The Right to Be Forgotten in the European Union: Towards a Uniform Approach?

B. Zelger
{"title":"The Right to Be Forgotten in the European Union: Towards a Uniform Approach?","authors":"B. Zelger","doi":"10.54648/gplr2022003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to shed light on the application of the ‘right to be forgotten’ in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) as well as the German Highest Courts, that is, the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) and the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) from a fundamental rights perspective, thereby also considering the principles established by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). While the CJEU in its decision in Google Spain (Case C-131/12) established a rebuttable presumption of supremacy in favour of the right to privacy, the German Highest Courts have ever since acknowledged the equal weight of fundamental rights in order to ensure a fair balancing of the latter against each other. However, considering the CJEU’s decision in GC and Others (Case C-136/17), the Court has arguably shifted its approach, thereby getting closer to an actual fair balancing of fundamental rights. It will be argued that such change in paradigm arguably provides for an approximation of the latter approaches in favour of the approach of the German Highest Courts. Such development is welcome, not only because it is in line with the principles established by the ECtHR and thus provides for a uniform standard of protection of fundamental rights within the EU, but also because of the existing lack of a hierarchy of the respective fundamental rights concerned which, as a consequence and matter of principle, obstructs the presumption of supremacy of one over the other.\nartificial intelligence, GDPR, digital humanism, rule of law, human dignity, constitutionalism","PeriodicalId":127582,"journal":{"name":"Global Privacy Law Review","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","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/gplr2022003","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

This article aims to shed light on the application of the ‘right to be forgotten’ in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) as well as the German Highest Courts, that is, the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) and the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) from a fundamental rights perspective, thereby also considering the principles established by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). While the CJEU in its decision in Google Spain (Case C-131/12) established a rebuttable presumption of supremacy in favour of the right to privacy, the German Highest Courts have ever since acknowledged the equal weight of fundamental rights in order to ensure a fair balancing of the latter against each other. However, considering the CJEU’s decision in GC and Others (Case C-136/17), the Court has arguably shifted its approach, thereby getting closer to an actual fair balancing of fundamental rights. It will be argued that such change in paradigm arguably provides for an approximation of the latter approaches in favour of the approach of the German Highest Courts. Such development is welcome, not only because it is in line with the principles established by the ECtHR and thus provides for a uniform standard of protection of fundamental rights within the EU, but also because of the existing lack of a hierarchy of the respective fundamental rights concerned which, as a consequence and matter of principle, obstructs the presumption of supremacy of one over the other. artificial intelligence, GDPR, digital humanism, rule of law, human dignity, constitutionalism
在欧盟被遗忘的权利:走向统一的方法?
本文旨在从基本权利的角度阐明“被遗忘权”在欧盟法院(CJEU或法院)以及德国最高法院(即德国联邦宪法法院(Bundesverfassungsgericht)和德国联邦法院(Bundesgerichtshof)的判例法中的适用,从而也考虑到欧洲人权法院(ECtHR)确立的原则。虽然欧洲法院在西班牙谷歌案(C-131/12案)的判决中建立了有利于隐私权的可辩驳的至上推定,但德国最高法院此后一直承认基本权利的同等重要性,以确保后者相互之间的公平平衡。然而,考虑到欧洲法院在GC和其他案件(C-136/17案)中的决定,法院可以说已经改变了其方法,从而更接近于基本权利的实际公平平衡。有人会认为,这种范式的变化可以说是对后一种方法的近似,有利于德国最高法院的方法。这种发展是受欢迎的,不仅因为它符合《欧洲人权公约》所确立的原则,从而提供了在欧盟内部保护基本权利的统一标准,而且还因为目前缺乏有关各自基本权利的等级制度,这作为一个结果和原则问题,阻碍了一个高于另一个的推定。人工智能、GDPR、数字人文主义、法治、人类尊严、宪政
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信