Key Takeaway
This AI and Human Rights Case Law Tracker records public legal cases and official materials where artificial intelligence, automated decision-making, algorithmic systems, facial recognition, biometric tools, deepfakes, generative AI or AI-generated evidence are relevant to human rights law.
Tracker Status: Active/Monitoring
Publication Date: 30 May 2025
Last Verified: 10 July 2026
Latest Case Chronologically: R (Thompson and Carlo) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2026] EWHC 915 (Admin)
Latest Legal Article: Live Facial Recognition, AI Bias and the Equality Questions
Other AI Legal Trackers: AI Law Trackers Hub
Author and Contact: Matthew Lee (Barrister) click here for details.
Ad/Marketing Communication regarding AI and Human Rights Case Law Tracker
This legal article/report forms part of my ongoing legal commentary on the use of artificial intelligence within the justice system, public decision-making, evidence, surveillance, online platforms and human rights law. It supports my work in teaching, lecturing and writing about AI and the law and is published to promote my practice. Not legal advice. Not Direct/Public Access. All instructions via clerks at Doughty Street Chambers. This legal article concerns the AI and Human Rights Case Law Tracker.
The AI and Human Rights Case Law Tracker:
| No | Date | Case Name | Jurisdiction | Country | Status | Core AI Issue | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 21 April 2026 | R (Thompson and Carlo) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (EHRC intervening) [2026] EWHC 915 (Admin) | England and Wales, High Court, Administrative Court, Divisional Court | United Kingdom | High Court Divisional Court judgment. Judicial review dismissed. The court held that the September 2024 Metropolitan Police Service overt LFR Policy was “in accordance with the law” for Article 8 ECHR and “prescribed by law” for Articles 10 and 11 ECHR. | Police live facial recognition and biometric surveillance. The case concerned the Metropolitan Police Service policy for overt LFR deployments, under which cameras scan faces in public places, create biometric values and compare them with biometric data from police watchlists. The human rights challenge concerned Articles 8, 10 and 11 ECHR. AI equality and discrimination concerns were raised, but there was no Public Sector Equality Duty ground and no developed discrimination challenge | The Divisional Court dismissed the challenge to the Metropolitan Police Service’s September 2024 live facial recognition policy, holding that the policy contained sufficient legal clarity, foreseeability and safeguards against arbitrary use for the purposes of Articles 8, 10 and 11 ECHR. For AI and human rights law, the case is important because it concerns police use of biometric AI/surveillance technology in public spaces, but it should not be read as deciding that all LFR deployments are lawful or as resolving future equality, discrimination or Public Sector Equality Duty challenges, which were not developed in this claim. |
| 9 November 2025 | Yakymchuk v. Ukraine | European Court of Human Rights, Fifth Section | Ukraine | ECtHR Chamber judgment. Final on 11 December 2025. Violations found of Article 8, Article 6 § 1 and Article 13. | Automated judicial case allocation and fair trial rights. A replacement appeal judge was assigned without using the mandatory automated random case-allocation system. | The ECtHR held that Ukraine violated Article 6 § 1 because the replacement appeal judge in the applicant’s criminal case had not been assigned through the required automated random case-allocation system. The irregularity was serious enough to undermine the essence of the right to a tribunal established by law. The case is useful for AI and human rights tracking because it treats automated judicial allocation as a safeguard for fairness, transparency and lawful tribunal composition, although it is not a generative AI or machine-learning case. | |
| 28 April 2026 | Kanev and Bulgarian Helsinki Committee v. Bulgaria | European Court of Human Rights, Third Section | Bulgaria | ECtHR Chamber judgment. Violation of Article 8 by five votes to two. The Court held that there was no need to examine the Article 10, Article 11 and Article 13 complaints separately. | Intelligence-service data processing, surveillance databases and safeguards against arbitrary or unlawful processing of data. No explicit AI system was assessed. | The ECtHR held that Bulgaria violated Article 8 because the applicants did not have the minimum degree of protection against arbitrary and unlawful processing of data by the State Agency for National Security. For AI and human rights purposes, the case is best treated as a data-processing and surveillance infrastructure case, not as a strict AI case: it is relevant to automated or database-driven public power, but the Court did not assess an AI model or algorithmic decision-making tool. | |
| 19 May 2026 | Miladze v. Georgia | European Court of Human Rights, Fourth Section | Georgia | ECtHR Chamber judgment. No violation of Article 10. The judgment was not final at the date of delivery, being subject to the Article 43 and 44 Convention process. | Social media platform amplification, algorithmic feeds and freedom of expression. The case concerned a viral TikTok video and the applicant’s argument that users could avoid the content or rely on a warning/disclaimer. | The ECtHR held that Georgia did not violate Article 10 by imposing a minimum administrative fine for a viral TikTok video containing aggressive and vulgar personal attacks on public officials. The AI-related point is narrow but useful: the Court noted that a warning or disclaimer did not prevent minors or unwilling viewers from seeing the video, including through non-voluntary algorithmic feeds such as “For Your Feed”. The case is therefore relevant to platform design, algorithmic amplification, online speech and human rights, but not to AI-generated content. |
AI and Human Rights Case Law Tracker
This AI and Human Rights Case Law Tracker covers legal cases and official legal materials in which artificial intelligence, automated decision-making, algorithmic systems, biometric tools, deepfakes, generative AI or AI-generated evidence are relevant to human rights issues.
That includes cases concerning privacy, data protection, surveillance, facial recognition, biometric identification, freedom of expression, platform moderation, algorithmic feeds, fair trial rights, procedural fairness, discrimination, equality, immigration, policing, welfare, public administration, risk scoring, predictive analytics, AI-generated evidence, deepfake evidence and the use of AI in legal proceedings.
