Automated decision-making in the EU Member States: The right to explanation and other “suitable safeguards” in the national legislations

Gianclaudio Malgieri

124 citations0/0 files storedComputer law & security review

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Digitalization, Law, and Regulation Ethics and Social Impacts of AI Legal and Labor Studies

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to analyse the very recently approved national Member States’ laws that have implemented the GDPR in the field of automated decision-making (prohibition, exceptions, safeguards): all national legislations have been analysed and in particular 9 Member States Law address the case of automated decision making providing specific exemptions and relevant safeguards, as requested by Article 22(2)(b) of the GDPR (Belgium, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Hungary, Slovenia, Austria, the United Kingdom, Ireland). The approaches are very diverse: the scope of the provision can be narrow (just automated decisions producing legal or similarly detrimental effects) or wide (any decision with a significant impact) and even specific safeguards proposed are very diverse. After this overview, this article will also address the following questions: are Member States free to broaden the scope of automated decision-making regulation? Are ‘positive decisions’ allowed under Article 22, GDPR, as some Member States seem to affirm? Which safeguards can better guarantee rights and freedoms of the data subject? In particular, while most Member States refers just to the three safeguards mentioned at Article 22(3) (i.e. subject's right to express one's point of view; right to obtain human intervention; right to contest the decision), three approaches seem very innovative: a) some States guarantee a right to legibility/explanation about the algorithmic decisions (France and Hungary); b) other States (Ireland and United Kingdom) regulate human intervention on algorithmic decisions through an effective accountability mechanism (e.g. notification, explanation of why such contestation has not been accepted, etc.); c) another State (Slovenia) require an innovative form of human rights impact assessments on automated decision-making.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 124 citations exist upstream.

References

2018AI and Big Data: A blueprint for a human rights, social and ethical impact assessment

Cited by

2020Who is the fairest of them all? Public attitudes and expectations regarding automated decision-making 2022The future regulation of artificial intelligence systems in healthcare services and medical research in the European Union 2021Conceptualising Contestability: Perspectives on Contesting Algorithmic Decisions 2020How to regulate algorithmic decision‐making: A framework of regulatory requirements for different applications 2021The legitimacy gap of algorithmic decision-making in the public sector: Why it arises and how to address it 2022Mental data protection and the GDPR 2024Automation bias in public administration – an interdisciplinary perspective from law and psychology 2022Disclosures about algorithmic decision making in the corporate reports of Western European companies

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.