scholarly journals Recht auf Vergessen? Ethik der zweiten Chance?

2016 ◽  
Vol 64 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Abbt
Keyword(s):  
Personal Data ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Moment ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
Second Chance

AbstractThe notion of ‘forgetting’ has assumed a new dimension in the digital age. Here I will examine a particular kind of forgetting as reflected in a ruling of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). What the ruling of the ECJ of May 13, 2014 (C-131/12) formulates and invokes as a “right to be forgotten” encompasses the right to co-determine whether certain personal data in the Web should immediately show up or not when a first name and surname is entered as part of a search. When a user has invoked the “right to be forgotten”, and it is determined that it applies, information is, however, not made irretrievable. It continues to remain possible to find this information in a roundabout way, i.e., by means of more precise search queries, although the information should not immediately become visible the moment a person’s full name is typed into a search engine. I will argue that this ruling can be seen as corroborating the fundamental rights of the individual. The idea of the “right to be forgotten” is to give a person a second chance in society. Not all forms of forgetting and remembering can be subsumed under this idea. As will be expounded, this court decision offers a useful normative fundament for the distinction between (1) legitimate attempts at reintegration, (2) legitimate attempts at rehabilitation and (3) unjustified recourse to a right to be forgotten.

scholarly journals The Federal Constitutional Court Decisions: „The Right to be Forgotten I” and „The Right to be Forgotten II” – The Expectation of Increased Cooperation with the Concurrent Need to Maintain Independence

2020 ◽  
pp. 69-88
Author(s):  
Magdalena Jaś-Nowopolska ◽  
Daniel Mengeler
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
European Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Right ◽  
Eu Fundamental Rights

The article discusses the decisions “Right to be forgotten I” and “Right to be forgotten II” of 6 November 2019 by the Federal Constitutional Court, which redefine the relationship of cooperation between the Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice in the area of fundamental rights. The Court has decided for the first time that where EU fundamental rights take precedence over German fundamental rights, the Court itself can directly review, on the basis of EU fundamental rights, the application of EU law by German authorities. In the first part, the article presents the previous system, including the precedence of application of EU law and its exceptions (ultra-vires review; identity review), as well as the controversial question of the interpretation of Article 51 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is decisive for the applicability of the fundamental rights under the Charter. The focus is on the constitutional background of the German Basic Law for the protection of fundamental rights in the European multi-level system. Against this background, the second part of the article presents the facts and reasons for the decisions “Right to be forgotten I” and “Right to be forgotten II”. This is followed by an analysis of the consequences of these decisions for the protection of fundamental rights and cooperation between the European Court of Justice and the Federal Constitutional Court. In particular, the way in which fundamental EU rights can now be enforced before the Federal Constitutional Court is described in greater detail. The concluding part provides an overview of the open questions, risks and opportunities of this approach. Here the article illustrates the significant impact of the two decisions on dogmatic and procedural matters.

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.

COMPANIES AND THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

2015 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 661-696 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Oliver
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Double Jeopardy ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Right

AbstractThis article explores the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Justice and the US Supreme Court on the fundamental rights of commercial companies. The rights considered include property, the privilege against self-incrimination, freedom of speech, double jeopardy, the right to make political donations, and the freedom of religion. The article highlights the dangers of taking the fundamental rights of companies too far, as has recently occurred in the US; and it advocates a cautious and coordinated approach to this delicate issue, which has become increasingly important on both sides of the Atlantic.

scholarly journals Privacy by design

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsten Wahlstrom ◽  
Anwaar Ul-haq ◽  
Oliver Burmeister
Keyword(s):  
Social Contexts ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Privacy By Design ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Blockchain Technology ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

Privacy is important because it supports freedom, dignity, autonomy, justice, and democracy, and therefore it is important that privacy is studied in ontologically robust ways. A form of privacy is implemented in the right to be forgotten, which is a human right established by the European Court of Justice. Blockchain and Holochain are examples of recently emerged technologies that were shaped by, and are now shaping of, social contexts in which economic transactions may occur. The right to be forgotten represents a compliance challenge for public and private implementations of blockchain technology. This paper describes a few of these challenges.

«Interneten ahaztua izateko eskubidea» Europar Batasuneko Justizi Auzitegiaren 2014ko maiatzaren 13ko epaiaren arabera

2014 ◽  
pp. 39-79
Author(s):  
Unai ABERASTURI GORRIÑO
Keyword(s):  
Search Engines ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Nuevas Tecnologías ◽  
The Right ◽  
Sobre Todo

