The Right to Be Forgotten: The Balance Between Public and Private Interests in the Practice of Constitutional Control Organs

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 41-48
Author(s):  
Daria A. Petrova ◽  
Ekaterina A. Galchun

The internet information and telecommunications network, due to its accessibility and easy storage and distribution of huge amounts of data, and its ability to search and find information, plays a key role in the implementation of such fundamental rights as freedom of speech and the press. At the same time, there is an increasing risk that materials on the World Wide Web may harm the rights and legitimate interests of individuals, especially the right to privacy. In these conditions of eternal competition between the public and the private, the right to be forgotten arises as a mechanism that allows one to remove or slow the spread of unwanted information. The authors investigate the problem of implementing this relatively new opportunity in the context of finding a balance between the public interest in obtaining information and the private interest in destroying it. It is argued that this category of cases is difficult due to the lack of a unified standard of proof and criteria for evaluating arguments. Based on an analysis of the most important precedents, the most common legal positions on the issue are identified and critically assessed. An increasing priority afforded to public interest and the decreasing requirements for the deletion of information is revealed. The authors consider the emergence of the right to be forgotten as a new mechanism for settling disputes in a pre-trial manner, by allowing one to not completely destroy, but to suspend the dissemination of undesirable information, thereby protecting private interests without violating the legitimate rights of the public. The conclusion is made about the right to be forgotten as a compromise in the conflict of fundamental rights. An approximate list of arguments for applicants and respondents is provided, suitable for practical application in disputes about the right to be forgotten.

2015 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 69-88
Author(s):  
Leonardo Burlamaqui

The core point of this paper is the hypothesis that in the field of intellectual property rights and regulations, the last three decades witnessed a big change. The boundaries of private (or corporate) interests have been hyper-expanded while the public domain has significantly contracted. It tries to show that this is detrimental to innovation diffusion and productivity growth. The paper develops the argument theoretically, fleshes it out with some empirical evidence and provides a few policy recommendations on how to redesign the frontiers between public and private spaces in order to produce a more democratic and development-oriented institutional landscape. The proposed analytical perspective developed here, “Knowledge Governance”, aims to provide a framework within which, in the field of knowledge creation and diffusion, the dividing line between private interests and the public domain ought to be redrawn. The paper’s key goal is to provide reasoning for a set of rules, regulatory redesign and institutional coordination that would favor the commitment to distribute (disseminate) over the right to exclude.Keywords: knowledge management, intellectual property, patent, public, interest, public sector, private sector, socioeconomic developmen


Author(s):  
Shi Hu ◽  

The right of privacy is a basic personal right, which refers to the right that the interests of individual personality are not infringed, private affairs unrelated to the public interest are not allowed to be released to the public, and private territory belonging to individuals is not illegally invaded. The protection of the right to privacy stems from a basic belief: everyone has the right not to be disturbed, and has the right to decide how to appear in front of the public, unless they have taken the initiative to put themselves in the public view, or their privacy involves the public interest[1].


2021 ◽  
pp. 125
Author(s):  
GULNAZ AYDIN RZAYEVA ◽  
AYTAKIN NAZIM IBRAHIMOVA

The development of new technologies also has an impact on human rights. In the previous “epochs” of global information society, it was stated that that traditional rights can be exercised online. For instance, in 2012 (and again in 2014 and 2016), the UN Human Rights Council emphasized that ‘the same rights granted to people, so to speak, in an “offline” manner, must be protected online as well’. This, in its turn, implicitly brought to the reality that the new technetronic society did not create new rights. Though, we should take into consideration that in the digital world national legislative norms that guarantee the confidentiality of personal data often do not catch up with the technological development and, thus, can’t ensure confidentiality online. Therefore, the impact of digitalization on human rights within the frames of international and national laws should be broadly analysed and studied. The article’s objective is to analyze the impact of new technologies on human rights in the context of the right to be forgotten and right to privacy. Because the development of new technologies is more closely linked to the security of personal data. With the formation of the right to be forgotten, it is the issue of ensuring the confidentiality of certain contents of personal data as a result of the influence of the time factor. The authors conclude that, the right to be forgotten was previously defended more in the context of the right to privacy. However, they cannot be considered equal rights. The right to be forgotten stems from a person’s desire to develop and continue his or her life independently without being the object of criticism for any negative actions he or she has committed in the past. If the right to privacy contains generally confidential information, the right to be forgotten is understood as the deletion of known information at a certain time and the denial of access to third parties. Thus, the right to be forgotten is not included in the right to privacy, and can be considered an independent right. The point is that the norms of the international and national documents, which establish fundamental human rights and freedoms, do not regulate issues related to the right to be forgotten. The right to be forgotten should be limited to the deletion of information from the media and Internet information resources. This is not about the complete destruction of information available in state information systems. Another conclusion of authors is that the media and Internet information resources sometimes spread false information. In this case, there will be no content of the right to be forgotten. Because the main thing is that the information that constitutes the content of the right to be forgotten must be legal, but after some time it has lost its significance. The scope of information included in the content of the right to be forgotten should not only be related to the conviction, but also to other special personal data (for example, the fact of divorce).


Author(s):  
A.P. Ushakova ◽  

From the standpoint of the dominant interest criterion the article examines the justification of the legislator`s decision to apply public law methods in order to regulate relations concerning the use of land for infrastructural facilities placing. The author gives the arguments in favor of understanding the public interest as the interest of the whole society as a system, rather than the interest of an indefinite range of persons or the majority of the population. The author concludes that there is the simultaneous presence in the specified legal relations and private interests of the participants of legal relations, and public interests of society as a system. Both types of interests in these legal relations are important, but in terms of different aspects of the legal impact mechanism. Public interest is important because its realization is the purpose of legal regulation of this type of legal relations, from this point of view it acts as a dominant interest. The private interest of the holder of a public servitude is important as an incentive to attract the efforts of private individuals to achieve a publicly significant goal. The private interest of a land plot owner is important from the point of view of securing the right of ownership. It is substantiated that the public servitude is not an arbitrary decision of the legislator, but an example of application of the incentive method in the land law, which provides a favorable legal regime for a socially useful activity.


