英国的被遗忘权:英国和威尔士高等法院在NT1和NT2诉谷歌案中的推理案例说明以及GDPR时代的脱欧后前景

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW European Review of Private Law Pub Date : 2022-05-01 DOI:10.54648/erpl2022014
Eva Pander Maat, D. V. Maurik, Rosario Garza Islas, G. Piscitelli
{"title":"英国的被遗忘权:英国和威尔士高等法院在NT1和NT2诉谷歌案中的推理案例说明以及GDPR时代的脱欧后前景","authors":"Eva Pander Maat, D. V. Maurik, Rosario Garza Islas, G. Piscitelli","doi":"10.54648/erpl2022014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The joined cases NT1 & NT2 present the first claim before the High Court of England and Wales (the Court) on the right to be forgotten, established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the seminal Google Spain case. Both claimants, NT1 and NT2, had submitted a request for the de-listing of search results related to their prior criminal convictions. This case note considers how the Court was therefore faced with the question how to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the right to privacy, and, on the other hand, the publicity of criminal trials. In deciding upon this question, the Court notably weighed both EU and national law sources. It considered three main criteria: the nature of the offence, the public interest in the disclosure of the information concerned, and the rehabilitation of the claimant. This case note argues that the opposing conclusions reached in either of the joined cases are exemplary of the way these three criteria are embedded in the broader common law understanding of privacy and the concept of rehabilitation after criminal convictions. As regards the first criterion, on the nature of the offence, the joined cases suggest that if the offence does not involve dishonesty or is old and ‘not serious’, there is a greater chance that the Court does not consider it necessary for the information to remain public. As regards second criterion, on the public interest, it appears that if the claimant is active in public life in a manner related to the offences, this enhances the public interest in the information. Regarding the third criterion, on rehabilitation, it appears that the Court attaches great value to the concept of remorse for past convictions. The case note embeds these judicial considerations in the emphasis on ‘privileged principles of open justice’ in the English and Welsh common law jurisdiction, which have inhibited the post-war revolt to develop a strong right to privacy in civil law jurisdictions on the European continent. Finally, the case note reflects on post-Brexit data protection standards in England and Wales. Whilst assessing that courts will not be able to easily dismiss the relevance of CJEU case law on data protection, the case note identifies several stumbling blocks to lasting EU-UK equivalence on data protection laws and concludes that if anything, Brexit will diminish legal certainty for citizens and data subjects in England and Wales.","PeriodicalId":43736,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Private Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Right to Be Forgotten in the UK: A Case Note on the English and Welsh High Court Reasoning in NT1 & NT2 v. Google and the Post-Brexit Prospects in the GDPR era\",\"authors\":\"Eva Pander Maat, D. V. Maurik, Rosario Garza Islas, G. Piscitelli\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/erpl2022014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The joined cases NT1 & NT2 present the first claim before the High Court of England and Wales (the Court) on the right to be forgotten, established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the seminal Google Spain case. Both claimants, NT1 and NT2, had submitted a request for the de-listing of search results related to their prior criminal convictions. This case note considers how the Court was therefore faced with the question how to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the right to privacy, and, on the other hand, the publicity of criminal trials. In deciding upon this question, the Court notably weighed both EU and national law sources. It considered three main criteria: the nature of the offence, the public interest in the disclosure of the information concerned, and the rehabilitation of the claimant. This case note argues that the opposing conclusions reached in either of the joined cases are exemplary of the way these three criteria are embedded in the broader common law understanding of privacy and the concept of rehabilitation after criminal convictions. As regards the first criterion, on the nature of the offence, the joined cases suggest that if the offence does not involve dishonesty or is old and ‘not serious’, there is a greater chance that the Court does not consider it necessary for the information to remain public. As regards second criterion, on the public interest, it appears that if the claimant is active in public life in a manner related to the offences, this enhances the public interest in the information. Regarding the third criterion, on rehabilitation, it appears that the Court attaches great value to the concept of remorse for past convictions. The case note embeds these judicial considerations in the emphasis on ‘privileged principles of open justice’ in the English and Welsh common law jurisdiction, which have inhibited the post-war revolt to develop a strong right to privacy in civil law jurisdictions on the European continent. Finally, the case note reflects on post-Brexit data protection standards in England and Wales. Whilst assessing that courts will not be able to easily dismiss the relevance of CJEU case law on data protection, the case note identifies several stumbling blocks to lasting EU-UK equivalence on data protection laws and concludes that if anything, Brexit will diminish legal certainty for citizens and data subjects in England and Wales.