Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
FAQs
Data Protection Law and Erasure
Privacy and Data Protection Provisions
Conclusion
References

Oblivion, Erasure and Forgetting in the Digital Age

Profile image of Aurelia Tamò-LarrieuxAurelia Tamò-Larrieux

Abstract
sparkles

AI

This article explores the complexities surrounding the "right to be forgotten" in the digital era, especially in light of relevant legal developments such as the ECJ ruling (ECJ C-131/12, Google Spain v. Spanish Data Protection Agency) and subsequent amendments by the European Parliament. It argues that efforts to implement this right highlight a nuanced balancing act between individual rights to privacy and the public's right to information. Through a comparative analysis of legal frameworks, the authors examine the challenges posed by data protection, privacy, and tort law, suggesting that achieving true digital oblivion remains a multifaceted and contentious issue.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What are the legal distinctions between the right to oblivion and right to erasure?add

The article differentiates that the right of oblivion pertains to outdated data no longer newsworthy, while the right of erasure applies to any data whose processing contravenes data protection principles.

How do European legal frameworks address online privacy and data protection interests?add

The research indicates that European courts balance individual privacy rights against public and press interests, manifesting in case law like Google's de-indexing rulings.

What implications arose from the 2014 ECJ ruling on the right to be forgotten?add

The ECJ's decision mandated that search engines like Google must de-index links that violate an individual's privacy, acknowledging the primacy of privacy over public access in certain contexts.

How has the concept of the right to be forgotten evolved since its proposal in 2012?add

Initially termed the right to be forgotten, it was rebranded as the right of erasure post-2014, yet maintains its core principles aimed at enhancing individual privacy control.

What challenges exist in implementing erasure rights across different European states?add

The comparative analysis highlights varying national interpretations of erasure rights, complicating the enforcement and consistency of privacy protections across jurisdictions.

Related papers

The Council of Europe Data Protection Convention reform: Analysis of the new text and critical comment on its global ambition
paul de hert

Computer Law & Security Review, 2014

The year 2010 set an important milestone in the development of data protection law in Europe: both Europe's basic regulatory texts, the EU Data Protection Directive and the Council's Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (Convention 108), were placed at an amendment process, having served individual data protection for many years and witnessed in the meantime technological developments that threatened to make their provisions obsolete. After briefly presenting Convention 108, the analysis that follows will highlight the Council's data protection system currently in effect as well as developments relating to the Convention's amendment so far with the aim of identifying improvements and shortcomings. While doing this two separate points of view shall be adopted: at first a micro point of view will attempt to identify improvements and shortcomings through an 'insider' perspective, that is, judging only the merits and difficulties of the draft text at hand. Afterwards a macroscopic view will be adopted, whereby strategic issues will be discussed pertaining to the important issue of the relationship of the suggested draft with the EU data protection system, as well as, the same draft's potential to constitute the next global information privacy standard.

View PDFchevron_right
Implications of The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation
Christopher Taylor Sotelo
View PDFchevron_right
F. Di Ciommo - Privacy in Europe after Regulation (EU) No. 2016/679: What Will Remain of the Right to be Forgotten?
The Italian Law Journal ItaLJ

Regulation (EU) no 2016/679 (hereinafter 'GDPR'), which will become applicable throughout the EU from next May and will replace Directive 95/46/EC, contains the first legislative embodiment of the right to be forgotten. In other words, the personal right that, thanks also to the well known Google Spain case, has captured the attention of operators and academics alike. However, from a close examination of the new legislation it is arguable that the right to be forgotten could well end up being somewhat diminished once the GDPR takes effect. Indeed, many issues concerning the right in question have not been addressed, despite the fact that both case law and scholars in various Member States have much contributed in this debate recently. This work seeks to analyse the impact that the new legislation will have on the right to be forgotten, in particular having regard to how that right has been conceived in the Italian legal system in light of the Personal Data Protection Code and the most significant case law on the matter. The goal of the research is to demonstrate that even after the entry into force of the GDPR a crucial role in the actual definition of the concept of the right to be forgotten and the mechanics of protecting it will necessarily have to be played by the courts.

View PDFchevron_right
Evolution or revolution of EU Law on the Protection of Personal Data
Dominik Horodyski

This paper aims at presenting the evolution of European Union Law in the domain of personal data protection. It has been generally acknowledged that the EU law demanded updating as to protection of individuals’ privacy since it has been shaped mainly by a relatively old instrument - EU Data Protection Directive dated 1995. However, many authors suggest that the process of adjusting EU law to modern privacy framework follows a path of natural evolution, it appears that the form of a regulation can bring serious revolution to member states’ national legislations, which differ to a great extent as to protection of privacy. This paper claims that the EU personal data protection law may be seen both as an evolution when it comes to gradual change of substantive provisions and a revolution as to the form of universally binding instrument that will replace and unify national regulations.