2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 1039-1062
Author(s):  
Vitaly V. Kikavets

The basis of legal relations in public procurement are private and public interests. The purpose of the study is a substantive assessment of the authors hypothesis that the purpose of legal regulation and financial support of public procurement is to satisfy the public interest expressed in the form of a public need for goods, works, and services. The methodological basis of the study rests on historical and systematic approach, analysis, synthesis and comparative-legal methods. The results of the analysis of normative legal acts regulating public procurement, doctrinal literature and practice showed that public interest denounced in the form of public need is realized through public procurement. Public and private interests can be realized exclusively jointly since these needs cannot objectively be met individually. In general, ensuring public as well as private interests boils down to defining and legally securing the rights and obligations of the customer and their officials, which safeguards them in the process of meeting public needs through public procurement. The study revealed the dependence of the essence of public interest on the political regime, which determines the ratio of public and private interests. Public interest in public procurement is suggested to understand as the value-significant selective position of an official or another person authorized by the government, which is expressed in the form of the public need for the necessary benefit; gaining such benefit involves both legal regulation and financial security. The purpose of legal regulation of public procurement is to satisfy public interest. These concepts should be legally enshrined in Law No. 44-FZ.


2009 ◽  
Vol 160 (8) ◽  
pp. 244-246
Author(s):  
Olivier Guex

Does the principle of multifunctionality mean that the forest must fulfill every requirement put forward? Does the modern notion of “commodity”, drawn from the laws of supply and demand, give forest owners the right to expect payment for every service provided? In view of the current difficult economic situation and the increase and diversification of these requirements, the questions are justified. This article does not have the pretension to provide all the answers. However, by means of further questions and through the introduction of various examples, the reader is invited to consider the subtly differentiated proportions of the importance of the public interest on the one hand as opposed to that of private interests on the other, and thus to be able to draw conclusions. Thanks to this comparative assessment, possibilities concerning the magnitude and the source of these payments should become clear.


10.4335/52 ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-270
Author(s):  
Janez Ahlin

The special legal nature of the concession contract (as one of the legal transactions) which represents a legal framework where the public and private interests meet (two parties cooperate for mutual benefit) is characterised by intertwining of general rules of obligation law and special legal institutes that originate from the sphere of public law. The legal nature of the contractual relationships that arise between administrative and private entities requires special regulation of individual institutes that should reflect the public interest as an important guiding principle for concluding these contracts, and a special legal position of a public law entity as a holder of this public interest. Despite adoption of the new Public-Private Partnership Act in the legislative regulation of the concession contract that still remains variously regulated in previously adopted special provisions of sectoral laws, there are still some deficiencies and dilemmas that are more or less effectively dealt with in the contractual practice. For the legal positions that are classically civil at first sight, the legislator or court practice have laid down special modified rules of civil law in most developed countries. In the course of time, these rules became part of public law / administrative law. Thus, the French legal order has best developed the rules of the public contractual law and the legal institute of the administrative contract that the Slovenian administrative theoreticians try more and more to introduce also into our legal order. KEY WORDS: • concession contract • concession partnership • public-private partnership • public interest • party equality principle • law of obligations


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stergios Aidinlis

Governments across the EU are increasingly turning their attention to advanced big data analytics, aiming to use their data to inform the design and implementation of public policies. Due to limitations in expertise and resources, this is often impossible without the formation of data sharing partnerships with private actors. Yet, the prevailing view in EU data protection regulatory guidance is that the ‘public interest’ and private interests as lawful grounds for data processing under article 6 GDPR find themselves in a zero-sum relationship. The ‘public interest’ under article 6(1)(e) GDPR is construed as the exclusive realm of public authorities, which are often advised against relying on other grounds for processing, associated with private interests, such as ‘legitimate interests’ under article 6(1)(f) GDPR. This chapter argues against the presently dominant divide between public and private interests under lawful grounds for processing, sketching the emergence of Government-to-Business (G2B) research data sharing in the EU. A conceptualisation of the ‘public’ interest as not incompatible with private interests, as long as a contribution to societal well-being is made through data processing, is offered in that regard. The chapter elaborates on this conceptualisation and the requirements for ensuring protection of the fundamental rights of data subjects, while reflecting on the research questions that should concern future EU data protection law researchers with regard to its adoption.


Author(s):  
Oleg Mikhailovich Krylov

The subject of this research is the categories of “public need” and “public interest”. The object is the currency circulation and its organization. The author examines the elements of currency circulation, which represent independent public needs with corresponding public interests in its organization. Special attention is given to interrelation between the public needs in currency circulation and public interests, which serves as the legislative framework for currency circulation and observance of the balance of public and private interests in organization of currency circulation. The conclusion is drawn on the representatives of public interest in currency circulation and interdependence of public needs in currency circulation on the corresponding public interests in its organization. The author also formulates a number of interesting conclusions on interrelation between public needs in currency circulation, public interests and needs in other spheres of public life and organization of currency circulation, which serve as the legislative framework for currency circulation and observance of balance of public and private interests in organization of currency circulation. The novelty of this research consists in determination of the content of public interest in currency circulation, as well as in establishment of correlation with public interests and needs in other spheres of public life.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document