Cited by 16Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigitalization, Law, and RegulationArtificial Intelligence in Law

Fundamental rights and artificial intelligence impact assessment: A new quantitative methodology in the upcoming era of AI Act

Open access
Bertaina, Samuele, Biganzoli, Ilaria, Desiante, Rachele, Fontanella, Dario, Inverardi, Nicole, Penco, Ilaria Giuseppina, Cosentini, Andrea Claudio·2025·Computer Law & Security Review

Abstract

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act requires that deployers of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems perform a Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA) for some high-risk AI systems identified in Art. 27 of the regulation. The aim of this work is to offer a comprehensive framework to assess the impact of AI systems on Fundamental Rights (FR) of individuals. In a nutshell, the assessment approach that we propose consists of two stages: (1) an open-ended questionnaire that helps gather the contextual information and the technical features, in order to properly identify potential threats for FR, and (2) a quantitative matrix that considers each right guaranteed by the European Charter of Fundamentals Rights and tries to measure the potential impacts with a traceable and robust procedure. In light of an increasingly pervasive use of AI systems and considering the specificity of such technologies, we believe that a structured and quantitative process for assessing the impact on FR of individuals is still lacking and could be of great importance in discovering and remedying possible violations. Indeed, the proposed framework could allow to: (1) be accountable and transparent in assessing the risks of implementing AI systems that affect people; (2) gain insights to understand if any right is threatened or any group of people is more vulnerable; (3) put in place, if necessary, remediation strategies before the deployment of AI systems through demonstrable mitigative actions, with th…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106101

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Bertaina, S., Biganzoli, I., Desiante, R., Fontanella, D., Inverardi, N., Penco, I. G., & Cosentini, A. C.
Affiliations
Intesa Sanpaolo (Italy) (IT)
Corresponding author
Inverardi, Nicole
Venue
Computer Law & Security Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-04
Volume
56
Pages
106101
ISSN
2212-473X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4406136957
Cited by
16
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
14.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computer law & security review (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
Keywords
fundamental rights impact assessment, EU AI Act, high-risk AI systems, European Charter of Fundamental Rights, vulnerable populations, remediation strategies, AI regulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review