谷歌诉CNIL和被遗忘权:所罗门的判决

B. Martín
{"title":"谷歌诉CNIL和被遗忘权:所罗门的判决","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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