With the judgement in the Google/CNIL case (C-507/17) the Court of Justice of the European Union has revived interest on one of the most debated issues of constitutional law in recent years, the right to be forgotten, reducing its scope. First of all, the essay tries to identify whether in the weaknesses of the Google Spain judgment and the wording of the GDPR, Article 17, there are the prodromes of the 2019 decision. Through a technological analysis it is then highlighted how ineffective the protection of the right to be forgotten is in the aftermath of the new judgement: it is also highlighted how the lack of attention to technology, ironically, seems to be the leitmotif of all the regulatory and jurisprudential interventions on technology in recent years, including the Facebook case decided by the same Court a few days later (C-18/18). In this context, does hard law does not risk abdicating its role in favor of soft law and self regulation of the so-called "Big Tech"? If so, what would be the risks for the protection of fundamental rights?
La sentenza Google/CNIL (C-507/17) della Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione europea ha riacceso i riflettori su una delle tematiche più dibattute del diritto costituzionale negli ultimi anni, il diritto all’oblio, ridimensionandone enormemente la portata. Il saggio parte da una ricostruzione dello status quo ante, per individuare se nelle debolezze della sentenza Google Spain e della formulazione dell’art. 17 del GDPR vi siano i prodromi della decisione del 2019. Attraverso un’analisi (anche) tecnologica viene poi messo in luce quanto inefficace rischia di essere la tutela del diritto all’oblio all’indomani della nuova pronuncia: si evidenzia così anche come la mancata attenzione alla tecnologia, in modo alquanto paradossale, paia essere il filo conduttore di tutti gli interventi normativi e giurisprudenziali in materia tecnologica degli ultimi anni, ivi incluso il caso Facebook deciso dalla stessa Corte a distanza di pochi giorni (C-18/18). In questa cornice, l’hard law non rischia forse di cedere ancor di più il passo alla soft law e alla self regulation delle cosiddette “Big Tech”? Con quali rischi per la tutela dei diritti fondamentali?
Il diritto all'oblio "preso meno sul serio" alla luce della sentenza Google/CNIL della Corte di Giustizia dell'Unione europea
Aldo Iannotti della Valle
2020-01-01
Abstract
With the judgement in the Google/CNIL case (C-507/17) the Court of Justice of the European Union has revived interest on one of the most debated issues of constitutional law in recent years, the right to be forgotten, reducing its scope. First of all, the essay tries to identify whether in the weaknesses of the Google Spain judgment and the wording of the GDPR, Article 17, there are the prodromes of the 2019 decision. Through a technological analysis it is then highlighted how ineffective the protection of the right to be forgotten is in the aftermath of the new judgement: it is also highlighted how the lack of attention to technology, ironically, seems to be the leitmotif of all the regulatory and jurisprudential interventions on technology in recent years, including the Facebook case decided by the same Court a few days later (C-18/18). In this context, does hard law does not risk abdicating its role in favor of soft law and self regulation of the so-called "Big Tech"? If so, what would be the risks for the protection of fundamental rights?I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.