View PDFchevron_right
Data Retention and its Implications for the Fundamental Right to Privacy - A European Perspective
Arianna Vedaschi

The Data Retention Directive is one of the most controversial acts adopted by the eu. The storage of an indeterminate amount of data – concerning every citizen of the eu – requires finding a balance between the need to fight terrorism and the rights to privacy and data protection, as declared in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the eu, the echr, and by the common constitutional values shared by Member States. According to the cjeu (joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12), the Directive ‘treats everyone as a suspect’, ‘monitors everyone’ and ‘puts everyone under surveillance’ and represents a ‘serious interference’ to citizens’ rights to privacy. The aim of this paper is to define – through a comparative analysis – the main features of the cjeu balancing process, trying to assess possible future scenarios for data retention in the European and domestic legal frameworks. The challenge remains the same: how to prevent serious crime and terrorism while preserving our fundamental rights?

View PDFchevron_right
Forgetting at the right time, remembering at the right time. Enquiring the right to be forgotten in light of EU legislation
Marco Convertini

Among the so-called “new rights”, the right to be forgotten plays a central role in defining a new conception of personal identity, dealing with both new issues concerning the relation between individuals and technologies, and millennial contending questions about identity, freedom of expression and truth. Nowadays, in a globalized context where any individual faces a continuous thirst of information, made possible by the pervasive growth of connections, data processing and by a constant technological innovation, even the concept of privacy must be re- contextualized. The result is a general right “not to be simplified, objectivized and evaluated out of context”, likely to be enjoyed in the online relationships such as in the offline world. This Essay aims at discussing the main topics concerning the right to be forgotten in the current European landscape, by taking in consideration three main aspects: first the technical status concerning the issue to clarify how practically the deletion of personal information collected online is made possible by the technology; in second instance, the discussion will deepen the main contending legal issues concerning the data protection and the right to be forgotten, in order to discuss how can the abovementioned right be part of the broader concept of online self-determination; a third part will be devoted to the outline of the main national and European legislation on the point, comprehensive of an analysis of the landmark cases. A particular attention will be paid to the recent EU legislation on the General Data Protection, which represents the main topic of the analysis. For what the last issue concerns, I will enjoy the help of the authoritative opinion of Professor Alessandro Mantelero, whose article will be analyzed in detail. The title I chose for the Essay is a quotation from Friedrich Nietzsche who, in his work entitled Unzeitgemäße Betrachtungen makes a deep philosophical analysis on whether the oblivion can be or not a mean of progress for humanity.

View PDFchevron_right
The Right to Be Forgotten in EU Legislation Why We Should Not Care About It
Krzysztof J Jankowski

The so-called right to be forgotten has recently been given a lot of attention by the public, mainly due to its rapid development within the European Union framework. There are apparently two parallel ongoing discussions: the first one focuses on an abstract right to be truly forgotten, giving individuals a right to erase the records of their past; and the second one which focuses strictly on the institution of law provided by the European legislators. Interestingly, both perspectives refer to the same regulation which in any way is claimed to be rather controversial, inconsistent, excessive or unrealistic. I believe that such views are biased and find no grounds in the legal provisions. To me, the EU right to be forgotten is the regulation of little significance and practical applicability, and has incorrectly been elevated to the one of main issues in the field of privacy debates. In fact, what is called the right to be forgotten in EU legislation is a very technical mean of exercising one’s control over personal data. Therefore, I argue that the majority of commentaries claiming that the existing right to be forgotten is controversial err in doing so. In order to demonstrate that my argument has legitimate grounds, this paper in its Chapter I provides an analysis of the current and upcoming regulatory EU framework of the right to erasure of personal data, as well as examines the legal force of the ruling in Google v Gonzalez. The majority of the analysis is drawn on statutory interpretation, which reveals that the material content and scope of application of the right to be forgotten are in fact significantly limited; current framework does not allow the erasure of data merely at request and provides a requirement of balancing rights which is not just a declaration but enforceable mechanism. Subsequently, as there are possible grounds for controversies, in the Chapter II of the present paper I argue that the correct application of provisions on the right to be forgotten should diminish a dimension of alleged problems to the degree, where that institution of law should not bother critics; where the problem of ‘hard cases’ arises, the regulatory framework provides appropriate means of reaching compliance (common tool-box and delegated powers of the European Commission). Some provisions of the current legal framework in the EU raise doubts: e.g. shift of the burden of proof and administrative fines. These should not be feared of, as the construction of these legal mechanisms ensures their reasonable application in practise. Additionally, legal grounds for the upcoming regulation might also seem doubtful.

