As artificial intelligence increasingly shapes decision-making across societies, this report examines how emerging European legal frameworks seek to address algorithmic discrimination—and highlights the remaining gaps in safeguarding fundamental rights.
The growing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in diverse applications across a broad range of sectors presents significant challenges to the protection of fundamental rights. Among these, algorithmic discrimination emerges as a particularly pressing concern. Empirical research has demonstrated that algorithmic bias not only reflects but also exacerbates existing social inequalities on a large scale, particularly in domains where algorithmic decision making is prevalent – such as policing, employment, education and insurance. In 2024, both the European Union and the Council of Europe adopted landmark legal instruments: the EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) and the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law.
This report examines how these emerging legal instruments contribute to strengthening protections against algorithmic discrimination in Europe and assesses the lacunae that continue to affect these legal frameworks. The report also aims to trace and synthesise these latest developments to equip relevant players, such as equality bodies, with tools to adapt to a changing legal landscape, and where relevant, to intervene in ongoing evolutions.
ABBREVIATIONS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INTRODUCTION 1. EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORKS
1.1. Definitions
1.2. Algorithmic discrimination in Europe
1.3. Use of AI and ADM systems in public administrations and sectors of interest
1.4. Existing legal frameworks
1.4.1. Governing AI and ADM systems
1.4.2. Anti-discrimination instruments
1.4.3. Data protection instruments
1.4.4. Case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union
1.5. Key stakeholders
2. LEGAL GAPS
2.1. Rationales for the adoption of AI and ADM systems
2.2. Lack of transparency
2.3. Access to justice issues
2.4. Enforcement of existing and future provisions
2.4.1. Institutional co-operation
2.4.2. Conceptual gaps
2.4.3. Restrictions on data collection and processing
2.5. “De-risking” AI systems
2.6. Technical standards, equality bodies and the question of harmonisation
SUMMARY – USE OF AI IN BELGIAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ON ALGORITHMIC DISCRIMINATION SUMMARY – USE OF AI IN FINNISH PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ON ALGORITHMIC DISCRIMINATION SUMMARY – USE OF AI IN PORTUGUESE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ON ALGORITHMIC DISCRIMINATION REFERENCES
