1. From an anthropocentric model to technology-supported decision-making

Administrative law has traditionally been conceived as an anthropocentric system of decision-making, in which the administrative authority is the bearer of discretionary power, evaluative judgment and individual assessment of the case (“in concreto”)^[1]. However, the digitalisation of public administration is gradually transforming this model. The question therefore arises to what extent procedural and normative structures may be “translated” into algorithmic language without weakening the principles of the rule of law.

Between 2018 and 2023, the City of Vienna implemented the BRISE Vienna project^[2] as a research and development initiative aimed at the digitalization and partial algorithmicizing of building permit proceedings. The project was co-funded by a European urban innovation program with approximately EUR 4,8 million and was implemented through interdisciplinary cooperation between the City of Vienna, the Vienna University of Technology, experts in digital engineering and the Chamber of Civil Engineers. It was tested on real construction cases within the administrative practice of the city. The BRISE Vienna project thus represents a significant experiment in the field of the algorithmicising of building permit proceedings. It is a system that integrates digital building modelling with automated verification of project compliance with legal norms. It does not constitute fully automated decision-making; rather, it represents a model of supportive automation that fundamentally alters the procedural dynamics of the proceedings.

2. Building permit proceedings as a complex administrative process

Building permit proceedings rank among the most complex forms of administrative procedure. They affect property rights, environmental protection, urban development and the public interest in regulated land use, while at the same time significantly influencing the level of building culture as an integral part of the cultural and social environment^[3].

The traditional model is based on documentation manually reviewed by the administrative authority. This system is time-consuming, administratively burdensome and prone to formal deficiencies.

In the conditions of a rapidly growing Vienna, where approximately thirteen thousand building applications are submitted annually, the classical model proved to be institutionally unsustainable. The response was the BRISE project, which represents a transformation of the very procedural architecture of building permit proceedings.

3. The procedural model of BRISE Vienna

Unlike partial digitalisation initiatives, BRISE represents a comprehensively conceived model of public administration transformation that affects the very essence of permitting processes in the field of construction. The project was not designed merely as a technical solution for the electronic submission of applications, but as a research and development concept of intelligent, efficient and transparent public administration. Through its implementation, the City of Vienna has positioned itself among European leaders in digital administration.

BRISE (Building Regulations Information for Submission Evolvement) was implemented as an interdisciplinary project in cooperation between the City of Vienna, the Vienna University of Technology (civil engineers and computer scientists), experts in digital engineering, the Chamber of Civil Engineers, and other partners. The project received approximately EUR 4.8 million from a European initiative supporting innovative urban development and was successful in competition with 175 projects submitted by applicants from 23 Member States. The very selection of the project demonstrates its systemic and transferable character.

3.1 Preparation phase and preliminary automated review

The process begins with the creation of a digital three-dimensional building model using the Building Information Modelling (BIM) methodology. BIM represents a network-based planning method integrating architectural, structural and technical data into a coordinated model. Within the BRISE project, the internationally recognised software-neutral IFC standard is used, enabling interoperability and comparability of models.

The digital model contains precise data concerning building height, volume, built-up area, setback distances, functional use and other parameters of the structure. The model is uploaded into the system, where a series of automated checks is carried out. These include verification of compliance with height limits, control of setbacks from neighbouring plots, verification of volumetric regulations and building density, comparison with binding elements of land-use planning documentation, and verification of formal requirements (such as signatures and completeness of documentation).

The system employs a combination of algorithmic checks, collision tests and intelligent searches of legal provisions. Artificial intelligence is applied primarily in the form of machine learning and semantic search, enabling the rapid assignment of relevant legal sources to a specific model.

The result is immediate feedback to the designer already at the preliminary review stage. This phase significantly increases planning certainty and reduces the number of procedural requests for supplementary documentation. It represents a fundamental shift from ex post review to preventive ex ante validation.

