scholarly journals Collective memory or the right to be forgotten? Cultures of digital memory and forgetting in the European Union

2021 ◽  
pp. 175069802110447
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Stainforth
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Collective Memory ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Memory Studies ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Regulation ◽  
Digital Memory ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
Google Books ◽  
The Right

This article investigates cultures of digital memory and forgetting in the European Union. The article first gives some background to key debates in media memory studies, before going on to analyse the shaping of European Commission and European Union initiatives in relation to Google’s activities from the period 2004–present. The focus of inquiry for the discussion of memory is the Google Books project and Europeana, a database of digitized cultural collections drawn from European museums, libraries and archives. Attention is then given to questions of forgetting by exploring the tension between Google’s search and indexing mechanisms and the right to be forgotten. The article ends by reflecting on the scale of the shift in contemporary cultures of memory and forgetting, and considers how far European regulation enables possible interventions in this domain.

scholarly journals Comentarios a la propuesta del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo del certificado verde digital. Protección de datos sanitarios y análisis ético jurídico

Bioderecho.es ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gloria María González Suárez
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Health Data ◽  
Current Situation ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
Ethical Point ◽  
The Right

Con motivo de la situación actual a la que nos enfrentamos por la pandemia de la COVID-19 se ha planteado en diversas ocasiones la implantación de un certificado verde digital. El 17 de marzo de 2021 la Comisión Europea presentó una propuesta de creación del certificado con el fin de facilitar el ejercicio del derecho a la libre circulación dentro de la Unión Europea durante la pandemia. Todo ello plantea diversas cuestiones jurídicas en cuanto a la protección de datos sanitarios, el derecho a la libre circulación y la eficacia y proporcionalidad de medidas que deben ser objeto de análisis tanto desde el punto de vista jurídico como del punto de vista ético ya que, en ciertas ocasiones la aplicación de medidas puede afectar al derecho a la igualdad de los ciudadanos. Due to the current situation we are facing due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the implementation of a digital green certificate has been proposed on several occasions. On March 17, 2021, the European Commission presented a proposal to create the certificate in order to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement within the European Union during the pandemic. All this raises various legal questions regarding the protection of health data, the right of free movement and the efficacy and proportionality of measures that must be analyzed from both the legal and ethical point of view since, on certain occasions the application of measures may affect the right of equality of citizens.

The Right To Be Forgotten

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward L. Carter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Search Engines ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The right to be forgotten is an emerging legal concept allowing individuals control over their online identities by demanding that Internet search engines remove certain results. The right has been supported by the European Court of Justice, some judges in Argentina, and data-protection regulators in several European countries, among others. The right is primarily grounded in notions of privacy and data protection but also relates to intellectual property, reputation, and right of publicity. Scholars and courts cite, as an intellectual if not legal root for the right to be forgotten, the legal principle that convicted criminals whose sentences are completed should not continually be publicly linked with their crimes. Critics contend that the right to be forgotten stands in conflict with freedom of expression and can lead to revisionist history. Scholars and others in the southern cone of South America, in particular, have decried the right to be forgotten because it could allow perpetrators of mass human rights abuses to cover up or obscure their atrocities. On the other hand, those in favor of the right to be forgotten say that digital technology preserves memory unnaturally and can impede forgiveness and individual progress. The right to be forgotten debate is far from resolved and poses difficult questions about access to, and control of, large amounts of digital information across national borders. Given the global nature of the Internet and the ubiquity of certain powerful search engines, the questions at issue are universal, but solutions thus far have been piecemeal. Although a 2014 decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) garnered much attention, the right to be forgotten has been largely shaped by a 1995 European Union Directive on Data Protection. In 2016, the EU adopted a new General Data Protection Regulation that will take effect in 2018 and could have a major impact because it contains an explicit right to be forgotten (also called right to erasure). The new regulation does not focus on the theoretical or philosophical justification for a right to be forgotten, and it appears likely the debate over the right in the EU and beyond will not be resolved even when the new rule takes effect.

scholarly journals Right to be forgotten: european data imperialism, national privilege, or universal human right?

