Algorithmic Discrimination as a Threat to Digital Human Rights: a Theoretical and Legal Dimension
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31861/jiel.2026.1.53-64Keywords:
human rights, digital rights, artificial intelligence, digitalisation of international law, European Court of Human Rights, algorithmic discriminationAbstract
The article investigates the issues regarding the protection of digital human rights in the context of the rapid implementation of artificial intelligence systems and automated decision-making within the public sector. Particular emphasis is placed on the emergence of a new phenomenon — algorithmic discrimination, which poses a serious threat to the principle of equality and creates unprecedented challenges for traditional anti-discrimination mechanisms. Algorithmic discrimination is defined as a latent, unintentional form of unfair or biased treatment towards an individual or a group of individuals possessing one or more protected characteristics, which is caused by the functioning of automated decision-making systems and lies in the large-scale and self-reinforcing restriction of their rights as a result of processing historically biased source data or applying neutral proxy variables.
The article identifies and analyses the key characteristics of this phenomenon: the latent nature and insufficient transparency of the operation of algorithms, which hinder the detection of biased treatment until the violations acquire a systematic character; the absence of intent to restrict the rights of a specific individual or group of individuals, as well as the predominantly indirect nature of algorithmic discrimination; the use of proxy variables, which have a neutral character but, due to existing historical biases in society, can lead to unequal treatment; intersectionality or its cross-cutting nature, caused by the combination of several protected characteristics; a significantly accelerated and large-scale character compared to the traditional understanding of discrimination, caused by the automation of decision-making, as well as the "feedback loop", whereby the operation of algorithms further amplifies the existing unfair treatment of certain protected groups within society.
The article demonstrates that the opacity of algorithms precludes the effective application of the classical standards for the allocation of the burden of proof under Article 14 of the ECHR, as it deprives the applicant of the tools necessary to establish a causal link between the source data, algorithmic processes, and discriminatory treatment. The study also substantiates the necessity of expanding the human rights protection doctrine and adapting the approaches of the ECtHR, incorporating the concept of "explainable artificial intelligence", in order to guarantee equitable protection against algorithmic bias.
References
1. Pres-ofis Ministerstva tsyfrovoi transformatsii Ukrainy. (2025). 42 % doroslykh i 70 % pidlitkiv korystuiutsia ShI v Ukraini: rezultaty doslidzhennia Diia.Osvita [42% of adults and 70% of teenagers use AI in Ukraine: Results of the Diia.Osvita study]. https://thedigital.gov.ua/news/education/42-doroslykh-i-70-pidlitkiv-korystuiutsia-shi-v-ukrayini-rezultaty-doslidzennia-diiaosvita.
2. Paniotto, V. (2025). Vykorystannia shtuchnoho intelektu naselenniam Ukrainy: presreliz pidhotovlenyi prezydentom KMIS Volodymyrom Paniotto [Use of artificial intelligence by the population of Ukraine: Press release prepared by KIIS president Volodymyr Paniotto]. Kyivskyi mizhnarodnyi instytut sotsiolohii. https://kiis.com.ua/?lang=ukr&cat=reports&id=1528&page=1.
3. Superior Court of Cabarrus County (District 25). (2024, July 23). Generative artificial intelligence and its use in the Superior Court of Cabarrus County (District 25) [Administrative order]. https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2026/04/Administrative-Order-Generative-AI-July-23-2004.pdf.
4. Australian lawyer who submitted fake AI cases allowed to stay in practice. (2025, September 5). The Law Society Gazette. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/australian-lawyer-who-submitted-fake-ai-cases-allowed-to-stay-in-practice/5124347.article.
5. Natsionalna asotsiatsiia advokativ Ukrainy. (2026, March 5). ShI ta pravnycha diialnist: yak reahuiut sudy [AI and legal practice: How courts react]. https://unba.org.ua/publications/11425-shi-ta-pravnicha-diyal-nist-yak-reaguyut-sudi.html.
6. Krat, V. (2024, December 6). Shtuchnyi intelekt i sudochynstvo [Artificial intelligence and judicial proceedings]. https://court.gov.ua/storage/portal/supreme/prezentacii_2024/Prezent_Shtychn_intel_Sydoch.pdf.
7. Wang, X., Zhang, Y., & Zhu, R. (2022). A brief review on algorithmic fairness. Management System Engineering, 1, 1–13. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44176-022-00006-z.
8. Rodà, A. (2025). The COMPAS case: An educational journey for explaining fairness in AI-based applications. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 3961, 1–9. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3961/paper4.pdf.
9. Bains, C. (2024). The legal doctrine that will be key to preventing AI discrimination. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-legal-doctrine-that-will-be-key-to-preventing-ai-discrimination/.
10. Varona, D., & Suárez, J. L. (2022). Discrimination, bias, fairness, and trustworthy AI. Applied Sciences, 12(12), Article 5826. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/12/5826.
11. Garrett, B. L., & Rudin, C. (2023). Interpretable algorithmic forensics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(41), 1–9. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2301842120.
12. 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). (2016, April 27). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679.
13. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act). (2024, June 13). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng.
14. Rébé, N. (2023). Artificial intelligence: Crime, war, and justice. Ethics International Press. https://books.google.com.ua/books?hl=uk&lr=&id=juQWEQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA267&dq=+algorithmic+discrimination+echr&ots=20xvzsLHvK&sig=GsBkrGDO847L8_82HSPaQ9VUdpo&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=algorithmic%20discrimination%20echr&f=false.
15. European Court of Human Rights. (2002, June 13). Case of Anguelova v. Bulgaria (Application no. 38361/97). HUDOC. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-60505%22]}.
16. European Court of Human Rights. (2020, February 18). Case of Cînţa v. Romania (Application no. 3891/19). HUDOC. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-201533%22]}.
17. Berk, R. A. (2021). Artificial intelligence, predictive policing, and risk assessment for law enforcement. Annual Review of Criminology, 4(1), 209–237. https://lnk.ua/zN2K7yY47.
18. Perets, O., Stagno, E., Ben Yehuda, E., et al. (2025). Inherent bias in electronic health records: A scoping review of sources of bias. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.09.24305594.
19. Adams-Prassl, J., Binns, R., & Kelly-Lyth, A. (2023). Directly discriminatory algorithms. The Modern Law Review, 86(1), 144–175. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1468-2230.12759.
20. Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. (2018). Discrimination, artificial intelligence, and algorithmic decision-making. Council of Europe, Directorate General of Democracy. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.13465.
21. Xenidis, R. (2020). Tuning EU equality law to algorithmic discrimination: Three pathways to resilience. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 27(6), 736–758. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1023263X20982173.
22. Court of Justice of the European Union. (2014, May 12). Z v A Government Department, The Board of Management of a Community School (Case C-363/12). EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62012CA0363&qid=1774239213111.