3.2 Formal submission and expert assessment

After the identified inconsistencies have been remedied, the application is submitted through the digital platform. The administrative authority has access to the complete digital model together with the outputs of the automated checks. All stakeholders may monitor the status of the proceedings in real time.

The administrative burden shifts from manual measurement and verification of basic parameters to substantive assessment of the project. Officials may focus on urbanistic, social, architectural and environmental aspects that require qualitative evaluation and the exercise of discretionary power.

BRISE therefore does not alter the subject of decision-making but rationalises its performance. Automation assumes precise, quantifiable tasks, while evaluative and interpretative elements remain within human competence.

3.3 Transparency, participation and augmented reality

A distinctive feature of the system is the use of Augmented Reality. Digital models may be placed directly into real space and displayed via mobile devices. The public may thus view the planned building in its future form even before construction commences.

This tool strengthens transparency of the proceedings and promotes democratic participation. In this respect, BRISE exceeds the framework of purely administrative innovation and establishes a new model of communication between building authorities, the professional community and citizens.

3.4 Pilot phase and empirical results

The project was tested on thirteen real construction projects. Empirical results confirmed a significant reduction in the duration of proceedings – digital building permits were issued up to 50% faster than under the traditional paper-based model. At the same time, administrative burden, risk of errors and costs associated with repeated supplementation of documentation were reduced.

The project thus not only optimised processes but also created know-how transferable to other areas of public administration. BRISE is therefore understood as a pilot model of intelligent administration whose principles may be applied beyond construction law^[4].

4. Formalisation of legal norms and its limits

At the core of the system lies the formalisation of certain legal norms into algorithmic form (“norma in codice”). Such an approach enhances uniformity in the application of law and reduces human error. At the same time, it raises questions concerning the permissible scope of algorithmicising.

Legal norms frequently contain indeterminate legal concepts and evaluative elements. Their complete formalisation could lead to excessive rigidity and weaken discretionary power. The principle of individual assessment of the case must therefore remain preserved.

The regulatory framework of the European Union, represented by the Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), requires human oversight, transparency and accountability in the case of high-risk systems. The BRISE model, which preserves decision-making authority with the administrative body, complies with the requirement of human oversight^[5].

The Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law likewise emphasises the protection of fundamental rights, proportionality and reviewability of decisions. Algorithmic assistance must therefore not result in the creation of a non-transparent “black box”^[6].

5. The procedural model of BRISE and its normative significance

BRISE transforms the very procedural architecture of building permit proceedings. Instead of traditional documentation, the foundation of the procedure becomes a digital three-dimensional building model containing precisely quantifiable data concerning its parameters. This model is subjected to automated review on the basis of formalised rules derived from the building regulations of the City of Vienna.

The process may be divided into three principal phases:

1. Preliminary automated review – the system identifies non-compliance with height, volume or setback regulations prior to the formal submission of the application.
2. Expert assessment by the administrative authority – the authority focuses on qualitative and evaluative aspects of the project.
3. Transparent communication with the public – digital visualisations enable better understanding of the impact of the construction on its surroundings.

Empirical results of the pilot phase indicated a significant acceleration of proceedings and a reduction in administrative burden. From a normative perspective, however, it is essential that decision-making authority remains vested in the administrative body.

The principle of legality (“principium legalitatis”) constitutes one of the fundamental principles of administrative law. Public authorities may act only on the basis of law and within its limits. The algorithmicising of part of building regulations into program code (“norma in codice”) represents a specific form of application of law.

A key question is whether the translation of a legal norm into an algorithm preserves its content and purpose (“ratio legis”). Formalisation of a legal norm presupposes its unequivocal interpretation, whereas in practice interpretation is often the subject of professional debate. If an algorithm were to fix only a single interpretative alternative, this could weaken the principle of legality in its substantive sense. BRISE addresses this issue by automating only those parts of regulation that are objectively quantifiable. Evaluative and interpretative elements remain within the competence of the administrative authority^[7].

