Can Artificial Intelligence Hear a Litigant Within the Meaning of Article 6 ECHR?

The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial systems raises a fundamental question under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): can an AI system genuinely fulfil a litigant’s right to be heard? This article develops a functional account of that right as a multifaceted guarantee requiring the opportunity to present and challenge relevant material, effective examination of decisive submissions, clarification where necessary, contextual and normative evaluation, reasoned decision-making, and responsibility for the outcome. Using doctrinal, comparative, and normative methods, the study examines these requirements in relation to risks associated with judicial AI, including opacity, algorithmic bias, hallucinated outputs, limited explainability, and automation bias. The analysis is situated within the EU AI Act, the GDPR, the CEPEJ Ethical Charter, Romanian civil procedure, and comparative administrative-law cases. The article finds that AI may legitimately assist courts through transcription, translation, legal research, document organization, and non-binding summaries or drafts. However, under current legal and technological conditions, AI cannot autonomously perform the hearing in its entirety. Compliance with Article 6 therefore requires transparency, contestability, independent judicial verification, and meaningful human oversight. Final adjudicative authority, reasoned judgment, and responsibility must remain with an independent and accountable human judge.