Anonymisation of Judicial Rulings for Legal Analytics Purposes: Ethics, Law, and Compliance
Pages 105 - 117
Abstract
Legal Analytics (LA) techniques are a useful tool in the process of digitisation of judicial systems. However, they may imply processing of personal data contained in judicial rulings. This requires an assessment of the impact generated on the rights and freedoms of individuals. What happens if personal data are processed, with LA and AI systems, for research purposes, such as prediction? Should be taken additional technical and organisational measures for the protection of individuals, such as anonymisation or pseudonymisation? The EU legal framework does not interfere with data processing of courts acting in their judicial capacity, in order to safeguard the independence of the judiciary. Therefore, the decision to anonymise judgments is normally taken by the Court’s rules or procedures. The paper provides an overview of the different policies adopted by the different EU countries, investigating whether they should apply to researchers performing LA of judicial rulings. The paper also illustrates how such issues have been dealt within the Legal Analytics for Italian LAw (LAILA) project, funded by the Italian Ministry of Education and Research within the “PRIN programme”.
References
[1]
Floridi, L., Cowls, J.: A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. In: Machine Learning and the City: Applications in Architecture and Urban Design, pp. 535–545 (2022)
[2]
Ashley KD Artificial Intelligence and Legal Analytics: New Tools for Law Practice in the Digital Age 2017 Cambridge Cambridge University Press
[3]
Prager, J., et al.: Question-answering by predictive annotation. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 184–191. ACM, New York (2000)
[4]
Brüninghaus, S., Ashley. K.D.: The role of information extraction for textual CBR. In: Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development: 4th International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, ICCBR 2001 Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 30–August 2, 2001 Proceedings 4, pp. 74–89. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2001)
[5]
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: The role of logic in computational models of legal argument: A critical survey. In: Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond, volume 2408 LNCS, pp. 342–381. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2002)
[6]
Aletras, N., et al.: Predicting judicial decisions of the European court of human rights: a natural language processing perspective. PeerJ Comput. Sci. (2016)
[7]
Durante, M., Floridi, L.: A legal principles-based framework for AI liability regulation. In: The 2021 Yearbook of the Digital Ethics Lab. Springer, Cham, pp. 93–112 (2022)
[8]
Pagallo, U., et al.: Introduction: legal and ethical dimensions of AI, NorMAS, and the web of data. In: AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems: AICOL International Workshops 2015–2017. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2018)
[9]
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance), ELI. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj
[10]
Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, ELI. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/680/oj
[11]
Pagallo U The politics of data in EU law: will it succeed? Dig. Soc. 2022 1 3 1-20
[12]
Katz DM and Bommarito MJ Measuring the complexity of the law: the United States code Artif. Intell. Law 2014 22 337-374
[13]
Palmirani, M., et al.: Hybrid refining approach of pronto ontology. In: Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective: 9th International Conference, EGOVIS 2020, Bratislava, Slovakia, September 14–17, 2020, Proceedings 9. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2020)
[14]
Palmirani M., Martoni M., Rossi A., Bartolini C., Robaldo L.: PrOnto: privacy ontology for legal reasoning. In: Kő, A., Francesconi, E. (eds.) Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective. EGOVIS 2018. LNCS, vol. 11032. Springer, Cham (2018)
[15]
Douglas W, Sartor G, and Macagno F An argumentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpretation Artif. Intell. Law 2016 24 1-41
[16]
Palmirani, M., Vitali, F.: Akoma-Ntoso for legal documents. In: Legislative XML for the Semantic Web: Principles, Models, Standards for Document Management, pp. 75–100 (2011)
[17]
Palmirani M et al. LegalRuleML: XML-based rules and norms RuleML America 2011 7018 298-312
[18]
Sartor G Legal concepts as inferential nodes and ontological categories Artif. Intell. Law 2009 17 217-251
[19]
Rotolo A., Governatori, G., Sartor G.: Deontic defeasible reasoning in legal interpretation: two options for modelling interpretive arguments. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’05), pp. 99–108, San Diego, June 8–12 (2015)
[20]
Grundler, G., et al.: Detecting arguments in CJEU decisions on fiscal state aid. In: Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Argument Mining, pp. 143–157 (2022)
[21]
Galli F et al. Francesconi E et al. Predicting outcomes of Italian VAT decisions Legal Knowledge and Information Systems 2022 Amsterdam IOS Press 188-193
[22]
Council of the European Union, Summary on a question-by-question basis from the answers given by the Member States to the questionnaire on case law (2005)
[23]
EU Directorate-General for Library, Research and Documentation, Research note: Anonymity of the parties on the publication of the court decisions (2017)
[24]
Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Malta: MFRR expresses concern at anonymisation of court judgements (2021)
[25]
Kramcsák PT Can legitimate interest be an appropriate lawful basis for processing artificial intelligence training datasets? Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 2023 48 1-11
[26]
Article 29 Working Party (WP29), Opinion 06/2014 on the Notion of legitimate interests of the data controller under Article 7 of Directive 95/46/EC (2014)
[27]
Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), Guide to the General Data Protection Regulation, 55 (2021)
[28]
Court of Central Netherlands, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2020:5111 Rechtbank Midden-Nederland—UTR 20/2315
[29]
Mondschein CF and Monda C Kubben P, Dumontier M, and Dekker A The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in a research context Fundamentals of Clinical Data Science, 63 2019 Cham Springer 55-74
[30]
Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Adecuación al RGPD de tratamientos que incorporan Inteligencia Artificial. Una introducción (2020). https://www.aepd.es/sites/default/files/2020-02/adecuacion-rgpd-ia.pdf. Last Accessed 11 April 2023
[31]
Paseri, L.: COVID-19 pandemic and GDPR: when scientific research becomes a component of public deliberation. In: Data Protection and Privacy, Volume 14: Enforcing Rights in a Changing World. Vol. 14. Bloomsbury Publishing, London, pp. 157–185 (2021)
[32]
Podda, E., Palmirani, M.: Anonimizzazione e Pseudonimizzazione di Sentenze Giudiziarie. In: Palmirani, M., Sapienza, S.: La trasfor mazione digitale della giustizia nel dialogo tra discipline, pp. 37–64 (2022)
Index Terms
- Anonymisation of Judicial Rulings for Legal Analytics Purposes: Ethics, Law, and Compliance
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Using artificial intelligence to support compliance with the general data protection regulation
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a European Union regulation that will replace the existing Data Protection Directive on 25 May 2018. The most significant change is a huge increase in the maximum fine that can be levied for breaches of ...
Legal implications after Schrems case: are we trading fundamental rights?
The world is slowly turning into a global village and borders that once stood between cultures now serve as bridges for the exchange of information. In Schrems, the Court of Justice invalidated the Safe Harbor agreement, which recognized the standards ...
A sequence labeling model for catchphrase identification from legal case documents
AbstractIn a Common Law system, legal practitioners need frequent access to prior case documents that discuss relevant legal issues. Case documents are generally very lengthy, containing complex sentence structures, and reading them fully is a strenuous ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Sep 2023
605 pages
ISBN:978-3-031-49010-1
DOI:10.1007/978-3-031-49011-8
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023.
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Berlin, Heidelberg
Publication History
Published: 15 December 2023
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 03 Mar 2025