Google v. CNIL and the Right to Be Forgotten: A Judgment of Solomon

B. Martín
{"title":"Google v. CNIL and the Right to Be Forgotten: A Judgment of Solomon","authors":"B. Martín","doi":"10.54648/gplr2020008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The EUCJ ruling on Case C-507/17 provides further clarity on the territorial scope of the right to be forgotten. The court interprets that the EU law does not require a search engine operator to attend the right to de-referencing on all the versions of its search engine globally, but only on those corresponding to all the Member States, but at the same time it also clarifies that a supervisory or judicial authority of a Member State remains competent to, after weighing up the legally protected interests, order (where appropriate) that the de-referencing is carried out on all versions of the relevant search engine. A decision that likely does not please either the search engines or the data subjects, and which drops a certain dose of uncertainty on the system.\nGDPR, right to be forgotten, right to de-referencing, search engines, territorial scope","PeriodicalId":127582,"journal":{"name":"Global Privacy Law Review","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Privacy Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gplr2020008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The EUCJ ruling on Case C-507/17 provides further clarity on the territorial scope of the right to be forgotten. The court interprets that the EU law does not require a search engine operator to attend the right to de-referencing on all the versions of its search engine globally, but only on those corresponding to all the Member States, but at the same time it also clarifies that a supervisory or judicial authority of a Member State remains competent to, after weighing up the legally protected interests, order (where appropriate) that the de-referencing is carried out on all versions of the relevant search engine. A decision that likely does not please either the search engines or the data subjects, and which drops a certain dose of uncertainty on the system. GDPR, right to be forgotten, right to de-referencing, search engines, territorial scope
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
谷歌诉CNIL和被遗忘权:所罗门的判决
欧盟法院对C-507/17案的裁决进一步明确了被遗忘权的领土范围。法院解释说,欧盟法律并不要求搜索引擎运营商对其全球所有版本的搜索引擎享有去引用权,而只是对与所有成员国对应的版本,但同时它也澄清了成员国的监督或司法机构在权衡法律保护的利益后,仍然有能力,命令(如适用)在所有版本的相关搜索引擎上执行取消引用。这个决定可能既不会让搜索引擎满意,也不会让数据主体满意,而且会给系统带来一定程度的不确定性。GDPR,被遗忘权,去引用权,搜索引擎,地域范围
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial: Key Privacy Concepts in the EU and Canada The Personal Data Under the GDPR: Concept, Elements, and Boundaries News: APAC Privacy News Collection of Personal Information in Canadian Law Case Note: Strengthening the Role of Google? Recent Developments in the Right to Be Forgotten Case Law of the CJEU (TU and RE v. Google LLC, C-460/20)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1