English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 91913/122132 (75%)
Visitors : 25743003      Online Users : 178
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/124421


    Title: 記憶或遺忘,抑或相忘於網路-從歐洲法院被遺忘權判決,檢視資訊時代下的個人資料保護
    Remember, Forget or Be Forgotten on the Internet: Review the Personal Data Protection in the Digital Age Based on the Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union Regarding the Right to be Forgotten
    Authors: 張志偉
    Chang, Chih-Wei
    Contributors: 法學評論
    Keywords: 歐洲法院;被遺忘權;人格權;資料保護
    European Court of Justice;the Right to be Forgotten;Moral Rights;Data Protection
    Date: 2017-03
    Issue Date: 2019-07-24 15:58:41 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 歐洲法院(Europäischer Gerichtshof, EuGH)在二○一四年五月針對網路上的個人資料保護作成指標性判決,判定只要該當事人享有資料保護法上的刪除請求權,搜尋引擎業者Google即負有義務,將特定連結從其搜尋結果列上移除。文獻與媒體報導多簡稱為「被遺忘權」判決。本文旨在介紹並分析此一歐洲法院指標性裁判,並針對判決所肯認「特定搜尋結果不予顯示之請求權」(Anspruch auf Nichtanzeige bestimmter Suchergebnisse,下稱為「被遺忘權」)的論據加以探討。對此判決有基礎瞭解後,則試圖從我國憲法及德國基本法規範中探求該請求權的憲法基礎及其衡量因素;再者,本文亦探討如何將此一請求權具體落實於法律;最末則是評釋我國法院關於被遺忘權裁判,借鏡歐洲法院裁判的論理,探討個人資料保護法制上可能的繼受途徑,以作為本文的結論與展望。
    In May 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the "CJEU") issued a landmark judgment regarding the protection of personal data on the internet. According to the judgment, so long as the data subject has the right to request to remove his/her person data under the data protection laws, Google-the search engine company-is obliged to remove the links containing personal data from the search result list. The ruling has been dubbed the "right to be forgotten" by many academic literature and news reports. This article aims to introduce and analyze the landmark judgment of the European Court aforementioned. The basis of the "right to have specific search results not be displayed" (hereinafter referred to as the "right to be forgotten") recognized by the judgment is also discussed in detail. After laying out the basic understanding of the judgment, the constitutional basis and the factors to be considered in the balancing test from Taiwan's Constitution and German Basic Law are further explored in this research. In addition, the legislation and the implementation of the constitutional right is discussed. The final part of this research examines the court ruling regarding the right to be forgotten. For the conclusion and outlook, this article-having examined the court ruling-makes reference to the reasoning of the European court and explores the possible way to inherit the personal data protection law from the CJEU.
    Relation: 法學評論, 148, 1-68
    Data Type: article
    DOI 連結: https://doi.org/ 10.3966/102398202017030148001
    DOI: 10.3966/102398202017030148001
    Appears in Collections:[法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    44.pdf2147KbAdobe PDF39View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback