Skip to content

Keyword: right to be forgotten

  • «
  • 1
  • »

The search returned 2 results.

Google at the Kirchberg Dock. On Delisting Requests, and on the Territorial Reach of the EU’s GDPR (C-136/17 GC and Others v CNIL, C‑507/17 Google Inc v CNIL) journal article

Yuliya Miadzvetskaya, Geert Van Calster

European Data Protection Law Review, Volume 6 (2020), Issue 1, Page 143 - 151

Case C-136/17 GC and Others v Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) and Case C‑507/17 Google Inc v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL), Judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 24 September 2019 Google is of course no stranger to the courtrooms at the Court of Justice of the European Union. Data protection laws are far from the only EU law subject-matter on which it acts (competition policy is a sector that springs to mind). In this case-note, we combine the review of the Court’s judgements in both C-136/17 GC and Others v Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) and C-505/17 Google Inc v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL). Article 16 TFEU – Articles 8, 9, 12 and 14 of the Data Protection Directive – Articles 9, 10 and 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation – Articles 7, 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU

Challenging the EU's ‘Right to Be Forgotten’? Society's ‘Right to Know’ in Japan journal article

Frederike Zufall

European Data Protection Law Review, Volume 5 (2019), Issue 1, Page 17 - 25

This article asks the extent to which the concept of the ‘right to be forgotten’ has been received by Japanese law – or whether, to the contrary, Japan is challenging the EU's concept. In a 2017 judgment, the Japanese Supreme Court rejected a request for injunctive relief to delete search results from the search engine Google. The decisive argument focused on the public interest around the facts concerned: a crime committed by the applicant several years earlier. The court did not just award the right to freedom of expression to Google, but centred its decision on society's right to know – thereby putting society's interest before that of the individual. In the light of the pending adoption of the EU-Japan adequacy decision, this divergence from the EU concept raises doubts as to whether 'adequacy' can be achieved between legal systems founded on cultural differences. Can we still afford to base our legal regimes on different social consciousness in the era of a borderless Internet? Keywords: Data Protection Law, Japan, Right to Be Forgotten, Adequacy Decision

  • «
  • 1
  • »

News


Current Issue

Issue 4 / 2023