The tracker is distinct from my AI Rights and Legal Personhood Tracker. That tracker concerns whether AI itself could ever have rights, duties, standing, legal personality or rights-adjacent protection. This tracker concerns human rights issues affecting human beings where AI or algorithmic systems are involved.
How to read the AI and Human Rights Case Law Tracker
The status column gives a short indication of the procedural or source status of each entry, such as whether the matter involved a judgment, decision, admissibility decision, separate opinion, communicated case, regulator material, official report, legislative material, settlement, press release or other public legal source.
Inclusion in this tracker does not mean that a court has accepted that artificial intelligence caused any unlawful interference with human rights, that any allegation has been proved, or that any person, public authority, company, platform or institution acted unlawfully. Some entries may involve rejected arguments, peripheral references, procedural issues, separate opinions, unresolved allegations or official discussions rather than binding findings.
The wording in the tracker is a summary of public source material and should not be treated as a finding of fact by me or any legal advice.
Methodology of the AI and Human Rights Case Law Tracker
I use a primary-source-first approach where possible. Judgments, decisions, separate opinions, court materials, tribunal decisions, regulator decisions, treaty materials, official reports, legislative materials and other public legal documents are preferred. Where no primary legal source is publicly available, reliable professional commentary or other third-party sources may be included, but those sources should be checked carefully before reliance is placed on them.
The tracker is maintained manually and may be assisted by research tools, including AI tools. I check entries before publication, but I do not warrant that the tracker is comprehensive, complete, current or error-free. Nothing is legal advice. Please see the legal disclaimer. The public tracker summarises and signposts source material. It is not a substitute for reading the linked material.
Source Hierarchy of the AI and Human Rights Case Law Tracker
Primary legal sources are preferred. Official court, tribunal, regulator, treaty body, international organisation, legislature, government and public authority sources are prioritised where available. Some entries may rely on reliable media, professional commentary or other third-party sources where no primary legal source is publicly available. Readers should check the linked source before relying on any entry.
Use of AI, Human Review and Corrections
I may use AI tools to assist with research, drafting, checking, formatting and organisation of this tracker. AI tools can produce inaccurate, incomplete, outdated or misleading material. Entries are reviewed before publication, but errors and omissions may still occur. If you identify an error, missing source, broken link, duplicate entry, changed procedural status or material update, please contact me so that the tracker can be reviewed and, where appropriate, corrected.
Legal Themes Monitored
The tracker monitors legal issues including AI and human rights, algorithmic decision-making, automated public decision-making, biometric identification, facial recognition, surveillance, privacy, data protection, freedom of expression, platform moderation, recommender systems, algorithmic feeds, fair trial rights, procedural fairness, equality, discrimination, predictive policing, risk scoring, welfare automation, immigration automation, AI evidence, AI-generated evidence, deepfake evidence, authenticity disputes, generative AI in proceedings and the use of AI by public authorities, employers, platforms or representatives where relevant to human rights issues.
Jurisdiction Monitored
The tracker is international. It may include public legal materials from the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights, the European Union, the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, international organisations and other jurisdictions where relevant legal source material is available. The jurisdictional scope may expand as further public legal materials are identified.
How to Cite This Tracker
Suggested citation: Matthew Lee, “AI and Human Rights Case Law Tracker”, Natural & Artificial Law, first published [insert publication date], last verified [insert date above].
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the AI and Human Rights Case Law Tracker?
It is an active legal report maintained by barrister Matthew Lee. The tracker records selected public legal cases and official legal materials where artificial intelligence, automated decision-making, algorithmic systems, biometric tools, deepfakes, generative AI or AI-generated evidence are relevant to human rights issues.
What types of legal issues are covered in the AI and Human Rights Case Law Tracker?
The tracker covers legal issues including privacy, surveillance, facial recognition, biometric identification, freedom of expression, platform moderation, algorithmic feeds, fair trial rights, procedural fairness, equality, discrimination, predictive policing, risk scoring, automated welfare decision-making, immigration automation, AI evidence, deepfake evidence and other human rights issues involving AI or algorithmic systems.
Does inclusion in this tracker mean that a human rights breach has been found?
No. Inclusion does not mean that a court has found any human rights breach, that any allegation has been proved, or that any person, company, public authority, platform or institution acted unlawfully. Some entries may involve rejected arguments, unresolved allegations, procedural issues, separate opinions, admissibility decisions or AI references that are relevant but not decisive.
Is this tracker about AI having rights?
No. This tracker concerns human rights issues affecting human beings where AI or algorithmic systems are involved. The separate AI Rights and Legal Personhood Tracker concerns the different question of whether AI itself could ever have rights, duties, legal personality, standing or rights-adjacent protection.
Are all entries based on court judgments?
No. Some entries may be based on judgments, decisions or separate opinions. Others may be based on communicated cases, regulator materials, treaty materials, official reports, legislative materials, public authority documents or reliable legal commentary where they concern AI and human rights. Readers should check the linked source for the status of each entry.
Does the tracker only cover the European Court of Human Rights?
No. The tracker may include ECtHR cases, UK human rights cases, EU cases and relevant materials from other jurisdictions. The European Court of Human Rights is likely to be an important source, but the tracker is not limited to Strasbourg unless expressly stated.
Can I use the AI and Human Rights Case Law Tracker as official legal advice?
No. The tracker and its contents are published as general legal commentary and educational reporting on AI law and human rights. Nothing on the tracker, or anywhere withing the natural and artificial law website, constitutes legal advice. Matthew Lee is a barrister regulated in England and Wales and is not authorised for Public or Direct Access. Instructions may only be given via his clerks at Doughty Street Chambers.