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-152
Author(s):  
Oskar J. Gstrein
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Data ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The Digital Age has fundamentally reshaped the preconditions for privacy and freedom of expression. This transpires in the debate about a "right to be forgotten". While the 2014 decision of the European Court of Justice in "Google Spain" touches upon the underlying issue of how increasing amounts of personal data affects individuals over time, the topic has also become one of the salient problems of Internet Governance. On 24th September 2019 the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment in "Google vs CNIL" (C-507/17) which was supposed to clarify the territorial scope of the right. However, this judgment has raised doubts about the enforceability of the General Data Protection Regulation, and reveals the complex, multi-layered governance structure of the European Union. Acknowledging such complexity at a substantive and institutional level, this article starts by analysing the judgment. Additionally, to better understand the current situation in the European Union and its member states, recently produced draft guidelines by the European Data Protection Board are presented and discussed, as well as two judgments of the German Federal Constitutional Court. Subsequently, the European developments are put in international context. Finally, the insights from these sections are combined which allows to develop several conceptual ideas. In conclusion, it is argued that the right to be forgotten remains complex and evolving. Its success depends on effective multi-layer and multistakeholder interaction. In this sense, it has become a prominent study object that reveals potential venues and pitfalls on a path towards more sophisticated data protection frameworks.

scholarly journals On the Duty to Implement European Framework Agreements: Lessons to be Learned from the Hairdressers Case

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Filip Dorssemont ◽  
Klaus Lörcher ◽  
Mélanie Schmitt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
European Commission ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Framework Agreement ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Partners ◽  
The Right ◽  
Do So

Abstract In this article, the authors assess the decision of the European Commission, in March 2018, not to implement a European Framework agreement concluded at sectoral level (the Hairdressers Agreement), despite a joint request to do so from the signatory parties. They argue that the decision was not consistent with the criteria relied on by the Commission to make it. In particular, the Commission’s refusal was contrary to the formal obligation enshrined in Article 155(2) Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to table a proposal to turn an Agreement of this kind into a Directive. Their analysis is based on, among other things, the duty to respect the autonomy of the social partners in Article 152 TFEU, and the recognition of the right to collective bargaining in Article 28 CFREU.

The Right to Be Forgotten in the European Union

2020 ◽  
pp. 485-502
Author(s):  
Miquel Peguera
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Search Engines ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Sensitive Data ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Right

This chapter discusses data protection aspects of liability of online intermediaries with special emphasis on the right to be forgotten as developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and later by national courts in Europe. It considers also relevant provisions within the General Data Protection Regulation and how they affect online intermediaries’ activities. This chapter briefly considers two manifestations of the right to be forgotten as they are being currently applied in the EU. First, the right to be forgotten vis-à-vis internet search engines; that is, the right to be delisted from search results. Secondly, the right-to-be-forgotten claims directed against primary publishers to have the information deleted or anonymized at the source. In doing so, this chapter will point to hotly debated issues, recently addressed by the CJEU, such as the geographical scope of the right to be forgotten, that is its possible extraterritorial application, and the prohibition of processing of sensitive data that should theoretically apply to all data controllers, including those online intermediaries that qualify as such. This chapter also considers how balancing of rights should occur when right-to-be-forgotten claims to delist content are brought against search engines or publishers.

AN UPDATE ON THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN AS A PRINCIPLE OF PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION IN EUROPEAN UNION

2021 ◽  
pp. 99-109
Author(s):  
MARIJANA MLADENOV ◽  
JELENA STOJŠIĆ DABETIĆ
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
The Right

