OpenAccessBelV2, PascalFrancis, Checkpoint, bibRecord, 000001

What the CJEU has actually decided in Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Espanola de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González, No. C-131/12: An analysis of how this decision fits in with previous CJEU case law and how much is left for national courts to elaborate

Identifieur interne : 000001 ( PascalFrancis/Checkpoint ); précédent : 000000; suivant : 000002

What the CJEU has actually decided in Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Espanola de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González, No. C-131/12: An analysis of how this decision fits in with previous CJEU case law and how much is left for national courts to elaborate

Auteurs : Patrick Van Eecke [Belgique] ; Anthony Cornette [Belgique]

Source :

Computer law review international [ 1610-7608 ] ; 2014.

RBID : Pascal:14-0207319

Descripteurs français

Pascal (Inist)
- Moteur recherche, Décision, Droit, Tribunal, Justice, Union européenne, Procès, Jugement, Vie privée, Information, Législation, Evaluation, Pertinence, Relation, Donnée, Google.
Wicri :
- topic : Décision, Jugement, Information, Législation.

English descriptors

KwdEn :
- Court, Data, Decision, European Union, Evaluation, Information, Judgment, Justice, Legislation, Private life, Relation, Relevance, Right, Search engine, Trial.

Abstract

On 13 May 2014 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its decision in the case Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González (CRi 2014, pp. 77). Google Spain SL is a milestone judgment on the balance between privacy and the right of the public to access information. The judgment raises a number of important questions, including the territorial scope of the privacy legislation, the way of assessing which information must be considered to be "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to those purposes and in the light of the time that has elapsed", and the "opt-out" processing by search engines (including of special categories of data) which now seems to have been legitimised by the CJEU. After a brief introduction (I.), the article first lays out the material that was in front of the CJEU for evaluation (II.). In a second step the actual decisions on the 9 merits are assessed and interpreted against previous CJEU case law (III.), before the remaining open questions are summarised in a conclusion (IV.).

Affiliations:

Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)

to stream PascalFrancis, to step Corpus: 000006
to stream PascalFrancis, to step Corpus: 000015
to stream PascalFrancis, to step Curation: 000129

