aceWhen Is a Decision Automated? A Taxonomy for a Fundamental Rights Analysis
Abstract This Article addresses the pressing issues surrounding the use of automated systems in public decision-making, specifically focusing on migration, asylum, and mobility. Drawing on empirical data, this Article examines the potential and limitations of the General Data Protection Regulation and the Artificial Intelligence Act in effectively addressing the challenges posed by automated decision-making (ADM). The Article argues that the current legal definitions and categorizations of ADM fail to capture th…
A proposed taxonomy for automated decision-making could improve identification of fundamental rights at stake in public migration, asylum and mobility decisions.
Current GDPR and AI Act definitions of automated decision-making fail to capture real-life applications where automated systems assist rather than replace human decision-makers in migration and asylum.
Taxonomy is presented as provisional and requires further empirical validation and input from other public law experts to be refined.
Evidence
- Peer-reviewedGerman Law Journal2024-03-01
How should this claim be treated?
Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-0519, v1: “When Is a Decision Automated? A Taxonomy for a Fundamental Rights Analysis.” Truvace, 2026-07-23. /record/TRV-2026-0519 (accessed at citation time). sha256 36ad37dbb3086b0c…
Calibration history
Every change to this record since certification, in the open. None yet — the reading has held since it entered the record.
Certified into the record
How to verify without trusting this page
Fetch the canonical text of any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-0519 and hash it yourself — for example shasum -a 256 on the saved canonical field. The result must equal content_hash, and each version’s text ends with prev:followed by the prior version’s hash (version 1 chains to 64 zeros). If a single character of any version had been altered since certification, the chain would not reproduce.