Should we consider the right to be forgotten as a threat to free speech or the mechanism of the right to privacy? This most controversial element of the right to privacy and personal data protection caused the global debate on privacy and freedom of speech. Despite the fact that the right to be forgotten is codified in Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation and that fundamental postulates of this right were defined in Google v. Spain, there still remain unresolved issues. In order to gain a clear idea of the content of the right to be forgotten, as the principle of data protection in accordance with the latest European perspective, the subject matter of the paper refers to analyses of the developments of this right in the light of relevant regulations, as well as of the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The article firstly provides an overview of the concept of the right to be forgotten, from the very early proposals that gave rise to it, to the latest ones contained in recent regulations. Furthermore, the special attention is devoted to the new standards of the concept of the right to be forgotten from the aspect of recent rulings of the CJEU, GC et al v. CNIL and CNIL v. Google. Within the concluding remarks, the authors highlight the need for theoretical innovation and an adequate legal framework of the right to be forgotten in order to fit this right within the sociotechnical legal culture. The goal of the article is to provide insight regarding the implementation of the right to be forgotten in the European Union and to identify the main challenges with respect to the issue.

scholarly journals The Right to Be Forgotten in the European Perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-76
Author(s):  
Yulia Razmetaeva
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract The article focuses on the right to be forgotten, which is at the center of changes in the concept of human rights in the digital age. The origins of the right to be forgotten in European legal doctrine and judicial practice, as well as its relationship with autonomy and identity, are analyzed. The article also examines the significance of the new understanding of “time” and “data” for the adoption of this right, considering the influence of two key cases of the Court of Justice of the European Union, such as Google v. Spain [2014] and Google v. CNIL [2019] on the concept of the right to be forgotten. The place of this right, its connection with privacy and European data protection law is debated. The article focuses on jurisdictional issues, paying particular attention to both the right to be forgotten and the understanding of the relationship between privacy a nd freedom of expression in the European Union and the United States, and possible jurisdictional disputes around the world. The article also addresses the issue of balancing rights and legitimate interests, as well as the proportionality for applying the right to be forgotten, both in the European and global contexts.

scholarly journals A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE CASE LAW ON THE RIGHT “TO BE FORGOTTEN”

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 1377-1383
Author(s):  
Liuba Tzakova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Virtual Space ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

Modern society is evolving at a faster pace than before and this process is driven by the technological progress and the access to virtual space and Internet. Physical exchange of information is being replaced by its virtual double which offers faster speeds in quite different dimensions compared to traditional ones. Virtual space reduces distances between different parts of the world, there are no state borders, the individual has the ability to provide and create electronic content from anywhere in the world.In this space of “limitless” freedom, however, there is an inevitable collision between the different interests of individuals which has its reflection in the material world. It is here that the increasing necessity to create rules and regulations for resolving future and already arisen conflicts becomes visible.This report addresses issues related to the deletion/erasure of information on the Internet relating to a particular person, or the so-called right “to be forgotten”. A person may refer to this right when he considers published and publicly available information about him on the network irrelevant, as well as when the information is not correct, is no longer up to date, or the ground for its processing has been dropped. The right “to be forgotten” is a conflict issue that shows both advantages and disadvantages. It offers opportunity for a new beginning and for protection of privacy7, but it is often necessary to restrict it in order to protect the right of the public to be informed and the freedom of speech.The European Union plays an active role in order to place this issue in a legal framework. It established legal regulation in the field with Directive 95/46 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data which is interpreted in connection with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The General Data Protection Regulation entered into force in 2018 and replaced Directive 95/46 /EC. Of particular importance for understanding and enforcing of the right “to be forgotten” is the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights. The role of the courts of the different countries should also not be underestimated.Despite the clarity that this regulation introduces, there are new issues that need to be addressed, such as the criteria for deleting personal information from the virtual space and in which cases the public interest is justified to take precedence over that of the individual and where it is not.

scholarly journals The Right to be Forgotten: Emerging Legal Issues

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 27-42
Author(s):  
Oksana Vasylivna Kiriiak
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
The Right ◽  
Protection Of Right

This paper contextualizes and analyzes the main emerging approaches to the understanding of the right to be forgotten and its application in praxis, using legislation and judicial practice of the European Union and Ukraine as reference scales. By bridging the gap between positive and interpretative orders of law implementation, which were previously imperatively opposed and considered mutually exclusive in the Ukrainian legal system, the paper supports the arguments that the process of mastering the protection of right to be forgotten requires a further mindset shift equally for-Internet providers and all involved law enforcers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document