Links to Exploration step

Pascal:14-0207319

Le document en format XML

<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en" level="a">What the CJEU has actually decided in Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Espanola de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González, No. C-131/12: An analysis of how this decision fits in with previous CJEU case law and how much is left for national courts to elaborate</title>
<author><name sortKey="Van Eecke, Patrick" sort="Van Eecke, Patrick" uniqKey="Van Eecke P" first="Patrick" last="Van Eecke">Patrick Van Eecke</name>
<affiliation wicri:level="4"><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>University of Antwerp</s1>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
<country>Belgique</country>
<placeName><settlement type="city">Anvers</settlement>
<region type="district" nuts="2">Province d'Anvers</region>
</placeName>
<orgName type="university">Université d'Anvers</orgName>
</affiliation>
<affiliation wicri:level="1"><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>DLA Piper</s1>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
<country>Belgique</country>
<wicri:noRegion>DLA Piper</wicri:noRegion>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Cornette, Anthony" sort="Cornette, Anthony" uniqKey="Cornette A" first="Anthony" last="Cornette">Anthony Cornette</name>
<affiliation wicri:level="1"><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>DLA Piper</s1>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
<country>Belgique</country>
<wicri:noRegion>DLA Piper</wicri:noRegion>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">INIST</idno>
<idno type="inist">14-0207319</idno>
<date when="2014">2014</date>
<idno type="stanalyst">PASCAL 14-0207319 INIST</idno>
<idno type="RBID">Pascal:14-0207319</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PascalFrancis/Corpus">000006</idno>
<idno type="stanalyst">FRANCIS 14-0207319 INIST</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PascalFrancis/Corpus">000015</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PascalFrancis/Curation">000129</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PascalFrancis/Checkpoint">000001</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a">What the CJEU has actually decided in Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Espanola de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González, No. C-131/12: An analysis of how this decision fits in with previous CJEU case law and how much is left for national courts to elaborate</title>
<author><name sortKey="Van Eecke, Patrick" sort="Van Eecke, Patrick" uniqKey="Van Eecke P" first="Patrick" last="Van Eecke">Patrick Van Eecke</name>
<affiliation wicri:level="4"><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>University of Antwerp</s1>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
<country>Belgique</country>
<placeName><settlement type="city">Anvers</settlement>
<region type="district" nuts="2">Province d'Anvers</region>
</placeName>
<orgName type="university">Université d'Anvers</orgName>
</affiliation>
<affiliation wicri:level="1"><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>DLA Piper</s1>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
<country>Belgique</country>
<wicri:noRegion>DLA Piper</wicri:noRegion>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Cornette, Anthony" sort="Cornette, Anthony" uniqKey="Cornette A" first="Anthony" last="Cornette">Anthony Cornette</name>
<affiliation wicri:level="1"><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>DLA Piper</s1>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
<country>Belgique</country>
<wicri:noRegion>DLA Piper</wicri:noRegion>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<series><title level="j" type="main">Computer law review international</title>
<idno type="ISSN">1610-7608</idno>
<imprint><date when="2014">2014</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
<seriesStmt><title level="j" type="main">Computer law review international</title>
<idno type="ISSN">1610-7608</idno>
</seriesStmt>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Court</term>
<term>Data</term>
<term>Decision</term>
<term>European Union</term>
<term>Evaluation</term>
<term>Information</term>
<term>Judgment</term>
<term>Justice</term>
<term>Legislation</term>
<term>Private life</term>
<term>Relation</term>
<term>Relevance</term>
<term>Right</term>
<term>Search engine</term>
<term>Trial</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="Pascal" xml:lang="fr"><term>Moteur recherche</term>
<term>Décision</term>
<term>Droit</term>
<term>Tribunal</term>
<term>Justice</term>
<term>Union européenne</term>
<term>Procès</term>
<term>Jugement</term>
<term>Vie privée</term>
<term>Information</term>
<term>Législation</term>
<term>Evaluation</term>
<term>Pertinence</term>
<term>Relation</term>
<term>Donnée</term>
<term>Google</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="Wicri" type="topic" xml:lang="fr"><term>Décision</term>
<term>Jugement</term>
<term>Information</term>
<term>Législation</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">On 13 May 2014 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its decision in the case Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González (CRi 2014, pp. 77). Google Spain SL is a milestone judgment on the balance between privacy and the right of the public to access information. The judgment raises a number of important questions, including the territorial scope of the privacy legislation, the way of assessing which information must be considered to be "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to those purposes and in the light of the time that has elapsed", and the "opt-out" processing by search engines (including of special categories of data) which now seems to have been legitimised by the CJEU. After a brief introduction (I.), the article first lays out the material that was in front of the CJEU for evaluation (II.). In a second step the actual decisions on the 9 merits are assessed and interpreted against previous CJEU case law (III.), before the remaining open questions are summarised in a conclusion (IV.).</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<inist><standard h6="B"><pA><fA01 i1="01" i2="2"><s0>1610-7608</s0>
</fA01>
<fA06><s2>4</s2>
</fA06>
<fA08 i1="01" i2="1" l="ENG"><s1>What the CJEU has actually decided in Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Espanola de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González, No. C-131/12: An analysis of how this decision fits in with previous CJEU case law and how much is left for national courts to elaborate</s1>
</fA08>
<fA11 i1="01" i2="1"><s1>VAN EECKE (Patrick)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="02" i2="1"><s1>CORNETTE (Anthony)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA14 i1="01"><s1>University of Antwerp</s1>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="02"><s1>DLA Piper</s1>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA20><s1>101-107</s1>
</fA20>
<fA21><s1>2014</s1>
</fA21>
<fA23 i1="01"><s0>ENG</s0>
</fA23>
<fA43 i1="01"><s1>INIST</s1>
<s2>27409</s2>
<s5>354000508268180020</s5>
</fA43>
<fA44><s0>0000</s0>
<s1>© 2014 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved.</s1>
</fA44>
<fA47 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>14-0207319</s0>
</fA47>
<fA60><s1>P</s1>
</fA60>
<fA61><s0>A</s0>
</fA61>
<fA64 i1="01" i2="2"><s0>Computer law review international</s0>
</fA64>
<fA66 i1="01"><s0>DEU</s0>
</fA66>
<fA99><s0>ref. et notes dissem.</s0>
</fA99>
<fC01 i1="01" l="ENG"><s0>On 13 May 2014 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its decision in the case Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González (CRi 2014, pp. 77). Google Spain SL is a milestone judgment on the balance between privacy and the right of the public to access information. The judgment raises a number of important questions, including the territorial scope of the privacy legislation, the way of assessing which information must be considered to be "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to those purposes and in the light of the time that has elapsed", and the "opt-out" processing by search engines (including of special categories of data) which now seems to have been legitimised by the CJEU. After a brief introduction (I.), the article first lays out the material that was in front of the CJEU for evaluation (II.). In a second step the actual decisions on the 9 merits are assessed and interpreted against previous CJEU case law (III.), before the remaining open questions are summarised in a conclusion (IV.).</s0>
</fC01>
<fC02 i1="01" i2="X"><s0>001A01A07</s0>
</fC02>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Moteur recherche</s0>
<s5>04</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Search engine</s0>
<s5>04</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Buscador</s0>
<s5>04</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Décision</s0>
<s5>05</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Decision</s0>
<s5>05</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Decisión</s0>
<s5>05</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Droit</s0>
<s5>06</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Right</s0>
<s5>06</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Derecho</s0>
<s5>06</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Tribunal</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Court</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Tribunal</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Justice</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Justice</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Justicia</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Union européenne</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>European Union</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Unión Europea</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Procès</s0>
<s5>10</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Trial</s0>
<s5>10</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Jugement</s0>
<s5>11</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Judgment</s0>
<s5>11</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Juicio</s0>
<s5>11</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Vie privée</s0>
<s5>12</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Private life</s0>
<s5>12</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Vida privada</s0>
<s5>12</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="10" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Information</s0>
<s5>13</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="10" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Information</s0>
<s5>13</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="10" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Información</s0>
<s5>13</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="11" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Législation</s0>
<s5>14</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="11" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Legislation</s0>
<s5>14</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="11" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Legislación</s0>
<s5>14</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="12" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Evaluation</s0>
<s5>15</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="12" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Evaluation</s0>
<s5>15</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="12" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Evaluación</s0>
<s5>15</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="13" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Pertinence</s0>
<s5>16</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="13" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Relevance</s0>
<s5>16</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="13" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Pertinencia</s0>
<s5>16</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="14" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Relation</s0>
<s5>17</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="14" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Relation</s0>
<s5>17</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="14" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Relación</s0>
<s5>17</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="15" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Donnée</s0>
<s5>18</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="15" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Data</s0>
<s5>18</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="15" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Dato</s0>
<s5>18</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="16" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Google</s0>
<s4>INC</s4>
<s5>27</s5>
</fC03>
<fN21><s1>251</s1>
</fN21>
<fN44 i1="01"><s1>OTO</s1>
</fN44>
<fN82><s1>OTO</s1>
</fN82>
</pA>
</standard>
</inist>
<affiliations><list><country><li>Belgique</li>
</country>
<region><li>Province d'Anvers</li>
</region>
<settlement><li>Anvers</li>
</settlement>
<orgName><li>Université d'Anvers</li>
</orgName>
</list>
<tree><country name="Belgique"><region name="Province d'Anvers"><name sortKey="Van Eecke, Patrick" sort="Van Eecke, Patrick" uniqKey="Van Eecke P" first="Patrick" last="Van Eecke">Patrick Van Eecke</name>
</region>
<name sortKey="Cornette, Anthony" sort="Cornette, Anthony" uniqKey="Cornette A" first="Anthony" last="Cornette">Anthony Cornette</name>
<name sortKey="Van Eecke, Patrick" sort="Van Eecke, Patrick" uniqKey="Van Eecke P" first="Patrick" last="Van Eecke">Patrick Van Eecke</name>
</country>
</tree>
</affiliations>
</record>

