There is a growing attention on the notion of fairness in the GDPR in the European legal literature. However, the principle of fairness in the Data Protection framework is still ambiguous and uncertain, as computer science literature and interpretative guidelines reveal. This paper looks for a better understanding of the concept of fairness in the data protection field through two parallel methodological tools: linguistic comparison and contextual interpretation. In terms of linguistic comparison, the paper analyses all translations of the world "fair" in the GDPR in the EU official languages, as the CJEU suggests in CILFIT Case for the interpretation of the EU law. The analysis takes into account also the translation of the notion of fairness in other contiguous fields (e.g. at Article 8 of the EU Charter of fundamental rights or in the Consumer field, e.g. Unfair terms directive or Unfair commercial practice directive). In general, the notion of fairness is translated with several different nuances (in accordance or in discordance with the previous Data protection Directive and with Article 8 of the Charter) In some versions different words are used interchangeably (it is the case of French, Spanish and Portuguese texts), in other versions there seems to be a specific rationale for using different terms in different parts of the GDPR (it is the case of German and Greek version). The analysis reveals three mean semantic notions: correctness (Italian, Swedish, Romanian), loyalty (French, Spanish, Portuguese and the German version of "Treu und Glaube") and equitability (French, Spanish and Portuguese). Interestingly, these three notions have common roots in the Western legal history: the Roman law notion of "bona fide". Taking into account both the value of "bona fide" in the current European legal contexts and also a contextual interpretation of the role of fairness in the GDPR, the preliminary conclusions is that fairness refers to a substantial balancing of interests among data controllers and data subjects. The approach of fairness is effect-based: what is relevant is not the formal respect of procedures (in terms of transparency, lawfulness or accountability), but the substantial mitigation of unfair imbalances that create situations of "vulnerability". Building on these reflections, the paper analyses how the notion of fairness and imbalance are related to the idea of vulnerability, within and beyond the GDPR. In sum, the article suggests that the best interpretation of the fairness principles in the GDPR (taking into account both the notion of procedural fairness and of fair balancing) is the mitigation of data subjects' vulnerabilities through specific safeguards and measures.
[1]
Shane P. Cass,et al.
Ocular Injuries in Sports
,
2012,
Current sports medicine reports.
[2]
Y. Poullet,et al.
CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUALS WITH REGARD TO AUTOMATIC PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA CONVENTION 108 Guidelines on Facial Recognition Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law
,
2008
.
[3]
Francesco Donato Busnelli.
Note in tema di buona fede ed equità
,
2001
.
[4]
Tamás Nótári.
Summum Ius Summa Iniuria-Comments on the Historical Background of a Legal Maxim of Interpretation
,
2004
.
[5]
M. Akehurst,et al.
Equity and General Principles of law
,
1976,
International and Comparative Law Quarterly.
[6]
Alex Pentland,et al.
Fair, Transparent, and Accountable Algorithmic Decision-making Processes
,
2017,
Philosophy & Technology.
[7]
Peter Traung.
The Proposed New EU General Data Protection Regulation
,
2012
.
[8]
Peggy Valcke,et al.
Fairness and enforcement: bridging competition, data protection, and consumer law
,
2018,
International Data Privacy Law.
[9]
L. Bygrave.
Data Protection Law, Approaching Its Rationale, Logic and Limits
,
2002
.
[10]
D. Clifford,et al.
Data Protection and the Role of Fairness
,
2018
.
[11]
Roberto Baratta,et al.
Complexity of EU Law in the Domestic Implementing Process
,
2014
.
[12]
Zuiderveen Borgesius,et al.
Improving Privacy Protection in the Area of Behavioural Targeting
,
2015
.
[13]
Yuriy Brun,et al.
Fairness testing: testing software for discrimination
,
2017,
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE.
[14]
Jacob Dahl Rendtorff,et al.
The Barcelona Declaration. Towards an Integrated Approach to Basic Ethical Principles
,
2009
.
[15]
John Carter,et al.
GOOD FAITH IN CONTRACTS: IS THERE AN IMPLIED PROMISE TO ACT HONESTLY?
,
2016,
The Cambridge Law Journal.
[16]
Willi Gross,et al.
Bürgerliches Recht I
,
1993
.
[17]
Ronald A. Cass.
Looking With One Eye Closed: The Twilight of Administrative Law
,
1986
.
[18]
Klaus Berger,et al.
Good faith as a ‘general organising principle’ of the common law
,
2016
.
[19]
Guido Noto La Diega.
Can the law fix the problems of fashion? An empirical study on social norms and power imbalance in the fashion industry
,
2019
.
[20]
Michael Butterworth,et al.
The ICO and artificial intelligence: The role of fairness in the GDPR framework
,
2018,
Comput. Law Secur. Rev..
[21]
Aigi Glonti,et al.
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers
,
1970,
International Legal Materials.