Concern 876 · Working draft · editorial review in progress
Right to explanation
A meaningful explanation helps someone understand the real factors behind an AI-assisted decision that affects them, in terms they can use to question it.
Understanding the concern
A technical formula or a statement that the system considered many factors may reveal very little. A useful explanation connects the person's information to the outcome and identifies relevant reasons. It should describe what actually happened, rather than offer a plausible story generated afterward.
The EU court's 2025 credit-assessment judgment says that simply communicating an algorithm is not enough for the access right at issue. Consider a teacher explaining a grade: showing the marking criteria and the relevant mistakes is more helpful than naming the grading software. Explanation is distinct from appeal; understanding the result still needs to lead somewhere if the person disputes it.
An example
A rejected applicant learns which incorrect financial record affected the assessment, rather than receiving only a generic description of the scoring system.
Illustrative unless identified as a documented case.
Words in plain English
- AI
- Software that learns patterns from examples or uses rules to perform tasks such as recognizing images or generating text. It can make mistakes and does not understand every situation as a person would.
- EU
- The European Union, a group of European countries with shared institutions and some shared laws.
Evidence and its limits
The case concerns meaningful information under GDPR in automated credit assessment. It does not create an unlimited worldwide right to explanations for every AI output.
Court of Justice of the European Union · Court judgment summary
Automated credit assessment: judgment in C-203/22 ↗ (opens in a new tab)Official summary explains meaningful information about actual decision processes and court or authority balancing of trade secrets. Not a universal right to publish source code.
Broader frameworks and background
These resources provide context. They do not establish every claim in this concern.
- EU AI Act — high-level summary (opens in a new tab)
regulation
- Council of Europe AI Convention (opens in a new tab)
regulation
- International humanitarian law (IHL)
framework
The body of law that governs the conduct of armed conflict and the protection of people who are not fighting, which applies to AI used in or for conflict.
- Deciding under algorithms: artificial intelligence and the protection of civilian infrastructure in armed conflict (opens in a new tab)
guidance
- Artificial intelligence and machine learning in armed conflict: a human-centred approach (opens in a new tab)
position paper
- ICRC law and policy hub on AI (opens in a new tab)
guidance
People and organizations cited
Public writing, not endorsement, partnership, or affiliation.
International Committee of the Red Cross
A question to discuss
Would this explanation help the person identify an error or make a reasoned challenge?
Keep track of different views, what needs checking, and any next step in your own discussion notes.
Open discussion notes →Principles for the conversation
Before you finish · reflect together
Virtues and principles to consider
Virtues are qualities we practice in how we treat people and make choices. They are not scores for judging someone. Use these ideas to explore what a thoughtful response could look like.
Justice
Justice means fair treatment, fair procedures, and attention to who receives benefits and burdens. It asks whether people with less power can be heard and seek repair.
Look at outcomes across different groups and individual cases. Provide a usable way to challenge decisions and correct harm. Equal wording in a policy does not guarantee equal treatment in practice.
Ask together: Who benefits, who bears the cost, and who can challenge the decision?
Accountability
Accountability means being answerable for decisions and taking responsibility for repair. It requires more than saying that the software made the choice.
Name the person or team responsible, keep useful records, and give them authority to correct problems. Make the route to a complaint clear to the people affected.
Ask together: Who will answer for the outcome and help put things right?
Dignity
Dignity means recognizing each person's worth regardless of usefulness, status, or a system's score. People deserve respect and a voice in matters that affect them.
Explain important decisions, avoid humiliating treatment, and keep room for a person's story. Do not treat a prediction as a complete account of who someone is.
Ask together: Does this use treat each person as someone whose experience matters?
Editorial ratings
These are editorial judgments from the register, not measured probabilities or predictions about your situation.
About the register and scoring →More ways to explore
Search for more writing
For more specific or recent material, open a search below or ask for a web summary. AI-generated summaries can contain mistakes; open the original articles to check them.