法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 歐盟被遺忘權的內國保障:德國聯邦憲法法院第一、二次被遺忘權判決評析(On the Protection of the Right to be Forgotten in the EU Member States: An Analysis on the German Federal Constitutional Court’s “The Right to be Forgotten” Decisions)
編著譯者: 蘇慧婕
出版日期: 2022.03
刊登出處: 台灣/國立臺灣大學法學論叢第 51 卷 第 1 期 /1-65 頁
頁  數: 65 點閱次數: 249
下載點數: 260 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 國立臺灣大學法律學院
關 鍵 詞: 被遺忘權一般人格權資訊自決權言論自由基本權第三人效力歐盟資料保護一般規則網路檔案庫搜尋引擎通知下架通知審查
中文摘要: 2014 年歐盟法院 Google Spain v. AEPD 判決開啟了歐盟被遺忘權的司法實踐和後續論爭。趁著這股浪潮,德國聯邦憲法法院就在 2019 年 11 月作成兩則分別涉及新聞媒體網路檔案庫和搜尋引擎查詢結果列表的被遺忘權判決。本文即以德國聯邦憲法法院第一、二次被遺忘權判決為對象,介紹並析述歐盟被遺忘權在內國的憲法實踐。
由於新聞媒體和搜尋引擎管制在歐盟法上的統合程度不同,德國聯邦憲法法院首先處理了歐盟基本權憲章和德國基本法的規範競合,以及歐盟法院與德國聯邦憲法法院的權限競合,並藉此確保它在歐盟基本權秩序中的功能地位。而在遺忘權實體內容的具體形塑上,聯邦憲法法院明確區分了一般人格權與資訊自決權的保障範圍,進而在資訊持續提供、隨時取用、易於拆解拼接的當代網路通訊條件下,提出資訊主體一般人格權和新聞媒體言論自由、搜尋引擎營業自由、公眾資訊利益衝突時的具體衡量原則。並從中導引出向新聞媒體和搜尋引擎請求「限制搜尋引擎透過姓名查詢結果之網站連結」的被遺忘權內涵。
由此觀之,第一、二次被遺忘權判決對於國家、新聞媒體、搜尋引擎、資訊主體等基本權四極關係,以及當中 6 種基本權功能衝突的逐一分析,極為成功地為「歐盟整合脈絡中的德國數位遺忘權」樹立了劃時代的里程碑。
英文關鍵詞: the right to be forgottenthe general personality rightthe right to informaional self-determinationfreedom of expressonthe third party effect of fundamental rightsGDPRdigital archivessearch enginesnotice and takedownnotice and review
英文摘要: Since the Google Spain v. AEPD decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) acknowledged the right to be forgotten (RtbF), there have been many discussions about this topic. The German Federal Constitutional Court (GFCC), along with the ECJ and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), recently issued two decisions on the right to be forgotten in the contexts of online archives of the press and search results of search engines. This essay aims to analyze these two decisions (RtbF I and RtbF II) and explain the reasons why they are called “a Magna Carta for the internet”.
After clarifying the issue of normative competitiveness between the EU Charter of Fundamental Right and the German Basic Law, the GFCC, for the purpose of giving shape to the RtbF, distinguishes the general right of personality from the right to informational self-determination, and weighs the former against conflicting rights and interests such as freedom of speech of the press, freedom to conduct a business of the relevant search engine and informational interest of the public in the framework of modern internet communications. Accordingly, the GFCC acknowledges a RtbF in the sense of a request to delist certain website from the results of a name-based search.
In short, because the GFCC not only makes a very clear analysis about the relations between the government, the press (the content provider), the search engine (the intermediary) and the information subject, but also gives a clear shape to the RtbF in these decisions, Rtbf I and RtbF II can be seen as a milestone in the development of a German RtbF in the context of European integration.
目  次: 壹、緒論:歐盟法院 Google Spain 判決的已決與未決
貳、第一次被遺忘權判決
 一、案例事實
 二、受理要件
 三、判決理由
參、第二次被遺忘權判決
 一、案例事實
 二、受理要件
 三、判決理由
肆、被遺忘權的德國憲法實踐:聯邦憲法法院第一、二次被遺忘權判決評析
 一、聯邦憲法法院在歐盟法多層級體系中的基本權審查權限
 二、一般人格權和資訊自決權的區分
 三、一般人格權損害程度的變因
 四、內容提供媒體和搜尋引擎業者的義務內涵與責任條件
伍、結論:第一、二次被遺忘權判決的已決與未決
相關法條:
    相關判解:
      相關函釋:
        相關論著:
        返回功能列