The principle of proportionality requires that an intervention by public authority be suitable, necessary and proportionate to the pursued objective. Automated systems operate deterministically, which may lead to excessive rigidity. Building permit proceedings frequently involve borderline situations where it is necessary to consider the specific circumstances of the case. Algorithmic application of rules without the possibility of individual correction could result in a breach of the principle of proportionality. In this respect, the BRISE model is a compromise. The algorithm performs precise checks, yet the final decision remains in human hands. This preserves the possibility of taking exceptional circumstances into account^[8].

The principle of equality before the law requires that similar cases be treated alike (“similia similibus”). Algorithmicising may paradoxically strengthen this principle, as it reduces the risk of subjective discrepancies between individual officials. On the other hand, if input data or system settings were to contain systematic biases, discriminatory effects could be reproduced. It is therefore essential to ensure transparency of algorithms and the possibility of their scrutiny^[9].

The principle of protection of the rights of participants in proceedings and the right to a fair process require that a decision be reviewable and reasoned. In the context of algorithmicising, the question of explainability of system outputs arises. The AI Act places emphasis on ensuring human oversight in the case of high-risk systems used in public administration. The Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence likewise stresses the protection of fundamental rights, transparency and reviewability. The BRISE model, which preserves final decision-making authority within the administrative body, is compatible with these requirements. The algorithm provides supporting inputs, not the final decision.

The algorithm operates deterministically, whereas discretionary power enables consideration of the specific circumstances of the case. BRISE represents a model of complementarity, in which technology assists but does not replace human decision-making. The future of administrative law therefore does not lie in complete automation, but in seeking a balance between “efficientia” and “iustitia”.

6. Normative implications for the Slovak Republic

The BRISE Vienna project represents significant inspiration for the Slovak environment, but at the same time constitutes a test of the normative preparedness of the Slovak legal order. The introduction of a comparable system could contribute to the acceleration of building proceedings, reduction of formal deficiencies in submissions and increased predictability of decision-making. The question remains whether Slovak legal, technological and institutional conditions allow such a qualitative shift without weakening the fundamental principles of administrative law.

The new Slovak Building Act (Act No. 25/2025 Coll., Building Act and Amendments to Certain Acts) redefines the concept of a building and the process of its permitting. It defines a building as a construction created by building works from construction products, permanently connected to the ground or requiring ground modification, while emphasising its functional and spatial character. This definition is significant from the perspective of digitalisation, as it creates a unified concept of an object that could in the future be modelled and assessed in digital form.

The Slovak Republic has already undertaken the electronic submission of building applications through the Construction Portal. Applications and documentation are submitted electronically, primarily in PDF or DWG formats. However, this represents digitalisation of the information carrier rather than transformation of the procedural logic. Although documentation is submitted electronically, its assessment remains manual. The system does not include algorithmic verification of normative compliance nor automated application of regulatory provisions through artificial intelligence. Digitalisation in the Slovak context therefore currently represents formal modernisation rather than genuine algorithmicising of decision-making^[10].

Algorithmicising of part of building proceedings would require a higher degree of normative determinacy. Rules suitable for automated control must be precise, quantifiable and unambiguous. Slovak construction law, however, contains numerous indeterminate legal concepts and evaluative criteria enabling individual assessment of the case (“in concreto”). Their formalisation would require methodological standardisation and clear separation of provisions suitable for algorithmic application from those that must remain within the discretionary power of the administrative authority. Otherwise, there would be a risk that the algorithm fixes a single interpretative alternative and indirectly modifies the content of the legal norm, thereby weakening the material understanding of the principle of legality (“principium legalitatis”).

At the same time, full protection of procedural rights must be ensured. If a supportive algorithmic system were introduced, its transparency and explainability would have to be guaranteed. The participant in the proceedings must be able to understand the reasons why the system identified non-compliance and must have access to an effective remedy. Under the European regulatory framework, such a system would likely qualify as high-risk, requiring human oversight, risk management and documentation of decision-making processes.

