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 : 000015 ( PascalFrancis/Corpus ); précédent : 000014; suivant : 000016What 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 ; Anthony CornetteSource :
- Computer law review international [ 1610-7608 ] ; 2014.
Descripteurs français
- Pascal (Inist)
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
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.).
Notice en format standard (ISO 2709)
Pour connaître la documentation sur le format Inist Standard.
pA |
|
---|
Format Inist (serveur)
NO : | FRANCIS 14-0207319 INIST |
---|---|
ET : | 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 |
AU : | VAN EECKE (Patrick); CORNETTE (Anthony) |
AF : | University of Antwerp/Belgique (1 aut.); DLA Piper/Belgique (1 aut., 2 aut.) |
DT : | Publication en série; Niveau analytique |
SO : | Computer law review international; ISSN 1610-7608; Allemagne; Da. 2014; No. 4; Pp. 101-107 |
LA : | Anglais |
EA : | 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.). |
CC : | 790B07 |
FD : | Moteur recherche; Décision; Droit; Tribunal; Justice; Union européenne; Procès; Jugement; Vie privée; Information; Législation; Evaluation; Pertinence; Relation; Donnée; Google |
ED : | Search engine; Decision; Right; Court; Justice; European Union; Trial; Judgment; Private life; Information; Legislation; Evaluation; Relevance; Relation; Data |
SD : | Buscador; Decisión; Derecho; Tribunal; Justicia; Unión Europea; Juicio; Vida privada; Información; Legislación; Evaluación; Pertinencia; Relación; Dato |
LO : | INIST-27409.354000508268180020 |
ID : | 14-0207319 |
Links to Exploration step
Francis:14-0207319Le 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><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>University of Antwerp</s1>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>DLA Piper</s1>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Cornette, Anthony" sort="Cornette, Anthony" uniqKey="Cornette A" first="Anthony" last="Cornette">Anthony Cornette</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>DLA Piper</s1>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">INIST</idno>
<idno type="inist">14-0207319</idno>
<date when="2014">2014</date>
<idno type="stanalyst">FRANCIS 14-0207319 INIST</idno>
<idno type="RBID">Francis:14-0207319</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PascalFrancis/Corpus">000015</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><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>University of Antwerp</s1>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>DLA Piper</s1>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Cornette, Anthony" sort="Cornette, Anthony" uniqKey="Cornette A" first="Anthony" last="Cornette">Anthony Cornette</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>DLA Piper</s1>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</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>
</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>790B07</s0>
<s1>II</s1>
</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>
<server><NO>FRANCIS 14-0207319 INIST</NO>
<ET>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</ET>
<AU>VAN EECKE (Patrick); CORNETTE (Anthony)</AU>
<AF>University of Antwerp/Belgique (1 aut.); DLA Piper/Belgique (1 aut., 2 aut.)</AF>
<DT>Publication en série; Niveau analytique</DT>
<SO>Computer law review international; ISSN 1610-7608; Allemagne; Da. 2014; No. 4; Pp. 101-107</SO>
<LA>Anglais</LA>
<EA>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.).</EA>
<CC>790B07</CC>
<FD>Moteur recherche; Décision; Droit; Tribunal; Justice; Union européenne; Procès; Jugement; Vie privée; Information; Législation; Evaluation; Pertinence; Relation; Donnée; Google</FD>
<ED>Search engine; Decision; Right; Court; Justice; European Union; Trial; Judgment; Private life; Information; Legislation; Evaluation; Relevance; Relation; Data</ED>
<SD>Buscador; Decisión; Derecho; Tribunal; Justicia; Unión Europea; Juicio; Vida privada; Información; Legislación; Evaluación; Pertinencia; Relación; Dato</SD>
<LO>INIST-27409.354000508268180020</LO>
<ID>14-0207319</ID>
</server>
</inist>
</record>
Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Belgique/explor/OpenAccessBelV2/Data/PascalFrancis/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000015 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PascalFrancis/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000015 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien |wiki= Wicri/Belgique |area= OpenAccessBelV2 |flux= PascalFrancis |étape= Corpus |type= RBID |clé= Francis: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. |