Monitor Prawniczy
no. 11/2025
Meaningful information about the logic involved in automated decision-making within the meaning of Article 15(1)(h) of the GDPR in light of the CJEU judgment of 27 February 2025, in case C-203/22
Autor jest prawnikiem, specjalistą z zakresu ochrony danych osobowych, uczestnikiem Prawniczego Seminarium Doktorskiego w Instytucie Nauk Prawnych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
Abstract
Art. 15(1)(h) of the GDPR grants data subjects the right to obtain from the controller information about the use of automated decision-making and meaningful information about the logic involved, as well as the significance and the envisaged consequences of such processing for the data subject. In the CJEU judgment of 27 February 2025, in case C-203/22, CK v. Magistrat der Stadt Wien, with the participation of: Dun & Bradstreet Austria GmbH, the Court clarified the concept of “meaningful information about the logic involved” for automated decision-making within the meaning of Art. 15(1)(h) of the GDPR and indicated how the right of access to such information should be balanced against the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, such as trade secrets. The text presents an analysis of the judgment and its potential impact on controllers and data subjects.
Keywords
personal data, automated decision-making, GDPR, meaningful information about the logic involved, trade secret
Literature
M. Brkan, Do algorithms rule the worlds? Algorithmic decision-making and data protection in the framework of the GDPR and beyond, „International Journal of Law and Information Technology” Vol. 27, Nr 2/2019; B. Custers, A.S. Heijne, The right of access in automated decision-making: The scope of article 15(1)(h) GDPR in theory and practice, „Computer Law & Security Review” Nr 46/2022; L. Edwards, M. Veale, Slave to the Algorithm? Why a „Right to an Explanation” Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For, „Duke Law & Technology Review” Vol. 16/2017; F. Geburczyk, Prawa osób fizycznych w kontekście przetwarzania danych osobowych w procesach zautomatyzowanego podejmowania decyzji, MoP Nr 11/2020; B. Goodman, S. Flaxman, European Union Regulations on Algorithmic Decision Making and a „Right to Explanation”, „AI Magazine” Vol. 38, Nr 3/2017; M.E. Kaminski, G. Malgieri, Algorithmic impact assessments under the GDPR: producing multi-layered explanations, „International Data Privacy Law” Vol. 11, Nr 2/2021; D. Lubasz, Przejrzystość i wyjaśnialność sztucznej inteligencji i ich funkcje w RODO i AIAct, dodatek specjalny do MoP Nr 11/2024; A.D. Selbst, J. Powles, Meaningful information and the right to explanation, „International Data Privacy Law” Vol. 7, Nr 4/2017, s. 233-242; G. Sibiga, Wyłączenie zakazu zautomatyzowanego podejmowania decyzji w przepisach prawa polskiego w świetle wymagań ogólnego rozporządzenia o ochronie danych (RODO) - wybrane zagadnienia, MoP Nr 21/2022; S. Wachter, B. Mittelstadt, L. Floridi, Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation, „International Data Privacy Law” Vol. 7, Nr 2/2017