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43736,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Review of Private Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Review of Private Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/erpl2022014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Review of Private Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/erpl2022014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

合并案件NT1和NT2向英格兰和威尔士高等法院(法院)提出了关于被遗忘权的第一项主张,该权利由欧盟法院(CJEU)在开创性的谷歌西班牙案中确立。NT1和NT2这两个索赔人都提交了一份请求,要求将与他们以前的刑事定罪有关的搜索结果除名。本案例说明考虑了法院因此如何面对如何在隐私权和刑事审判公开之间取得平衡的问题。在对这个问题作出裁决时,法院特别权衡了欧盟和国家法律来源。它考虑了三个主要标准:犯罪的性质、披露有关信息的公共利益以及索赔人的康复。本案例说明认为,在两个合并案件中得出的相反结论都是这三个标准嵌入普通法对隐私和刑事定罪后康复概念的更广泛理解的典范。关于第一个标准,即关于罪行的性质,合并的案件表明,如果罪行不涉及不诚实或是陈旧且“不严重”的,法院认为没有必要公开这些信息的可能性更大。关于第二个标准,关于公众利益,如果索赔人以与犯罪有关的方式活跃在公共生活中,这似乎会增强公众对信息的兴趣。关于关于改造的第三个标准,法院似乎非常重视对过去定罪的悔过概念。案例说明将这些司法考虑嵌入了英国和威尔士普通法管辖区对“公开司法的特权原则”的强调中,这抑制了战后在欧洲大陆大陆民法管辖区发展强大隐私权的反抗。最后,案例说明反映了英国脱欧后英格兰和威尔士的数据保护标准。在评估法院无法轻易否定CJEU判例法在数据保护方面的相关性的同时,该案例说明确定了欧盟与英国在数据保护法方面持久对等的几个障碍,并得出结论,如果有什么不同的话,英国脱欧将降低英格兰和威尔士公民和数据主体的法律确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Right to Be Forgotten in the UK: A Case Note on the English and Welsh High Court Reasoning in NT1 & NT2 v. Google and the Post-Brexit Prospects in the GDPR era
The joined cases NT1 & NT2 present the first claim before the High Court of England and Wales (the Court) on the right to be forgotten, established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the seminal Google Spain case. Both claimants, NT1 and NT2, had submitted a request for the de-listing of search results related to their prior criminal convictions. This case note considers how the Court was therefore faced with the question how to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the right to privacy, and, on the other hand, the publicity of criminal trials. In deciding upon this question, the Court notably weighed both EU and national law sources. It considered three main criteria: the nature of the offence, the public interest in the disclosure of the information concerned, and the rehabilitation of the claimant. This case note argues that the opposing conclusions reached in either of the joined cases are exemplary of the way these three criteria are embedded in the broader common law understanding of privacy and the concept of rehabilitation after criminal convictions. As regards the first criterion, on the nature of the offence, the joined cases suggest that if the offence does not involve dishonesty or is old and ‘not serious’, there is a greater chance that the Court does not consider it necessary for the information to remain public. As regards second criterion, on the public interest, it appears that if the claimant is active in public life in a manner related to the offences, this enhances the public interest in the information. Regarding the third criterion, on rehabilitation, it appears that the Court attaches great value to the concept of remorse for past convictions. The case note embeds these judicial considerations in the emphasis on ‘privileged principles of open justice’ in the English and Welsh common law jurisdiction, which have inhibited the post-war revolt to develop a strong right to privacy in civil law jurisdictions on the European continent. Finally, the case note reflects on post-Brexit data protection standards in England and Wales. Whilst assessing that courts will not be able to easily dismiss the relevance of CJEU case law on data protection, the case note identifies several stumbling blocks to lasting EU-UK equivalence on data protection laws and concludes that if anything, Brexit will diminish legal certainty for citizens and data subjects in England and Wales.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
33.30%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Scope of Application of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive: Is It Time for a New Compromise? Remedies for Unfair Terms in Light of the General Principles of EU Law The Unfairness Test: From Sleeping Beauty to Little Mermaid The Objectives of Directive 93/13/EEC on Unfair Contract Terms: An Overview after 30 Years of Case Law Lost in information - The Transparency Dogma of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive
×
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