The explanation must enable them to understand the decision and challenge it, according to the Luxembourg judges. The background was a case from Austria: A mobile phone provider refused to enter into a contract with a customer because she did not have sufficient creditworthiness.

The decision was based on a credit assessment by the company Dun & Bradstreet Austria, which specializes in such assessments and was conducted automatically. The credit score is created using an algorithm by so-called credit agencies. Creditworthiness describes the ability to pay and thus the creditworthiness of a person or company.

The contract would have obliged the customer to a monthly payment of ten euros. She then turned to an Austrian court. This court found that Dun & Bradstreet had violated the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Dun & Bradstreet had not provided the customer with "meaningful information about the logic involved" in the decision-making process and no justification as to why she could not receive it.

Austrian Court Requested Interpretation of GDPR

The Austrian court requested the ECJ to interpret the GDPR and the directive on the protection of trade secrets. According to the EU judges, the responsible party must describe the procedure and principles applied in such a way that the affected person can understand which of their personal data was used in the automated decision-making process and how it was used.

The affected person should be informed, for example, to what extent a deviation in the considered data would have led to a different result. According to the ruling, providing an algorithm is not sufficient. If the responsible party believes that the information to be provided includes protected data of third parties or trade secrets, they must submit it to the competent supervisory authority or court. These must then weigh the affected rights and interests. The court emphasizes that the GDPR opposes a national provision that generally excludes the right to information if this would endanger a trade or business secret. However, the ECJ never rules on the specific case but answers questions on the interpretation of EU law.

(APA/Red)

This article has been automatically translated, read the original article here.