References
- AlgorithmWatch (2019), Automating Society. Taking Stock of Automated Decision-Making in the EU, A report by AlgorithmWatch in cooperation with Bertelsmann Stiftung, supported by the Open Society Foundations, Berlin: AW AlgorithmWatch gGmbH. Retrieved from https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/BSt/Publikationen/GrauePublikationen/001-148_AW_EU-ADMreport_2801_2.pdf [accessed 8 Aug 2019]
- Alpharma Inc. v. Council of the European Union, Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 1999 (Interim Measures) [1999], ECR II, T-70/99, 30.6.1999.
- Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2017a), Guidelines on Automated individual decision-making and Profiling for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679. Adopted on 3 October 2017. As last Revised and Adopted on 6 February 2018, WP 251 rev. 01.
- Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2017b), Guidelines on Consent under Regulation 2016/679, WP 259, 28.11.2017.
- Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2017c), Guidelines on Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) and determining whether processing is “likely to result in a high risk” for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679 17/EN, WP 248 rev. 01, 4.4.2017.
- Bayamlıoğlu, E. (2018), ‘Transparency of automated decisions in the GDPR: an attempt for systemisation.’ Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3097653 [accessed 8 Aug 2019]. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.309765310.2139/ssrn.3097653
- Bayamlıoğlu, E. & Leenes, R. (2018), ‘The ‘rule of law’ implications of data-driven decision-making: a techno-regulatory perspective,’ Law, Innovation and Technology, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 295–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2018.152747510.1080/17579961.2018.1527475
- Binns, R. (2017), ‘Data protection impact assessments: a meta-regulatory approach,’ International Data Privacy Law, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipw02710.1093/idpl/ipw027
- Brkan, M. (2019), ‘Do algorithms rule the world? Algorithmic decision-making and data protection in the framework of the GDPR and beyond,’ International Journal of Law and Information Technology, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 91–121. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eay01710.1093/ijlit/eay017
- Burrell, J. (2016), ‘How the machine “thinks”: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms,’ Big Data and Society, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/205395171562251210.1177/2053951715622512
- Communication COM(2000) 1 final from the Commission on the precautionary principle, 2.2.2000.
- Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ, C 326, 26.10.2012, pp. 47–390.
- de Hert, P. (2017), ‘Data protection as bundles of principles, general rights, concrete subjective rights and rules: piercing the veil of stability surrounding the principles of data protection,’ European Data Protection Law Review, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 160–179. https://doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2017/2/610.21552/edpl/2017/2/6
- de Sadeleer, N. (2006), ‘The precautionary principle in EC health and environmental law,’ European Law Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 139–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2006.00313.x10.1111/j.1468-0386.2006.00313.x
- Edwards, L. & Veale, M. (2017), ‘Slave to the algorithm? Why a ‘right to an explanation’ is probably not the remedy you are looking for,’ Duke Law and Technology Review, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 18–84. https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/97upg10.31228/osf.io/97upg
- Fisher, E. (2002), ‘Precaution, precaution everywhere: developing a “common understanding” of the precautionary principle in the European Community,’ Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X020090010210.1177/1023263X0200900102
- Goodman, B. & Flaxman, S. (2016), ‘European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a “right to explanation”,’ in 2016 ICML Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning (WHI 2016), New York. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.08813.pdf [accessed 9 Aug 2019]
- Ladeur, K.-H. (2003), ‘The introduction of the precautionary principle into EU law: a pyrrhic victory for environmental and public health law? Decision-making under conditions of complexity in multi-level political systems,’ Common Market Law Review, vol. 40, pp. 1455–1479.10.54648/COLA2003063
- Malgieri, G. & Comandé, G. (2017), ‘Why a right to legibility of automated decision-making exists in the General Data Protection Regulation,’ International Data Privacy Law, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx01910.1093/idpl/ipx019
- National Farmers’ Union and Others [1998], The Queen v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Commissioners of Customs & Excise, ex parte National Farmers’ Union and Others, ECR I, C-157/96, 5.5.1998.
- Noto La Diega, G. (2018), ‘Against the dehumanisation of decision-making – algorithmic decisions at the crossroads of intellectual property, data protection, and freedom of information,’ Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 3–34. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.313535710.2139/ssrn.3135357
- Nyman-Metcalf, K. & Papageorgiou, I. F. (2018), ‘The European Union digital single market—challenges and impact for the EU Neighbourhood states,’ Baltic Journal of European Studies, vol. 8, no. 2(25), pp. 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1515/bjes-2018-001310.1515/bjes-2018-0013
- Pieters, W. & van Cleeff, A. (2009), ‘The precautionary principle in a world of digital dependencies,’ Computer, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2009.20310.1109/MC.2009.203
- Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance) (GDPR), OJ, L 119, 4.5.2016, pp. 1–88.
- Sands, P.; Peel, J.; Fabra, A. & MacKenzie, R. (2012), Principles of International Environmental Law, New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139019842
- Scherer, M. U. (2016), ‘Regulating artificial intelligence systems: risks, challenges, competencies, and strategies,’ Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, vol. 29, pp. 353–400. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.260977710.2139/ssrn.2609777
- Selbst, A. D. & Powles, J. (2017), ‘Meaningful information and the right to explanation,’ International Data Privacy Law, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 233–242.10.1093/idpl/ipx022
- Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty), OJ, C 191, 29.7.1992, pp. 1–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx02210.1093/idpl/ipx022
- United Kingdom v. Commission [1998] United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Commission of the European Communities, ECR I, C-180/96, 5.5.1998.
- van Asselt, M. B. A. & Vos, E. (2006), ‘The precautionary principle and the uncertainty paradox,’ Journal of Risk Research, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 313–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/1366987050017506310.1080/13669870500175063
- Wachter, S.; Mittelstadt, B. & Floridi, L. (2017), ‘Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the general data protection regulation,’ International Data Privacy Law, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 76–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx00510.1093/idpl/ipx005
- Zalnieriute, M.; Moses, L. B. & Williams, G. (2019), ‘The rule of law and automation of government decision-making,’ The Modern Law Review, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 425–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.1241210.1111/1468-2230.12412