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Belgique/explor/OpenAccessBelV2/Data/PascalFrancis/Checkpoint

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000001 | SxmlIndent | more

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PascalFrancis/Checkpoint/biblio.hfd -nk 000001 | SxmlIndent | more

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

{{Explor lien
   |wiki=    Wicri/Belgique
   |area=    OpenAccessBelV2
   |flux=    PascalFrancis
   |étape=   Checkpoint
   |type=    RBID
   |clé=     Pascal:14-0207319
   |texte=   What the CJEU has actually decided in Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Espanola de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González, No. C-131/12: An analysis of how this decision fits in with previous CJEU case law and how much is left for national courts to elaborate
}}

This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.25.
Data generation: Thu Dec 1 00:43:49 2016. Site generation: Wed Mar 6 14:51:30 2024

	Serveur d'exploration autour du libre accès en Belgique
	Attention, ce site est en cours de développement ! Attention, site généré par des moyens informatiques à partir de corpus bruts. Les informations ne sont donc pas validées.

Serveur d'exploration autour du libre accès en Belgique

What the CJEU has actually decided in Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Espanola de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González, No. C-131/12: An analysis of how this decision fits in with previous CJEU case law and how much is left for national courts to elaborate

What the CJEU has actually decided in Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Espanola de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González, No. C-131/12: An analysis of how this decision fits in with previous CJEU case law and how much is left for national courts to elaborate

Source :

Descripteurs français

English descriptors

Abstract

Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)

Links to Exploration step

Le document en format XML

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri