Skip to content

Acta Iuris Stetinensis

Acta Iuris Stetinensis

Previously: Zeszyty Naukowe. Roczniki Prawnicze

5/2023 (46)
OpenAlex

For the whole journal, according to OpenAlex.

Citations
239
Publications
762
H-index
4
I10-index
2
Mean citedness (2 years)
0.03
Citations received by year
Journal citation chart. Exact values are available in the table below. 2017: 12 2018: 12 2019: 6 2020: 13 2021: 26 2022: 24 2023: 34 2024: 22 2025: 46 2026: 21 2017 2026
Show data table
Citations received by year
YearPublicationsCitations
20175612
20184712
2019556
20203813
20217626
20228724
20236734
20248522
20255846
20264521

Data retrieved:

What do these numbers mean?

Publications and citations cover records linked to this journal in OpenAlex. H-index is the largest number h of publications with at least h citations each. I10-index counts publications cited at least 10 times. The chart shows citations received in each year; the current year is incomplete. Coverage may differ from WNUS and other services.

The 2-year mean is an OpenAlex metric. It is not the Clarivate Journal Impact Factor.

View in OpenAlex (new tab)
Google Scholar

Środki ochrony praw jednostki wobec wdrażania algorytmicznych systemów decyzyjnych do administracji publicznej – między prawem europejskim a prawem krajowym


(Measures for the protection of individual rights in the face of the implementation of algorithmic decision-making systems in public administration - between European and national law)
DOI: 10.18276/ais.2023.46-04
Cite

The full text is available

Abstract

The implementation of algorithmic decision-making systems in public administration can pose a risk to the rule of law, democracy, and the right to good administration. Risk management in this regard is intended to be enabled by the instruments provided for in the European draft act on artificial intelligence. The aim of this study is to establish the legal situation of an individual on the grounds of the aforementioned act, and then to relate it to the assumptions of the legislative proposal of the European Law Institute and the provisions of Polish administrative law. The research uses a dogmatic-legal method and a comparative method with regard to references to the common law in force in the United Kingdom. The analysis shows that the European draft regulation completely ignores the individual by not granting him/her legal remedies against the implementation of the said systems. Its protection could be strengthened by allowing complaints to the supervisory authority, whose decisions would be subject to review by administrative courts, as is the case under the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation. Adoption of these solutions to the Polish legal order could complement the already existing model of control of partly automatic decisions of the administration, providing the possibility to challenge also the principles of their adoption. This would, however, require a determination of who would have a legal interest in lodging a complaint, the possibility for social organisations to participate in these proceedings, and the relationship to other legal instruments already in place, such as public consultations in the legislative process and impact assessments.
Preview PDF

Open PDF

Bibliography

  1. Algorithm Tips, Algorithm Tips – Resources and leads for investigating algorithms in society, https://db.algorithmtips.org/db.AlgorithmWatch, Atlas of Automation – Automated decision-making and participation in Germany, wyd. 1, kwiecień 2019, https://atlas.algorithmwatch.org/en.
  2. Chauhan A., Towards the Systemic Review of Automated Decision-Making Systems, „Judicial Review” 2020, t. 25, nr 4, DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2020.1871714.
  3. Fundacja Centrum Cyfrowe, Klub Jagielloński, AlgoPolska, lipiec 2019, https://centrumcyfrowe.pl/algopolska-raport/.
  4. Kuzub J., Rejestracja bez profilowania – zmiany w urzędzie pracy, 10.05.2019 r., Zielona Linia, https://zielonalinia.gov.pl/-/rejestracja-bez-profilowania-zmiany-w-urzedziepracy.
  5. Nowakowski M., Ostatnie zmiany w ramach prawnych dla sztucznej inteligencji w Unii Europejskiej – krytyczna analiza, „Prawo Nowych Technologii” 2021, nr 2.
  6. Schartum D.W., Law and algorithms in the public domain, „Etikk i praksis – Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics” 2016, nr 1, DOI: 10.5324/eip.v10i1.1973.
  7. Veale M., Borgesius F.Z., Demystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act, „Computer Law Review International” 2021, nr 4, DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2107.03721.