GR Semicolon EN

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author
Binas, Ioannis
en
dc.date.accessioned
2015-06-29T14:57:42Z
dc.date.available
2015-09-27T05:58:06Z
dc.date.issued
2015-06-29
dc.identifier.uri
https://repository.ihu.edu.gr//xmlui/handle/11544/563
dc.rights
Default License
dc.title
The Impact of the ‘Google Spain’ Case (C-131/12) on the Right to be Forgotten
en
heal.type
masterThesis
heal.keywordURI.LCSH
Court of Justice of the European Union
heal.keywordURI.LCSH
Search Engines
heal.keywordURI.LCSH
Right to be Forgotten
heal.keywordURI.LCSH
Data Protection
heal.language
en
heal.access
free
el
heal.license
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
heal.recordProvider
School of Economics, Business Administration and Legal Studies, LLM in Transnational and European Commercial Law, Mediation, Arbitration and Energy Law
heal.publicationDate
2015-01
heal.bibliographicCitation
Binas Ioannis , 2015, The Impact of the ‘Google Spain’ Case (C-131/12) on the Right to be Forgotten ,Master's Dissertation, International Hellenic University
en
heal.abstract
The purpose of this work is to talk about the impact of the landmark decision is-sued by the Court of Justice of the European Union on 13 May 2014 on the right to be forgotten. With the Draft General Data Protection Regulation set to replace the Data Protection Directive and reform the EU data protection rules, this deci-sion brought Europe one step closer to this reform, recognising that in some cir-cumstances, notably, where personal information online is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive in relation to data-processing purposes, links should be removed from Google’s search index. We will review the fact of the ‘Google Spain’ case and discuss the Court’s findings on internet search engines and the right to be forgotten.
en
heal.tableOfContents
Title Page Preface………………………………………………………………………... iii Abstract………………………………………………………………………. iv Contents…………………………………………………………………........ v A. Introduction………………………………………………………………. 1 B. The right to be forgotten…………………………………………………. 3 B.1. The roots of the right to be forgotten in Europe……………………….. 4 B.2. The ‘Right to Erasure’ in the Data Protection Directive………………. 5 B.3. The Right to erasure in the draft General Data Protection Regulation.. 6 C. The Case C-131/12……………………………………………………….. 8 C.1. The facts of the case…………………………………………………….. 8 C.2. The questions referred to the CJEU……………………………………. 9 D. The CJEU on the activity of search engines as providers of content in relation to the Data Privacy Directive……………………………………… 10 D.1. The question…………………………………………………………….. 10 D.2. The CJEU’s response…………………………………………………… 11 D.2.i. On the first two sub-questions (a&b)………………………………...... 11 D.2.ii. On the last two sub-questions (c&d)………………………………...... 12 D.3. Search engines as data controllers……………………………………... 14 D.4. Which search activities are covered?................................................. 16 E. The scope of the right of erasure and the right to object in relation to the right to be forgotten…………………………………………………….. 17 E.1. The question…………………………………………………………….. 17 E.2. The CJEU’s response…………………………………………………… 17 E.3. What did the CJEU rule about? ……………………………………….. 19 E.4. What kind of searches are covered?................................................... 20 E.5. Grounds for exercising the right to be forgotten………………………. 21 LLM’13-14 THESIS IOANNIS BINAS vi F. The territorial scope of the Data Protection Directive………………… 22 F.1. The question…………………………………………………………….. 22 F.2. The CJEU’s response…………………………………………………… 22 F.3. How far territorially does the right to be forgotten extend? ………….. 24 F.3.i. The territorial scope of the Data Privacy Directive……………………. 24 F.3.ii. Territorial reaches of the right to be forgotten………………………… 27 F.4. A broad scope…………………………………………………………… 28 G. Summary of the Court’s findings on 13 May 2014……………………. 30 H. Implementing the right to be forgotten - The Article 29 Working Par-ty Guidelines……………………………………………………………........ 31 H.1. The Article 29 Working Party Criteria…………………………………. 32 I. Criticism against the right to be forgotten………………………………. 36 J. Conclusion……………………………………………………………........ 38 List of sources………………………………………………………………... 40
en
heal.advisorName
Kosta, Dr. Eleni
en
heal.committeeMemberName
Kosta, Dr. Eleni
en
heal.committeeMemberName
Stamatoudi, Dr. Eirini
en
heal.committeeMemberName
Komninos, Komnios
en
heal.academicPublisher
School of Economic and Business Administration,LL.M in Transnational and European Commercial Law and Alternative Dispute resolutions
en
heal.academicPublisherID
ihu
heal.numberOfPages
49
heal.fullTextAvailability
false


Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Related Items