Précédent 2 / 18 Next

012314350 6789ÿÿ ,ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ./0ÿ1233455426ÿ67.426780ÿ90ÿ8:46;2<37.4=>0ÿ0.ÿ905ÿ84?0<.@5ÿA1BCDEFÿ?GÿCHÿI78=>0JK40<<2.46FÿLHÿD0554 769ÿMHÿD0ÿM<769Fÿ7N.46Oÿ75ÿPO06.5F ,ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿQ4R430947ÿI2>697.426ÿC6NHFÿ?Gÿ1HÿS7304TJU0O>46Fÿ7V2N7.0F ,ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ./0ÿI2697.426ÿW2><ÿ87ÿ84?0<.@ÿ90ÿ87ÿW<0550Fÿ?GÿXHÿY775Fÿ7V2N7.F ,ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿZ4N<252;.ÿ12<WHFÿ?Gÿ[HÿK4\64N7Fÿ7V2N7.F ,ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ./0ÿS0W2<.0<5ÿ12334..00ÿ;2<ÿI<00923ÿ2;ÿ./0ÿK<055ÿ769ÿ]./0<5Fÿ?GÿIHÿD2>45Fÿ7V2N7.Fÿ769ÿ?GÿYH^ MHÿ_73766Fÿ1HÿUN/\0980<ÿ769ÿZHÿ̀<7>6FÿS0N/.576\a8.0F ,ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿP<.4N80ÿbcÿ769ÿ]./0<5Fÿ?GÿMHÿX7W40Fÿ7V2N7.FÿMHÿI7N0667ÿd1Fÿ769ÿ[HÿZ0.N78;0Fÿ̀7<<45.0<F ,ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿC6.0<60.ÿI<00923ÿI2>697.426ÿ769ÿ]./0<5Fÿ?GÿXHÿY775Fÿ7V2N7.F ,ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ./0ÿe@;0650><ÿ905ÿ9<24.5Fÿ?GÿLHÿX2>?26Fÿ7N.46Oÿ75ÿPO06.F ,ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ./0ÿI<06N/ÿM2V0<6306.Fÿ?GÿeHÿ12875FÿSHÿ120530Fÿ[Hÿ90ÿZ2>5.40<ÿ769ÿUHÿM/4769264Fÿ7N.46Oÿ75 PO06.5F ,ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿC<08769Fÿ?GÿZHÿ`<2\60FÿMHÿY29O0FÿLHÿd>760Gÿ769ÿPHÿL2GN0Fÿ7N.46Oÿ75ÿPO06.5Fÿ769ÿ?GÿZHÿM<7GF `7<<45.0<^7.^D7\F ,ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ./0ÿM<00RÿM2V0<6306.Fÿ?Gÿ[H^ZHÿZ732>67FÿMHÿK7W797R4Fÿ[Hÿf454ÿ769ÿUHÿK7W7427662>Fÿ7N.46Oÿ75 PO06.5F ,ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ./0ÿC.78476ÿM2V0<6306.Fÿ?GÿMHÿK78340<4Fÿ7N.46Oÿ75ÿPO06.Fÿ769ÿ?GÿSHÿM>4gg4Fÿ7VV2N7.2ÿ90882ÿU.7.2F ,ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ./0ÿP>5.<476ÿM2V0<6306.Fÿ?GÿMHÿ[?0</7<9ÿ769ÿMHÿ_>660<.Fÿ7N.46Oÿ75ÿPO06.5F ,ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ./0ÿK2845/ÿM2V0<6306.Fÿ?Gÿ̀HÿZ7hNgG67FÿZHÿK7\84NR7ÿ769ÿLHÿU7\4NR7Fÿ7N.46Oÿ75ÿPO06.5F ,ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ./0ÿ[><2W076ÿ1233455426Fÿ?GÿPHÿ̀>N/0.FÿYHÿ_<7606?2<Oÿ769ÿeHÿB7<94Fÿ7N.46Oÿ75ÿPO06.5F 7;.0<ÿ/07<46Oÿ./0ÿ]W46426ÿ2;ÿ./0ÿP9V2N7.0ÿM060<78ÿ7.ÿ./0ÿ54..46Oÿ26ÿbiÿL76>7<GÿjibcF O4V05ÿ./0ÿ;2882\46O klmnopqr bÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿX/45ÿ<0=>05.ÿ;2<ÿ7ÿW<0843467<Gÿ<>846OÿN26N0<65ÿ./0ÿ46.0<W<0.7.426ÿ2;ÿe4<0N.4V0ÿcstuvt[1ÿ2;ÿ./0ÿ[><2W076 K7<847306.ÿ769ÿ2;ÿ./0ÿ12>6N48ÿ2;ÿjuÿ]N.2?0<ÿbccsÿ26ÿ./0ÿW<2.0N.426ÿ2;ÿ4694V49>785ÿ\4./ÿ<0O7<9ÿ.2ÿ./0 W<2N05546Oÿ2;ÿW0<52678ÿ97.7ÿ769ÿ26ÿ./0ÿ;<00ÿ32V0306.ÿ2;ÿ5>N/ÿ97.7ÿA]LÿbccsÿDÿjwbFÿWHÿxbEH jÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿX/0ÿ<0=>05.ÿ/75ÿ?006ÿ3790ÿ46ÿW<2N00946O5ÿ?0.\006ÿM22O80ÿDD1Fÿ5>NN0552<ÿ46ÿ87\ÿ.2ÿM22O80ÿC6NHFÿ769ÿ./0 1233455426ÿ67.426780ÿ90ÿ8:46;2<37.4=>0ÿ0.ÿ905ÿ84?0<.@5ÿAI<06N/ÿe7.7ÿK<2.0N.426ÿP>./2<4.GFÿI<76N0EÿAy./0 1BCD:EÿN26N0<646Oÿ7ÿW0678.Gÿ2;ÿ[zSÿbiiÿiiiÿ43W2509ÿ?Gÿ./0ÿ1BCDÿ26ÿM22O80ÿ?0N7>50ÿ2;ÿ./7.ÿN23W76G:5 <0;>578Fÿ\/06ÿO<76.46Oÿ7ÿ90^<0;0<06N46Oÿ<0=>05.Fÿ.2ÿ7WW8Gÿ4.ÿ.2ÿ788ÿ4.5ÿ507<N/ÿ06O460:5ÿ923746ÿ6730 0T.0654265H ÿ|pn}~ÿqrpr ÿÿÿ 111 45!53"#$##%& '(#5# # )6#&9$ 3# 54*!+ 415!

