Sources · Selected primary authorities

Follow the proposition to its record.

A bounded register for the public research and learning pages. Each source shows its identity, reading focus, pinpoint and verification limits.

These are comparative authorities from different legal systems. They are not verified Observatory records or a complete Table of Authorities. A link identifies a source; it does not by itself verify an interpretation.

Identity, passage and scope.

Court of Justice of the European Union · 7 December 2023

OQ v Land Hessen (SCHUFA)

Case C-634/21, ECLI:EU:C:2023:957

Reading focus: when an automated credit score can itself fall within the GDPR rules on automated individual decisions. Read the conditions and exceptions in the judgment before applying it.

Pinpoint: Article 22 analysis and operative ruling; passage-level verification pending
Verification status: Official case identifier located. Full-text retrieval was restricted during this update; pinpoint clearance remains open.

Open the primary record ↗

Court of Appeal, England and Wales · 11 August 2020

R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police

[2020] EWCA Civ 1058

The judgment identifies insufficient limits on discretion over watchlists and deployment locations in the framework then under examination. This is not a prohibition of every use of facial recognition.

Pinpoint: Paragraphs 90–94: legal framework and discretion
Verification status: Official case identity checked. The judgment passage is available in the linked court-text copy; no subsequent-treatment audit is claimed.

Open the primary record ↗Court-text copy ↗

Supreme Court of Wisconsin · 13 July 2016

State v Loomis

2016 WI 68; 371 Wis. 2d 235; 881 N.W.2d 749

The court permitted consideration of COMPAS subject to its stated limitations and cautions. It required factors independently supporting the sentence; the assessment could not be determinative in the way discussed by the court.

Pinpoint: Paragraphs 8–9 and 98–99
Verification status: Primary judgment and these passages checked on 15 November 2026. This is a bounded reading note, not a current-law or subsequent-treatment opinion.

Open the primary record ↗

District Court of The Hague · 5 February 2020

NJCM and others v the Netherlands (SyRI)

ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:1878 (English); ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:865 (Dutch)

Reading focus: the relationship between the SyRI framework, transparency and Article 8 ECHR. The court’s reasoning must be examined in its procedural and legislative setting.

Pinpoint: Paragraph 6.95: reading target; primary passage verification pending
Verification status: Primary record identified. Automated access returned 403; full-text and translation checks remain open.

Open the primary record ↗

Correction

Help close a specific evidence gap.

Supply the exact source, version, paragraph and proposition you believe needs correction, together with an alternative reading. Keep quotations proportionate and omit confidential personal data. A correction remains pending until the source and proposed change have been examined.

Offer a source correction