Cyber-risques – Cybercriminalité – Nouveau monde

HOUSE OF LORDS – EU Data Protection law: a ‘right to be forgotten’? – 24 pages

A recent judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is wrong in principle, and the assumption of the Presidency that the ‘right to be forgotten’ exists has created an unworkable and unreasonable situation, says the House of Lords Home Affairs, Health and Education EU Sub-Committee in its report.

Chapter 1: Introduction 5
Introduction 5
The wider context 6
Chapter 2: The judgment of the Court of Justice 7
The factual background 7
First question referred for preliminary ruling: territorial scope of the Directive 7
Second question: Is a search engine a data controller? 8
Third question: the right to be forgotten 9
Box 1: Article 6 of the Directive 10
Box 2: Paragraph 94 of the judgment of the Court 11
Chapter 3: The consequences of the judgment 13
The task of the Committee 13
Should a search engine be classed as a data controller? 13
Box 3: European Parliament draft of opening words of Article 17 of the new Regulation (emphasis in the original) 14
Can the judgment in practice be complied with? 14
Box 4: Statistics from Google 14
How would the judgment affect the Information Commissioner and other European data protection regulators? 16
How would the judgment affect other data controllers? 16
The economic impact of the judgment 17
Chapter 4: Should there continue to be a ‘right to be forgotten’? 18
The Commission’s view 18
Box 5: Speech by Vice-President Viviane Reding, 22 January 2012 18
Box 6: Paragraph 90 of the judgment of the Court 18
Box 7: Answer proposed by the Commission to the third question 18
The view of the Information Commissioner 19
The view of the Government 19
Chapter 5: The views of the Committee 21
The impact of the judgment 21
Future negotiations on the data protection package 21
Conclusions and recommendations 22
Appendix 1: List of Members and Declarations of Interest 23
Appendix 2: List of Witnesses 24

Le document est ici