Abstract:

The Google Spain ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union has received much attention (and criticism) both in Europe and the other side of the Atlantic. In this paper I present the decision, focusing on it novel elements and the issues of extraterritoriality. I analyse the problems of extraterritoriality as a function of jurisdiction relying on the presence or absence of links to the EU through the location of establishment, equipment or the target of business activity. Next, I discuss the arguments promoting and rejecting the global application of Rtbf by search engine operators. Finally, I consider extraterritoriality as a practical problem, the solutions offered by scholarship and national courts, as well as their effect on corporations.

References:

[1] VAN ALSENOY, B., KOEKKOEK, M., Internet and Jurisdiction after Google Spain: The Extra-territorial Reach of the EU’s “Right to be Forgotten”, in: Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies WP. Vol. 152 (2015).[2] BUCHMANN, J. (ed.), Internet Privacy. Options for Adequate Realization. Acatech study (May 2013).[3] BYGRAVE, L., Data Privacy Law: An International Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2014.[4] FOMPEROSA RIVERO, A., Right to be Forgotten n the European Court of Justice Google Spain Case: The Right Balance of Privacy Right, Procedure, and Extraterritoriality, in: Stanford-Vienna European Union Law WP. Vol. 19 (2017).[5] GULOTTA, R. ̶ HAAKON, F. ̶ MANKOFF, J., Curation, Provocation, and Digital Identity: Risks and Motivations for Sharing Provocative Images Online, in: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2012.[6] DE HERT, P. ̶ PAPAKONSTANTINOU, V., Why the UN should be the world’s lead privacy agency (28.04.2016.) https://iapp.org/news/a/why-the-un-should-be-the-worlds-lead-privacy-agency/[7] KUNER, C., Extraterritoriality and International Data Transfers in EU Data Protection Law. Legal Studies Research Paper Series. No. 49 (2015).[8] MARKS, D., The Internet Doesn’t Forget: Redefining Privacy through an American Right to be Forgotten, in: UCLA Entertainment Law Review. Vol. 23 (2016).[9] NAUGHTON, J., In the battle of free speech not it’s France v Google. The Guardian (09.08.2015.).[10] MOELLER, C., Respective Roles: Towards an International Treaty for Internet Freedom? http://www.global.asc.upenn.edu/respective-roles-towards-an-international-treaty-for-internet-freedom/[11] PEROTTI, E., The European Ruling on the Right to Be Forgotten and Its Extra EU Implementation. WAN-IFRA (14.12.2015.) https://ssrn.com/abstract=2703325[12] POST, R. C., A szólásszabadság amerikai hagyományának magyarázata. Wolters Kluwer, Budapest. 2017.[13] RYNGAERT, C., Symposium issue on extraterritoriality and EU data protection, in: International Data Privacy Law. Vol. 5 (2015).[14] SCOTT, J., Extraterritoriality and Territorial Extension in EU Law, in: The American Journal of Comparative Law. Vol. 62 (2014).[15] STUTE, D. J., Privacy Almighty? The CJEU's Judgment in Google Spain SL v. AEPD, in: Michigan Journal of International Law. Vol. 36 (2015).[16] SVANTESSON, D. J. B., Extraterritoriality and targeting in EU data privacy law: the weak spot undermining the regulation, in: International Data Privacy Law. Vol. 5 (2015).[17] SVANTESSON, D. J. B., Limitless borderless forgetfulness? Limiting the geographical reach of the ‘right to be forgotten’, in: Oslo Law Review. Vol. 2 (2015).[18] TASSIS, S. ̶ PERISTERAKI, M., The Extraterritorial Scope of the „Right to be Forgotten“ and how this Affects Obligations of Search Engine Operators Located Outside the EU, in: European Networks Law & Regulation Quarterly. Vol. 3 (2014).[19] TUTT, A., The revisability principle, in: Hastings Law Journal. Vol. 66 (2005).