View PDFchevron_right
European Constitutional Courts Towards Data Retention Laws
Teresa Violante, Alona Klammer, Barbara Grabowska-Moroz, Jan Podkowik, Robert Rybski

Springer Nature, Heidelberg & New York; Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 45) Also part of the Issues in Privacy and Data Protection book sub series (ISDP, volume 45), 2020

The book analyses the impact the jurisprudence of the constitutional courts of EU Member States and the Court of Justice of the European Union has had on the perception of freedom of communications in the digital era with respect to these courts’ judgments regarding regulating storage and access to telecommunications data (known as telecommunications data retention) from 2008 to 2017. To do so, it examines the jurisprudence of the constitutional courts of Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Ireland, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, and Slovakia, i.e. those courts that have already ruled on domestic provisions regulating telecommunications data retention. Further, it investigates the judgments of the Court of Justice of European Union regarding directive 2006/24/EC regulating telecommunications data retention along with relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. As such, the book provides a comparative study of jurisprudence and national measures to implement the Data Retention Directive. Moreover, the book discusses whether our current understanding of protection of freedom of communications guaranteed by the constitutions of EU member states and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was developed in the era of analogue communications, remains accurate in the era of digital technologies and mass surveillance (simultaneously applied by states and private corporations). In this context, the book reconstructs constitutional standards that currently apply in the EU towards data retention. This book presents a unique comparative analysis of all judgments concerning Directive 2006/24/EC, which can be used in the legislative process on the EU forum aimed at introducing new principles of data retention and by constitutional courts in the context of comparative argumentation.

View PDFchevron_right
The Right to be Forgotten in the Digital Age
Maria Romana Allegri

Frontiers in sociology and social research, 2022

View PDFchevron_right
EU΄s Data Protection Reform and the right to be forgotten -A legal response to a technological challenge?
Lilian Mitrou

Technological and social phenomena like cloud computing, behavioural advertising, online social networks as well as globalisation (of data flows) have profoundly transformed the way in which personal data are processed and used. This paper discusses the efficiency of the legislation in force and the impact of PETs and the concept of privacy by design on the enforcement of data protection rules. By recognizing the need to update the data protection regulation as a result of current technological trends that threaten to erode core principles of data protection, the paper addresses the question if the Draft-Regulation presents an adequate and efficient response to the challenges that technological changes pose to regulators. In this context the paper focuses on the right to be forgotten as a comprehensive set of existing and new rules to better cope with privacy risks online in the age of "perfect remembering" and we how persistency and high availability of information limit the right of individuals to be forgotten. The paper deals with both the normative and the technical instruments and requirements so as to ensure that personal information will not be permanently retained.

View PDFchevron_right

References (109)

  1. Cf. EC sets out strategy to strengthen EU data protection rules, IP/10/1462, Brussels, 10.11.2010; EC Frequently asked Questions on the Data Protection Reform, MEMO/10/542, Brussels, 10.11.2010.
  2. Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age, Princeton University Press 2009.
  3. Alessandro Mantelero, U.S. Concern about the Right to Be Forgotten and Free Speech: Much Ado about Nothing?, Contratto e Impressa. Europa Vol. 17 (2012) No. 2, pp. 727-740;
  4. Meg Leta Ambrose/Jef Ausloos, The Right to Be Forgotten Across the Pond, Journal of Information Policy, Vol. 3, 2013, pp. 1-23;
  5. Franz Werro, The Right to Inform vs. The Right to Be Forgotten: A Transatlantic Clash, in: Aurelia Colombi Ciacchi/Christine Godt/Peter Rott/Leslie Jane Simth (eds.), Haftungsrecht im Dritten Millenium, Baden-Baden 2009, pp. 285-300; Laura Lagone, The Right to Be Forgotten: A Comparative Analysis, Working Paper Series, December 7 th , 2012.
  6. Cf. e.g. Adam Thierer, California Eraser Button Passes, The Technology Liberation Front, September 26, 2013; Eric Goldman, California's New 'Online Eraser' Law Should Be Erased, Forbes, September 24, 2014.
  7. Herbert Burkert, Privacy -Data Protection: A German/European Perspective, in: Engel Christoph/Keller Kenneth H. (eds.): Governance of Global Networks in the Light of Differing Local Values. Baden-Baden 2000, p. 46.
  8. Cf. also Huw Beverley-Smith/Ansgar Ohly/Agnes Lucas-Schloetter, Privacy, Property and Personality: Civil Law Perspectives on Commercial Appropriation, Cambridge 2005, p. 207.
  9. Herbert Burkert, Changing Patterns -Supplementary Approaches to Improving Data Protection. A European Perspective, Presentation at CIAJ 2005 Annual Conference on Technology, Privacy and Justice, Toronto September 29-30, 2005, p. 4. 85
  10. 22 European Commission, Why do we need an EU data protection reform?, Factsheet 2012.
  11. 23 Press Release, Speech Viviane Reding, Justice for Growth makes headway at today's Justice Council, SPEECH/13/29, 18.01.2013.
  12. Cf. e.g. Katy Steinmetz, Lucky Kids: California Gives Minors the Right to Delete Things They Put Online, Time, September 23, 2013; Thierer, supra note 6.
  13. Bert-Jaap Koops, Forgetting Footprints, Shunning Shadows. A Critical Analysis of the "Right To Be Forgotten" in Big Data Practice, SCRIPTed, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2011, pp. 229-256, p. 232 et seq.
  14. Koops, supra note 25, pp. 233 et seq. as well as pp. 250 et seqq.
  15. Weber, supra note 14, pp. 120 et seq.
  16. Rouvroy, supra note 14, pp. 249-278.
  17. Ambrose/Ausloos, supra note 5, p. 14.
  18. Ambrose/Ausloos, supra note 5, p. 2. 31 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), Brussels, 25.1.2012, COM(2012) 11 final; in combination with recital 6, 53 and 54.
  19. 32 Council of the European Union, Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation) -Key issues of Chapters I-IV, 2012/0011 (COD), n. 10227/13, Brussels, May 31, 2013, http://register.consilium. europa.eu/pdf/en/13/st10/st10227.en13.pdf. The version of June 21, 2013 is available at: http://www.statewatch.org/ news/2013/jun/eu-council-dp-regulation-revised-11013-13. pdf.
  20. European Parliament, Policy Department Economic and Scientific Policy, Reforming the Data Protection Package, Study 2012, p. 60.
  21. 34 The right to object as provided for in Art. 14 Directive 95/46 is limited to scenarios in which the procession was lawful only due to outweighing interests of the public or the controller (Art. 7 (e) and (f) Directive 95/46/EC); cf. Damian George/Aurelia Tamò, Ein Europäisches Recht auf Vergessen -eine Schweizer Pflicht zum Löschen?, in: Sandra Brändli/Roman Schister/ Aurelia Tamò (eds.), Multinationale Unternehmen und Institutionen im Wandel -Herausforderungen für Wirtschaft, Recht und Gesellschaft, Bern 2013, p. 49.
  22. Cf. 17, (3) Regulation.
  23. Cf. 17, (3), (a) (b) and (d) Regulation.
  24. 37 This provision is of special interest because Art. 14 of the Directive 95/46/EC -which already obliges Member States to introduce a right to object to the processing of personal data-goes less far: The scope of Art. 14 in combination with Art. 7 (e) and (f) were not applicable in cases in which the data subject wanted to withdraw his previously given consent. Ulrich Dammann/Spiros Simitis, EG-Datenschutzrichtlinie Kommentar, Baden-Baden 1997, Art. 14 N 2.
  25. Compare Regulation, supra note 31, with the draft version of June 21, 2013, supra note 32.
  26. Despite the European Union not being a member of the ECHR, it accedes its provisions according to Art. 6 par. 2 Treaty on the European Union.
  27. Rolf H. Weber/Markus Sommerhalder, Das Recht der personenbezogenen Information, Zurich 2007, p. 97.
  28. Cf. ECJ, Case 101/01, Lindqvist, [2003] para. 86.
  29. Dammann/Simitis, supra note 37, Art. 12 N 16; Eugen Ehmann/ Marcus Helfrich, EG-Datenschutzrichtlinie Kurzkommentar, Köln 1999, Art. 12 N 52 et seqq.
  30. Dammann/Simitis, supra note 37, Art. 12 N 16.
  31. Dammann/Simitis, supra note 37, Art. 12 N 16.
  32. Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), Official Journal L 201 , 31/07/2002 P. 0037 -0047.
  33. Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market ('Directive on electronic commerce'), Official Journal L 178 , 17/07/2000 P. 0001 -0016.
  34. Cf. also Recital 22, 23, 26, 27, 28 of the Directive 2002/58/EC.
