On 27 February 2025, the CJEU ruled in the case of Dun & Bradstreet Austria (C-203\/22): In the case of automated decisions within the meaning of Art. 22 GDPR, data subjects have a right to a comprehensible explanation of the procedures used and the outcome.<\/p>\n
\ud83d\udd0d Key statements:
\n\u2022 Even complex “black box” systems do not exempt controllers from the duty to explain
\u2022 Trade secrets do not automatically override the right of access
\u2022 Counterfactual explanations can be helpful, for example: “If your monthly income had been \u20ac500 higher, you would have received the loan.”<\/p>\n
\ud83d\udcbc Relevance for HR practice:
Automated selection decisions are generally not permitted under data protection law in the HR context, unless a works agreement provides the necessary legal basis. Beyond that, the employer must be able to explain the decision \u2014 something many AI tools currently cannot do.<\/p>\n
For more details, see the article by Tinhofer<\/em>, ASoK 2025, 231.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" On 27 February 2025, the CJEU ruled in the case of Dun & Bradstreet Austria (C-203\/22): In the case of automated decisions within the meaning of Art. 22 GDPR, data subjects have a right to a comprehensible explanation of the procedures used and the outcome. \ud83d\udd0d Key statements: \u2022 Even complex “black box” systems do…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9330","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-unkategorisiert"],"yoast_head":"\n