New jurisprudence, referencing supreme administrative court and Council of State (Danıştay) precedents, now considers every day that a structural algorithm flaw remains uncorrected as a "continuous infraction."
Petitions and Legal Justification Processes
These landmark precedents have drastically changed how lawyers and LegalTech professionals draft administrative litigation petitions. In annulment suits filed against administrations, the logical distortion in an algorithm's architecture is now presented as concrete evidence, rather than just human error. AI-powered legal analysis tools can scan decades of historical administrative court precedents in seconds, matching a specific erroneous action of an algorithm with the historical definition of an "unlawful administrative act," and seamlessly integrating this into legal petitions.
New Risk Management for Public Institutions
These legal developments are forcing government agencies and tech firms supplying AI to conduct profound risk analyses. "Legal emergency kill switches" are being integrated into software to automatically halt systems the moment an algorithm is detected to be operating erroneously. According to the new precedents, every minute the system operates autonomously with a flaw generates exponentially increasing legal liability for the administration. This new bridge between artificial intelligence and administrative law suggests that algorithms will soon require direct auditing by lawmakers.
