The right person

Before moving to Maastricht in 2013, she completed her PhD in two years and spent six years as a legal adviser at the EU Court of Justice. Why the accelerated PhD? “I applied for the position at the Court of Justice while I was working on my PhD and was accepted. I couldn’t let Advocate General Trstenjak wait for me too long, so I worked long hours every day and tried to be as efficient as possible. What helped me was that I had a clear idea of what I wanted to research, and I’d already collected a lot of literature before starting my PhD. I managed to publish a book based on my PhD afterwards, so the quality of the research didn’t suffer. My free time did—but when you’re immersed in writing, you don’t really notice.”

When it was time to move on, Brkan applied to two Dutch universities, including UM. “I’d never been there before my interview and only knew the city from the Maastricht Treaty. So choosing Maastricht was also quite an intuitive decision. My mind wasn’t sure what to do, but my heart knew Maastricht was the right path. It turned out to be a good fit.” Problem-Based Learning and the university’s international, dynamic character suited her perfectly. 

Well-prepared

She is grateful for the support she received from UM while she applied to become a judge at the EU General Court. The process took roughly a year and resembled the procedure for applying for a large academic grant. “You have to be qualified and knowledgeable, but you also have to be the right person in the right place at the right time. It depends on so many factors.” Although she enjoyed aspects of the process, such as an intensive hearing by a committee on her knowledge and intellectual capability to reflect, it was occasionally stressful. “I’d been working and studying in this field all my life and I really wanted to pass, but you have to be well-prepared.” In the summer of 2021, she joined the General Court as a judge. 

Digging deeper

Being an early riser, she often discusses cases with her cabinet before nine am. “Some cases are challenging because of their scope and sensitive nature. But sometimes a seemingly ‘small’ case can also be difficult to decide, because two decisions are possible. In my experience, judicial decision making is something that ripens over time. If you’re not yet sure how to decide a case, it’s important to take more time, reflect more, dig deeper. You have to wait for that moment when you ‘crack’ the case, to be sure of your decision and not hasten the process.” This is also why she’s sceptical about using artificial intelligence for judicial decision making. “Decisions have to mature, and that involves a lot of thinking, even when you’re not in the office, because then your mind is often fresher and clearer. I like spending time in nature to clear my mind. Or attending a cultural event. But as neither Luxemburg nor Maastricht has an opera house, I haven’t seen much opera lately.” 

Avatar Sarah

Brkan was appointed professor of Digitalisation and EU Law at UM in November 2023. In her inaugural lecture, she introduced the audience to “Sarah,” an avatar whose application for an Erasmus exchange scholarship had been rejected based on a decision made by an algorithm. This was Brkan’s segway into the legal aspects of the right to explanation. “Everyone should know that national authorities that use high-risk algorithms for decision making have an obligation to explain such algorithmic decisions, and you always have the right to ask for a human to review the decision. The childcare benefits scandal in the Netherlands is a good example of how this went wrong. As far as I know, the victims were not even aware that an algorithm had been involved in deciding their case. Maybe universities can or should play a role, as part of their valorisation efforts, in educating a broader audience about their rights.”