Fundamental rights and artificial intelligence impact assessment: A new quantitative methodology in the upcoming era of AI Act
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
FRIA scholarship and official fundamental-rights research informed the assessment architecture.
“FRIA scholarship and official fundamental-rights research informed the assessment architecture(Bertaina et al., 2025; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2025;Janssen et al., 2022;Mantelero, 2024;Thomaidou & Limniotis, 2025).”
From Responsible AI in Polish Higher-Education Administration under the EU AI Act: High-Risk Use Cases, Fundamental-Rights Impact Assessment, and Institutional Accountability (2026) · cites this paper as Bertaina et al., 2025
Cites
The forthcoming artificial intelligence (AI) revolution: Its impact on society and firms
Makridakis, S. (2017) · Futures · doi:10.1016/j.futures.2017.03.006 · Cited by 1,866 · see citing works
How AI can be a force for good
Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aat5991 · Cited by 760 · see citing works
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AS A FRAMEWORK FOR ALGORITHMIC ACCOUNTABILITY
McGregor, L., Murray, D., & Ng, V. (2019) · International and Comparative Law Quarterly · doi:10.1017/s0020589319000046 · Cited by 207 · see citing works
On Human Dignity as a Foundation for the Right to Privacy
Floridi, L. (2016) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-016-0220-8 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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