Cited by 19Digitalization, Law, and RegulationLegal Rights and Human RightsLegal and Labor Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Assessing the (severity of) impacts on fundamental rights

Open access
Malgieri, Gianclaudio, Santos, Cristiana·2025·Computer Law & Security Review

Abstract

"Risk to fundamental rights,", "impact on fundamental rights", "harm to fundamental rights" and "non-material damages" are all terms referring to similar problems, though inherently ambiguous and very problematic, especially in the age of AI-based technologies and digital platforms. Traditionally, legal and social sciences have two different approaches to analysing the impacts on fundamental rights: the rights-based approach and the risk of harm-based approach to fundamental rights. The rights-based approach is binary, focusing on whether rights and obligations are respected or violated. In contrast, a harm-based approach focuses on the anticipation of undesired events and measuring their likelihood and severity. However, focusing solely on "harms'' or "damages'' is reductionist, while existing impact assessment models often use vague terms like "gravity", "intensity," and "magnitude", which do not effectively help measure interferences with fundamental rights. Without operational criteria to measure these risks, most EU digital strategies demanding impact and risk assessments fail. Examples include the Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) in the GDPR, Fundamental Rights Impact Assessments (FRIA) in the AI Act, and systemic risk assessments in the Digital Services Act (DSA). We posit that interferences with fundamental rights are seen as a spectrum that ranges from social contacts to violations, and these interferences can and should be measured. Thus, this article proposes a rights-based approach, combining it with elements from the harm approach and proposes an actionable parameter-based framework (also based on social meaning theories and social perception methodologies) to assess impacts on fundamental rights. The proposed multi-metric approach ensures a comprehensive assessment of the severity of impacts on fundamental rights within EU law, particularly in GDPR, DSA, and AI Act. This approach aims to inform policymaking, prioritise high-risk scenarios and propose mitigation measures in digital markets. This is especially important for detecting and addressing human vulnerabilities in interactions with digital technologies.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106113

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Malgieri, G., & Santos, C.
Affiliations
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Malgieri, Gianclaudio
Venue
Computer Law & Security Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-04
Volume
56
Pages
106113
ISSN
2212-473X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4408061180
Cited by
19
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 5
FWCI
111.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computer law & security review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • ZonMw
  • NWO (NWA.1540.21.001)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal Rights and Human Rights
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Legal and Labor Studies
Keywords
fundamental rights, impact assessment, rights-based approach, severity measurement, non-pecuniary damage, data protection impact assessment, fundamental rights impact assessment, EU AI Act, Digital Services Act, GDPR, digital platforms, social perception, human vulnerability, EU digital policy, risk assessment

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