  35. Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González, ECJ, C-131/12, Reference to a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional 9.3.2012; the term "right to be forgotten" is understood as a right according to which "information should not be known to internet users when he considers that it might be prejudicial to him or he wishes it to be consigned to oblivion, even though the information in question has been lawfully published by third parties".
  36. Georgios Gounalakis, Privacy and the Media -A comparative perspective, Munich 2000, p. 74.
  37. Official French title: Loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberté de la presse.
  38. Beverley-Smith/Ohly/ Lucas-Schloetter, supra note 8, p. 149.
  39. Beverley-Smith/Ohly/ Lucas-Schloetter, supra note 8, p. 150; Mara Chromik, Die Entscheidungskriterien des Zivilrechts bei der Abwägung von Privatsphärenschutz und öffentlichem Informationsinteresse: Eine rechtsvergleichende
  40. Untersuchung zum deutschen, französischen und spanischen Recht, Munich 2011, pp. 3-4.
  41. Roseline Letteron, Droit à l'oubli, Revue de droit public de la science politique en France et à l'étranger, 1996 n° 2, p. 385- 424, p. 415, 419.
  42. Letteron, supra note 54, p. 423.
  43. Cour d'Appel de Paris, 15.3.1967, Delle Segret, c. Soc. Rome Paris Film, JCP 1967, 15107; cf. Françcois Rigaux, La protection de la vie privée et des autres biens de la personnalité, Bruxelles/Paris 1990, p. 462 N. 403.
  44. Beverley-Smith/Ohly/ Lucas-Schloetter, supra note 8, p. 174.
  45. Beverley-Smith/Ohly/ Lucas-Schloetter, supra note 8, p. 178, with reference to case law in Fn. 130.
  46. Cass.civ. 1°, 20.11.1990, Mme. Monanges c. Kern, JCP II, 21908; decision available in French at: http://www.legifrance.gouv. fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURIT EXT000007025328&fastReqId=1356475608&fastPos=1; For an in-depth analysis, cf: Letteron, supra note 54, pp. 385 et seqq.; Beverley-Smith/Ohly/ Lucas-Schloetter, supra note 8, p. 179. Paris, 8.9.2010, M.X. vs. Google and Eric Schmidt, decision available in French at: http://www.legalis.net/spip. php?page=jurisprudence-decision&id_article=2985.
  47. 63 Court d'appel de Paris, 9.12.2009, Direct Energie vs. Google, decision available in French at: http://www.legalis.net/spip. php?page=breves-article&id_article=2804.
  48. Court d'appel Paris 14.12.2011, Lyonnaise de Garantie vs. Google and Eric Schmidt, decision in French available at: http://www.legalis.net/spip. php?page=jurisprudence-decision&id_article=3303.
  49. Weber, supra note 14, p. 123.
  50. Christiane Féral-Schuhl, Cyberdroit -Le droit à l'épreuve de l'Internet, 6 th Edition., Paris 2010, p. 35.
  51. Cf. Loi n°2004-801 du 6 août 2004 relative à la protection des personnes physiques à l'égard des traîtments de données à carctère personnel physiques et modifiant la loi n°78/17 du 6 janvier 1978.
  52. Cf. e.g. case Court d'appel de Paris, 9.12.2009, Direct Energie v. Google, based on Arts. 1382-1384 French Civil Code.
  53. Tribunal de grande instance de Montpellier, 28.10.2010, Mme. C. v. Google, decision in French available at: http://www.legalis. net/spip.php?page=jurisprudence-decision&id_article=3121.
  54. 2012, Diana Z. v. Google, decision in French available at: http://www.legalis. net/spip.php?page=jurisprudence-decision&id_article=3357.
  55. 71 Loi n° 2004-575 du 21 juin 2004 pour la confiance dans l'économie numérique; Art. 6 is the implementation of Art. 14 of the Directive 2000/31/EC into French law; Federica Casarosa, Wikipedia: Exemption from Liability in Case of Immediate Removal of Unlawful Materials, SCRIPTed Vol. 6, Issue 3, 2009, pp. 670-676, pp. 671 et seqq.
  56. Casarosa, supra note 71, pp. 671 et seqq.
  57. Féral-Schuhl, supra note 66, p. 801.
  58. High Court of Justice, Mosley v. News Group Newspapers [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB), available at: http://news.bbc. co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_07_08mosleyvnewsgroup. , 29.4.2008, unpublished.
  59. Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 6.11.2013, RG 11/07970, Max M. v. Google Inc. and Google France, decision in French available at: http://www.legalis.net/spip. php?page=jurisprudence-decision&id_article=3909.
  60. Beverley-Smith/Ohly/Lucas-Schloetter, supra note 8, pp. 100 et seqq; The existence of this general personality right was contested for a very long time. It was claimed that only certain aspects of the right to personality such as the right to one's name or image could enjoy legal protection; cf. Ansgar Staudinger, in: Hk-BGB, 7 th Edition, § 823 N 90, Baden-Baden 2012.
  61. Chromik, supra note 53, p. 4 et seq.
  62. Emanuel H. Burkhardt, Chapter 5, in: Wenzel et al. (eds.), Das Recht der Wort-und Bildberichterstattung, 5 th Edition, Köln 2003, pp. 135 et seqq.
  63. Cf. e.g. Bundesverfassungsgericht, 30, 173, 24.3.1971, Mephisto, decision available in German at: http://openjur.de/u/31670. html. In this decision, the right of oblivion of a deceased "public figure" was demanded by a family member. The publication of the book in which the fictional story was told was prohibited based on the argument that the family member's privacy was infringed upon by such a publication. Moreover, the court refused to assess the freedom of expression since "arts and expression are two different things".