LABURPENA: Norberaren datuak babesteko oinarrizko eskubidea etengabe berrikusten ari den ahalmena da. Berrikuspen honen nondik norakoa teknologia berrien garapenak baldintzatzen du. Azken urteetan asko azpimarratu da Interneten bilatzaile orokorrek eskubide honen gain sortzen dituzten arriskuak. Arrisku hauetariko bat da behin pertsona bati buruzko informazioa sarean jasota informazio hori epe luzerako geratuko dela Interneten eta bilatzaileen bitartez informazio hori beti jarriko dela harremanetan bere jabearekin. Bilatzaileek pertsona bat informazio batekin lotzera kondenatzen dute eta egitate horrek kalteak sor ditzake, batez ere aurkitzen diren datuen edukia negatiboa denean. Hain zuzen, bilatzaileek sor ditzaketen kalteak ekiditeko ≪Interneten ahaztua izateko eskubidea≫ aurrezagutu da. Eskubide honi buruz asko eztabaidatu da azken urteetan, batez ere Europar Batasuneko Justizi Auzitegiak bere existentzia onartu zuenetik. Hain zuzen, eskubide honen edukia aztertu nahi da lan honetan. RESUMEN: El derecho fundamental a la proteccion de datos de caracter personal constituye una facultad en constante revision. Esta revision se produce al albur de la continua evolucion de las nuevas tecnologias. En los ultimos anos se han subrayado de manera especial los riesgos que producen los buscadores que se utilizan en Internet para encontrar informacion. Entre estos riesgos cabe subrayar el hecho de que cuando una informacion se incluye en Internet esta queda a disposicion de los usuarios y el que a traves de los buscadores esa informacion se pondra en relacion constantemente con el titular de la misma. Los buscadores condenan a que una persona quede vinculada perpetuamente a una informacion y esta circunstancia puede producir graves perjuicios, sobre todo cuando el contenido de la informacion es negativo. Precisamente, para evitar estos perjuicios se reconoce el denominado derecho al olvido en Internet. Se ha discutido mucho en torno a este derecho, sobre todo a partir de que el Tribunal de Justicia de la Union Europea reconociera expresamente su existencia. Es el contenido de este derecho el que se va a analizar en este trabajo. ABSTRACT: The fundamental right to the personal data protection is a faculty in permanent revision. This revision is at the mercy of the continuous development of new technologies. Last years the risks produced by the search engines which are used to find information have especially been emphasized. Among the risks it can be emphasized the fact that when an information is included in internet it remains at the user’s disposal and that by means of the search engines that information will constantly put in relation with the holder of it. Search engines condemn a person to be perpetually linked to an information and that circumstance can produce serious harm, especially when the content of that information is negative. Exactly, in order to avoid those damages it is been acknowledged the right to forget in Internet, There has been a lot of discussion about this right, especially after the European Court of Justice recognized specifically its existence. The content of that right will be analyzed in this work.

scholarly journals “Tiesību tikt aizmirstam” piemērošanas un izpratnes problēmas Latvijā

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 96-112
Author(s):  
Svetlana Sitņikova
Keyword(s):  
Personal Data ◽  
Sensitive Data ◽  
Online Data ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
European Court ◽  
Technological Developments ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

“Tiesības tikt aizmirstam” ir samērā jauns tiesību institūts, kura aktualizēšanas priekšnosacījums ir tehnoloģiju attīstība un globalizācija, kas šobrīd ļauj padarīt informāciju, tostarp arī personas datus un sensitīvus datus, publiski pieejamu visā pasaulē. Iepriekšminētais rada nepieciešamību veicināt personas datu aizsardzību. “Tiesības tikt aizmirstam” īpaši tika aktualizētas saistībā ar Eiropas Savienības tiesas lēmumu lietā C-131/12 Google Spain SL, Google Inc. pret Agencia de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González (t. s. Google v Spain lieta). Arī Eiropas Cilvēktiesību tiesa saskaras ar jaunām koncepcijām, no kurām viena ir “tiesības tikt aizmirstam”. Veicot pētījumu, tika gūtas šādas atziņas: Latvijas Republikas normatīvajos aktos paredzētie aizsardzības līdzekļi, atbildība un sankcijas tikai daļēji veicina “tiesību tikt aizmirstam” ievērošanu. Pētījumā iesaistītās valsts iestādes neapzinās ar fizisko personu datu apstrādi saistītos potenciālos riskus un tos novērsa (veica nepieciešamās izmaiņas datu apstrādes sistēmās) tikai pēc privātpersonas(-u) iesnieguma saņemšanas. Šī iemesla dēļ, lai stiprinātu Latvijas iedzīvotāju uzticēšanos valsts iestādēm jautājumā par tiešsaistē atrodamiem datiem un panāktu jaunu pakalpojumu, tostarp arī publisko e-pārvaldības pakalpojumu izmantošanu, tādējādi sekmējot ekonomikas izaugsmi, valsts iestādēm ir jāpārskata sava prakse saistībā ar personas datu apstrādi un pieejamību tiešsaistē. The “right to be forgotten” is a relatively new legal institution and the prerequisite for it are rapid technological developments and globalisation allowing information, including personal data and sensitive data, publicly available worldwide. The above mentioned requires the enhancement of the personal data protection. The “right to be forgotten” had been brought up to date particularly in relation to the EU Court of Justice decision in case C-131/12 Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González. The European Court of Human Rights is being faced with new concepts such as that of the “right to be forgotten”. The following conclusions are drawn when conducting the research: the remedies, liability and sanctions as provided in Latvian regulation only partially contribute to the compliance with the “right to be forgotten”. The state institutions interviewed while carrying out this research are not aware of the potential risks concerning processing of personal data and make necessary changes in their data processing systems only in response to the individual/-s application. Therefore, to strengthen the trust of Latvian inhabitants in online data kept by public authorities and to enhance usage of e-government services, thus facilitating economic growth, the public authorities must review their existing practices regarding the processing of personal data and access online.

scholarly journals Values and the Rule of Law: Foundations of the European Union – An Inside Perspective from the ECJ

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Von Danwitz
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Universal Values ◽  
The Individual

Let us remember what has been written, ratified and set into force with the Treaty of Lisbon. The preamble of the Charter of Fundamental Rights starts out by stating: "The peoples of Europe, in creating an ever closer union among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values." And it goes on: "Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice." Even if a cynic might have considered these words to be merely a lip service unlikely to disturb the power-play European governments were so eagerly engaged in, the Charter nonetheless became the supreme law of the land and the preferred tools of the trade of a rather awkward species of beings, already of bad repute for relying on the mere wording of legal acts, and even worse, for taking rights seriously: judges - in particular those of the European Court of Justice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document