A model preserving final decision-making authority with the administrative body therefore appears normatively acceptable^[11].

Particular attention must also be paid to the principle of proportionality. Automated systems operate deterministically, which may result in excessive rigidity. Building proceedings often involve borderline situations requiring consideration of specific circumstances^[12].

If the algorithm were to replace individual assessment without the possibility of correction, proportionality could be violated and discretionary power restricted. Digitalisation must therefore not be perceived as an end in itself but as a tool for enhancing the quality, transparency and legal certainty of decision-making.

The Slovak Republic thus possesses the basic prerequisites for gradual transformation of building proceedings, yet the current state represents a phase of digitalisation rather than algorithmisation. Transition to a model comparable to BRISE would require systematic normative revision, methodological standardisation and technological infrastructure enabling machine-readable models instead of static documents. Technological efficiency (“efficientia”) may constitute a legitimate objective of public administration, provided it is not achieved at the expense of substantive justice (“iustitia”) and the protection of procedural rights.

7. Conclusion

The BRISE Vienna project represents a significant example of how technological tools may be integrated into administrative proceedings without negating their anthropocentric foundation. It demonstrates that algorithmicising need not replace human decision-making but may constitute structured support enhancing efficiency, reducing administrative burdens and strengthening uniform application of law.

Analysis of the procedural model confirms that the key condition of normative acceptability lies in preserving discretionary power, ensuring transparency of algorithmic processes and respecting the principles of legality, proportionality, equality and protection of procedural rights. Formalisation of legal norms into “norma in codice” is permissible only insofar as it does not undermine the material understanding of legality nor create a non-transparent decision-making environment.

In the Slovak context, the current stage is characterised primarily by digitalisation of submission rather than transformation of procedural logic. The new Building Act establishes a more unified normative framework, including a definition of a building as a technical and functional entity, yet algorithmic assessment through artificial intelligence remains absent. The Slovak Republic therefore stands at the threshold of potential transformation, which will require careful normative preparation, methodological standardisation and institutional capacity-building.

The future of administrative law does not lie in complete automation of decision-making, but in achieving equilibrium between “efficientia” and “iustitia”, between technological rationality and substantive justice. Only if algorithmicising remains subordinate to the principles of the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights can it serve as a legitimate instrument of public administration. It is within this tension between innovation and normative continuity that the further development of building permit proceedings in the era of artificial intelligence will unfold.

1. This article was produced within the framework of the research project APVV-24-0063 Protection of Architectural Heritage: Innovative Approaches and Solutions. ↑
2. See BRISE-VIENNA – Planning and living together – Digitales Wien. ↑
3. F. Branicky, Dialogue Between Tradition and Innovation in the Rural Context, in. EUROSTAV, 5, 2025 and B. Cepek, M. Maslen, Substantive Administrative Law, Wolters Kluwer, Bratislava, 2018. ↑
4. BRISE-VIENNA – Planning and living together – Digitales Wien. ↑
5. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act). ↑
6. Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law dated Vilnius, 5.IX.2024. ↑
7. B. Cepek, B. Maslen, Substantive Administrative Law, cit. ↑
8. J. Boguszak, Theory of law, ASPI Publishing, 2004, 2. Edition, 2004. ↑
9. J. Tekeli, Substantive Administrative Law – Special Part, šafárikPress, Košice, 2022. ↑
10. Act No. 25/2025 Coll., Building Act and Amendments to Certain Acts. ↑
11. M. Mesarčík, Z. Gyurász, Law and AI, Faculty of Law Comenius University in Bratislava, Bratislava, 1. Edition, 2024. ↑
12. S. Košiačiarová, Substantive Administrative Law, Vydavatelství a nakladatelství Aleš Čeněk, Plzeň, 2022. ↑