  64. Cf. Bundesverfassungsgericht, 35, 202, 5.6.1973, Lebach I, decision available in German at: http://www.servat.unibe. ch/dfr/bv035202.html.
  65. Bundesverfassungsgericht, 1 BvR 348/98, 25.11.1999, Lebach II, decision in German available at: https://openjur.de/u/182101. html.
  66. Kammergericht Berlin, 9 W 132/01, 19.10.2001, AfP 2001, 561, Hooligan, decision in German available at: http://www.jurpc. de/jurpc/show?id=20030022.
  67. Kammergericht Berlin, 9 W 132/01, 19.10.2001, AfP 2001, 561, Hooligan, decision in German available at: http://www.jurpc. de/jurpc/show?id=20030022.
  68. Oberlandesgericht Hamburg, 28.03.2007, Az. 7 W 9/07, http://www.telemedicus.info/urteile/Allgemeines- Persoenlichkeitsrecht/Personen-der-Zeitgeschichte/ Straftaeter/448-OLG-Hamburg-Az-7-W-907-Identifizierende- Berichterstattung-in-Online-Zeitungsarchiven.html.
  69. Bundesgerichtshof, VI ZR 227/08, 15.12.2009, Sedlmayr, (www. dradio.de), decision in German available at: https://openjur. de/u/70781.html.
  70. Bundesgerichtshof, VI ZR 245/08, 20.4.2010 (www.morgenweb. de);
  71. Bundesgerichtshof, VI ZR 346/09, 22.2.2011 (www.faz. net);
  72. Bundesgerichtshof, VI ZR 243/08, 9.2.2010 (www.spiegel. de);
  73. Bundesgerichtshof, VI 217/08, 8.5.2012 (www.rainbow.at).
  74. Bundesgerichtshof, VI ZR 191/08, 26.5.2009, Kannibale von Rothenburg, decision in German available at: http://openjur. de/u/72210.html.
  75. Court d'Appel de Paris, 15.3.1967, Delle Segret, c. Soc. Rome Paris Film, JCP 1967, 15107.
  76. Negotiated from 1970 until 1977, the BDSG was later revised in 1990 and again in 2001, incorporating the Union provisions of the Directive 95/46/EC; cf. Spiros Simitis, Einleitung: Geschichte -Ziele -Prinzipien, in: Spiros Simitis (ed.), Bundesdatenschutzgesetz -Kommentar, 7 th Edition, Baden- Baden 2011, pp. 77 et seqq.
  77. Cf. § 35 (5) BDSG.
  78. Oberlandesgericht Hamm, Az.: 6 U 238/99, 19.6.2000, NVwZ 2001, 235-236, decision in German available at: http://www.bfdi. bund.de/DE/GesetzeUndRechtsprechung/Rechtsprechung/ WirtschaftUndFinanzenVerkehr/Artikel/190600_ AuskunfteienGeschaetzteDatenKenntlichMachen. html?nn=408918.
  79. Bundesgerichtshof, VI ZR 196/08, 23.6.2009, decision in German available at: https://openjur.de/u/31109.html.
  80. Based on § § 823 par. 1, 1004 par. 1 S. 2 BGB analogous in connection with Art. 1, 2 par. 1 GG, resp. § § 1004 par. 1, 823 par. 2 BGB in connection with § 186 StGB.
  81. Oberlandesgericht Hamburg, 3 U 67/11, 26.5.2011, decision in German available at: http://openjur.de/u/167816.html.
  82. Oberlandesgericht München, 29 U 1747/11, 29.9.2011, decision in German available at: http://openjur.de/u/442290.html.
  83. Cf. Niko Härting, Bettina Wulff klagt gegen Google -Aus der Einbahnstrasse in die Sackgasse, Legal Tribune Online, 10.9.2012, available at: http://www.lto.de/recht/ hintergruende/h/bettina-wulff-klagt-gegen-google/.
  84. Oberlandesgericht Köln, 15 U 199/11, 10.5.2012, decision in German available at: http://openjur.de/u/462365.html.
  85. Bundesgerichtshof, VI ZR 269/12, 14.5.2013, Scientology, decision in German available at: http://openjur.de/u/627117. html; the High Court of Cologne subsequently applied the legal reasoning. While the suggestions were deemed to be privacy infringing, the claim for damages was denied. Cf. Oberlandesgericht Köln, Az. 15 U 199/11, 08.04.2014, decision 87 in German available at: http://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/olgs/ koeln/j2014/15_U_199_11_Urteil_20140408.html.
  86. Cf. Alessio Zaccaria/Mirko Faccioli, The Protection of Personality Rights against Invasions by Mass Media in Italy, in: Helmut Koziol/Alexander Warzilek (eds.), Tort and Insurance Law Vol. 13 on the Protection of Personality Rights against Invasions by Mass Media, Vienna 2005, p. 184. They state that "the right to privacy is one of the personality rights that (albeit not expressly governed by law) has been envisaged by legal authors and case law"; Massimo Farina/Fabrizio Voltan, La nuova privacy, Florì 2011, pp. 6 et seqq.; Gerolamo Pellicanò/Giovanna Boschetti, Italy, in: Monika Kuschewsky/ Van Bael & Bellis, Data Protection and Privacy, London 2012, p. 261.
  87. Cf. Christian von Bar/Ulrich Dobing, The Interaction of Contract Law and Tort and Property Law in Europe: A Comparative Study, Munich 2004, pp. 33 et seqq.; cf. also: Comparative Study on the Situation in 27 Member States as Regards the Law Applicable to Non-contractual Obligations Arising out of Violations of Privacy and Rights Relating to Personality, Annex III, pp. 87 et seqq., available at: http://ec.europa.eu/ justice/civil/files/study_privacy_annexe_3_en.pdf.
  88. Guisella Finocchiaro, Privacy e protezione dei dati personali - Disciplina e strumenti operative, Bologna 2012, p. 6. Codice in materia di protezione dei dati personali, Decreto legislativo 30 giugno 2003, n. 196. This code replaced the previous Legislative Decree n. 675, 1996; cf. also Farina/Voltan, supra note 102, pp. 6 et seqq.
  89. Cf. also Art. 11, (1c) of the Legislative Decree 2003/196.
  90. Cf. Elena Bassoli, Art. 7 -Diritto di accesso ai dati personali ed altri diritti, in: Guiseppe Cassano/Stefano Fadda (eds.), Codice in material di protezione dei dati personali, Commento articolo per articolo al testo unico sulla privacy D.legs. 30 giugno 2003, n. 196, Milano 2004, p. 67.
