Publication: Derecho al olvido: precisiones en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia sobre su ejercicio y alcance
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2023
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
La sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de 8 de diciembre de 2022, Google (Déréférencement d’un contenu prétendument inexact), reafirma el significado del derecho al olvido y los fundamentos de su ponderación con el derecho a la libertad de información y expresión. Proporciona, además, precisiones de interés con respecto a dos aspectos de gran relevancia práctica. Por una parte, la sentencia aborda las particularidades de las situaciones en las que la pretendida inexactitud del contenido enlazado constituye el factor determinante al valorar si procede la supresión. Por otra parte, el Tribunal de Justicia aborda cuestiones específicas que suscita el que el derecho de supresión se ejercite respecto de fotografías mostradas como previsualizaciones por el buscador.
The judgment of the CJEU of 8 December 2022, Google (Déréférencement d’un contenu prétendument inexact) discusses the criteria for weighing the right to be forgotten against the right of freedom of expression and information and provides interesting clarifications with respect to two aspects of great practical relevance. On the one hand, the judgment addresses the particularities of the situations in which the alleged inaccuracy of the referenced content is the determining factor in assessing whether the removal is appropriate. In addition, the Court addresses specific issues raised by the exercise of the right of suppression with respect to the displaying, in the form of thumbnails, of photographs illustrating the referenced content in the list of results of a search.
The judgment of the CJEU of 8 December 2022, Google (Déréférencement d’un contenu prétendument inexact) discusses the criteria for weighing the right to be forgotten against the right of freedom of expression and information and provides interesting clarifications with respect to two aspects of great practical relevance. On the one hand, the judgment addresses the particularities of the situations in which the alleged inaccuracy of the referenced content is the determining factor in assessing whether the removal is appropriate. In addition, the Court addresses specific issues raised by the exercise of the right of suppression with respect to the displaying, in the form of thumbnails, of photographs illustrating the referenced content in the list of results of a search.