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

Google LLC v. National Commission on Informatics and Liberty (CNIL)

Case Law

Country

France

Country Location

Latitude: 46.808568018841505

Longitude: 2.799314618110868

Country Location (Lié Case Law): France

Decision Date: 24 sept. 2019

Case Status: Affaire Résolue

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Admissible

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Advisory Opinion/Preliminary Ruling

Keywords

Data Protection and Retention
Privacy
Right to be Forgotten
Search Engines

Judicial Body: Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)

Court Name: Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Case Number: C‑507/17

Case Summary: The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union held that existing EU law did not oblige Google to carry out an order to de-reference search results on all versions of its search engine. The case originated in France after the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) fined Google LLC for failing to globally de-reference information concerning a data subject. The Court explained that EU law establishing and regulating the right to be de-referenced (right to be forgotten) was silent about the geographic scope of de-referencing orders. The Court held that in principle the de-referencing was supposed to be carried out in respect of all the Member States, but since privacy protections were not reconciled across the EU, it was up to courts and other relevant bodies in each Member State to decide the breadth of the de-referencing. The Court did not rule that Google could never be obliged to carry out a de-referencing order globally, but it was up to a court to decide when this was appropriate.

Case Significance: The judgment is positive for freedom of expression since it makes it less onerous for search engine operators to comply with “a right to be forgotten” obligations. However, the judgment contracts the right to privacy since, in this globalised internet environment, the access by internet users located outside the EU to the de-referenced links in question is likely to defeat the purpose of giving the person involved a reputational ‘blank slate.’

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Since the judgment came in light of a request for a Preliminary Ruling by the Council of State (France), the CJEU remanded the matter back to the national court to adjudicate the case on merits. However, as a decision of the Grand Chamber of the CJEU, the judgment has high precedential value.

Related Caselaw (self)

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 3 juil. 2024

Documents principaux

Judgment - Grand Chamber
Somali
Télécharger Vue

Fichiers de support

Written Observations of Article 19 And Others592.06 kB

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

Google LLC v. National Commission on Informatics and Liberty (CNIL)

Documents principaux

Fichiers de support

Notifications