  91. Cf. Stefano Farra, Art. 11 -Regole generali per il trattamento dei dati, in: Guiseppe Cassano/Stefano Fadda (eds.), Codice in material di protezione dei dati personali, Commento articolo per articolo al testo unico sulla privacy D.legs. 30 giugno 2003, n. 196, Milano 2004, p. 92 citing Guilio Napolitano, Il diritto all'oblio esiste (ma non si dice), in Dir. inf., 1996, pp. 427 et seq.; cf. also Guiseppe Cassano, Il Diritto All'Oblio Nella Era Digitale, in: Guiseppe Cassano/Guido Scorza/Guiseppe Vaciago (eds.), Diritto Dell'Internet: Manuale Operativo, Wolters Kluwer Italia 2013, pp. 45 et seqq. Cf. Stefano Farra, supra note 108, p. 92.
  92. Elena Falletti, L'Evoluzione Del Concetto Di Privacy E Della Sua Tutela Giuridica, in: Guiseppe Cassano/Guido Scorza/Guiseppe Vaciago (eds.), Diritto Dell'Internet: Manuale Operativo, Wolters Kluwer Italia 2013, pp. 22 et seqq.; Farina/Voltan, supra note 102, pp. 6 et seqq. ; cf. also GianLuca Pedrazzini, Privacy, in Alberto Clerici (ed.), Manuale di Informatica Giuridica, Milano 2013, pp. 297 et seqq.
  93. Cf. with respect to rectification the Legislative Decree n. 47, 1948 ("Legge 8 febbraio 1948, n. 47, Disposizioni sulla stampa"); cf. also below the rectification right in the data protection act of Italy; cf. Finocchiaro, supra note 104, pp. 8 et seqq. stating, among others, that the Italian Supreme Court has established a right to be left alone in 1975 and that the right of reputation not only has close ties with the penal norms dealing with defamation but is also interlinked with the civil right of honor. Cf. Finocchiaro, supra note 104, pp. 16 et seq.
  94. Guiseppe Cassano, supra note 108, pp. 45 et seqq.
  95. Cf. Finocchiaro, supra note 104, p. 18; cf. also Cassano, supra note 108, pp. 45 et seqq., stating that the normative fundament of the right of oblivion in data protection law is found today in Art. 11 Legislative Decree 2003/196 (cf. paragraph below);
  96. Falletti, supra note 110, pp. 30 et seqq.
  97. Cf. Finocchiaro, supra note 104, pp. 18 et seq. 116 Legislative Decree n. 47, 1948 (Legge 8 febbraio 1948, n. 47, Disposizioni sulla stampa).
  98. Corte di Cassazione, I. Civ., n. 5259, 18.10.1984, http://www. dirittodellainformazione.it/materiale%20di%20ricerca/ sentenza_decalogo.htm.
  99. Corte di Cassazione, III Civ., n. 5525, 5.4.2012, decision available in Italian at: http://www.ilsole24ore.com/pdf2010/ SoleOnLine5/_Oggetti_Correlati/Documenti/Norme%20 e%20Tributi/2012/04/corte-cassazione-sentenza-5525-2012. pdf?uuid=11fb990c-7fc2-11e1-a8f6-20908e87732a.
  100. 119 Supra note 107; Translation by Giusella Finocchiaro, Italian Supreme Court: the right to oblivion to be protected with newspaper archive updates, April 23, 2012, http://www. blogstudiolegalefinocchiaro.com/wordpress/2012/04/ italian-supreme-court-the-right-to-oblivion-to-be-protected- with-newspaper-archive-updates/
  101. Cf. Art. 11 (1c) Legislative Decree 2003/196.
  102. Cf. Italian Data Protection Authority, Oblivion Rights, http:// www.garanteprivacy.it/web/guest/home/docweb/-/ docweb-display/docweb/1336892; Finocchiaro/Ricci, supra note 11, pp. 289 et seq.
  103. Robot Meta Tags allow programmers to control how a webpage should be indexed and served to users in the search engine's results. An explanation for how programmers may use Robot-Meta Tags to control page indexation is provided by Google, February 17, 2012, https://developers. google.com/webmasters/control-crawl-index/docs/ robots_meta_tag?hl=de.
  104. Italian Data Protection Authority, Decision December 11, 2008, Archivi storici on line dei quotidiani: accoglimento dell'opposizione dell'interessato alla reperibilità delle proprie generalità attraverso i motori di ricerca, Doc. 1583162, online: http://www.garanteprivacy.it/web/guest/home/docweb/-/ docweb-display/docweb/1583162; cf. also Finocchiaro, supra note 90, p. 21.
  105. Tribunale Ordinario di Milano, 31.3.2011, 10847/2011, Padova Maria Louisa, Google Inc v. Monanaro Romolo, http://www. piana.eu/files/Ordinanza.pdf.
  106. Tribunale Ordinario di Milano, 25.3.2013, 68306/2012, http:// www.oppic.it/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_ details&gid=490&Itemid=60.
  107. 126 This decision is in line with similar cases handled in other jurisdictions to which the Court expressly referred; among others, the Swiss Jura Cantonal Court, 12.02.2011 available in French at http://www.jura.ch/Htdocs/Files/v/11625. pdf/Justice/1_Instances_judiciaires/2_TC/Documents/pdf/ CC2010117.pdf?download=1; cf. Marco Bellezza/Federica De Santis, Google not liable for Autocomplete and Related Searches results, Italian court rules, EU Regulatory, April 5, 2013, http://www.portolano.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ Google-not-liable-for-Autocomplete-and-Related-Searches- results-Italian-court-rules-Rapid-TV-News.pdf.
  108. Cf. Is the EU compelling Google to become about. me?, Jonathan Zittrain, available at: http://blogs. law.harvard.edu/futureoftheinternet/2014/05/13/ is-the-eu-compelling-google-to-become-about-me/.
  109. Jonathan Zittrain, Don't Force Google to Forget, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/opinion/dont-force- google-to-forget.html?_r=0; Spain's everyday internet warrior who cut free from Google's tentacles, The Guardian, May 13, 2014 available at: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/ may/13/spain-everyman-google-mario-costeja-gonzalez.

