With the ruling under consideration T.A.R. Campania - Naples clarified that, in the case of decisions based on algorithmic mechanisms, the Public Administration has an “indefectible motivational burden”, aimed at ensuring that the algorithmic mechanism used is knowable and comprehensible to users.
In this case, the applicant challenged two by which AGEA recalculated, on the basis of an algorithm, the amount it previously paid to the applicant as “compensatory indemnity mountain areas” for the years 2018 and 2019, finding that some of these sums had been overpaid, therefore requiring their recovery.
The Administrative Court, after having highlighted how the use of the algorithm in administrative decisions brings the advantages of the certainty of the calculation’s result and of a sure fairness of conduct, specified how its use can never result in a lowering of the level of protections guaranteed by the Administrative Procedure Law.
The Judge has clarified that in the case of a decision based on the use of an algorithm, the respect of the principle of trasparency imposes an indefectible motivational burden on the Administration, so as to ensure not only the knowability of the computer mechanism used for the decision, but also the comprehensibility of it and its functioning also for the non-technical user.
The T.A.R. also mentioned the European principle according to which the judge is invested with a supervisory role in the algorithm's updating and refinement activities by the Administration. The judge must consequently examine the validity of the automated process in all its components, guaranteeing the non-exclusivity of the algorithmic decision by confirming or rejecting the automatic decision.
The challenged by the applicant, in conclusion, containing no reference to the algorithm used, which is simply mentioned as “new algorithm”, do not satisfy the aforementioned requirements of knowability and comprehensibility of the electronic decisional mechanism used, thus resulting in reduction of the procedural guarantees for the applicant's right of action and defence in court.
The Regional Administrative Court consequently annulled the aforementioned challenged provisions for lack of the necessary motivational element.