Related papers

What now? Data retention in the EU after the ECJ ruling
Alessandro Guarino

N. Pohlmann, H. Reimer, W. Schneider (Editors): Securing Electronic Business Processes, Springer Vieweg (2014), 249-255, 2014

In its first part the paper recalls the history of data retention legislation in the European Union. The directive was born in the post 9/11 world, when fear of terrorism peaked. This is the context of the 2006 legislation and the subsequent implementations by the member states. The paper examines the directive and the rationale behind the two-years conservation of metadata. Further on the paper will examine the reasons for the directive annulment, its privacy implications and the proportionality principle. In its second part the paper maps the consequences of the repealing. At the policy level this marks a growing concern about civil rights and a more rational view of security necessities. Commission and Parliament will have to take this into account. On the other hand the national legislations that implemented the invalid directive are still in place and possible scenarios should be examined as to their validity. Repercussions will probably influence the data protection reform -voted by the European Parliament in first reading- and the Trade and Investment Partnership, for which negotiations are ongoing and that should regulate the data flows between EU and the USA. The new scenario will be important also for business, from the telco companies to the growing “Big data” industry, where data generated by mobile networks was to be leveraged for a lot of uses. As the major reason for the retention was criminal investigations, digital forensics will be influenced too, seen that the big datasets were a key enabler in many respects. The position paper ends with some proposals on what can be done now to rebalance correctly the security and investigation necessities with fundamental liberties, recognising that the directive was in fact unbalanced but also that some level of retention is probably needed. On the backdrop obviously loom the 2013 NSA scandals, from which we learned that also from anonymised metadata is very easy to identify individual users.

View PDFchevron_right
The Right to Be Forgotten in the Upcoming EU Data Protection Regulation
Albane Flamant
View PDFchevron_right
The EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation and the roots of the ‘right to be forgotten’
alessandro mantelero

Computer Law & Security Review, Volume 29, Issue 3, June 2013, Pages 229–235

The EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation has caused a wide debate between lawyers and legal scholars and many opinions have been voiced on the issue of the right to be forgotten. In order to analyse the relevance of the new rule provided by Article 17 of the Proposal, this paper considers the original idea of the right to be forgotten, pre-existing in both European and U.S. legal frameworks. This article focuses on the new provisions of Article 17 of the EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation and evaluates its effects on court decisions. The author assumes that the new provisions do not seem to represent a revolutionary change to the existing rules with regard to the right granted to the individual, but instead have an impact on the extension of the protection of the information disseminated on-line.

View PDFchevron_right
The Eu „ Right to Be Forgotten”
Andreea Seucan

Perspectives of Business Law Journal, 2014

The scientific paper aims at presenting the relevant legal aspects related to data protection in the EU (Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data) in view of the ruling of the Court of justice of the European Union (C131/12), the content of the judgement of the court, how it has been enforced so far by Google and its impact on EU citizen and future legislation.

View PDFchevron_right
The EU rights to privacy and personal data protection: 20 years in 10 questions: Discussion paper
Hielke Hijmans, Gloria González Fuster

The rights to privacy and to personal data protection, enshrined respectively in Art. 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU) (hereafter, the ‘EU Charter’), have been particularly powerful in determining the evolution of EU law and policy over the last years. On their basis, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) declared invalid the Data Retention Directive, advised against the conclusion of a negotiated agreement on the transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data to Canada, and brought down the major legal instrument allowing for the transfer of personal data to the United States (US). The CJEU has also asserted, on the basis of Art. 7 and 8 EU Charter, the existence of rights in the hands of individuals in relation to data about them processed by search engines. Judgments such as Digital Rights, Schrems and Google Spain8, but also the Court’s Opinion 1/15 on the PNR agreement between the EU and Canada, have demonstrated the importance of these two fundamental rights for EU law, also against the background of a continuously developing data- driven information society built on the massive of use of personal data.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved