被遺忘權近期發展－歐盟法院判決週年後回顧與本土觀察

Recent Development of Right to Be Forgotten - Revisit After Anniversary of EUCJ Ruling on Google Spain Case and Observations on Local Evolvement

徐彪豪

《科技法律透析》 27卷11期 (2015/11) Pp. 50-70

摘要

2014年5月13日，歐盟法院針對沸騰以久的第C-131/12案(Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD))，以下簡稱Google西班牙案)作出判決。該判決對於歐盟個人資料保護指令(Directive 95/46/EC)的保護範圍作出解釋，媒體並認為此為「被遺忘權」(the right to be forgotten)的確立。在該判決公布後的一年內，美國、加拿大、日本、香港、台灣等非歐盟地區也都持續出現對被遺忘權的探討。而在我國，也出現要求搜尋引擎營運者刪除特定連結的案例。本文除扼要介紹被遺忘權在2014年透由歐盟法院確認的背景、其理論基礎與歐盟資料保護草案中的相關機制，並整理國際間近期的相關發展，包括歐盟資料保護第29條工作小組(Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data, Article 29 Data Protection Working Party)於2014年所提出的指導意見與由Google所邀請的獨立專家組成的「Google被遺忘權諮詢小組」(The Advisory Council to Google on the Right to be Forgotten)在2015年2月所發布報告。文末並將介紹與對照我國實務的判決，再以前述歐盟法院判決所揭示之原則，為簡易的比較與分析，希冀得作為我國資料保護管制實務未來因應之參考。

關鍵字

被遺忘權 ； 去列表權 ； 資料保護 ； 資料刪除權 ； 個人資料 ； 歐盟 ； 資料保存指令 ； 個人資料保護指令 ； 人肉搜索 ； 谷歌

並列摘要

On May 13, 2014, the European Union Court of Justice (EUCJ) published its ruling on the long disputed case, Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD). The ruling made interpretation regarding the scope of protection of Directive 95/46EC. According to the media coverage, this ruling confirms ＂the right to be forgotten＂. Within a year of the announcement of the ruling, discussion over the right to be forgotten (RTBF) appeared in the United States, Canada, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan and other non-EU zones. Moreover, there also has been a case in Taiwan where the operator of search engine was requested to delete some specific links. This article thus aims to introduce the background of how the right to be forgotten is confirmed via the ruling of the EUCJ and the theoretical discussion regarding the RTBF. In addition, the recent development is further elaborated, including the set-up of RTBF in the 2013 European Parliament version of drafted General Data Protection Regulation. a related guideline published by the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party in 2014 and a report published by the Advisory Council to Google on the Right to be Forgotten in 2015. Last but not least, a local case in Taiwan regarding the RTBF is introduced and a simple comparison and analysis is provided under the reasoning framework of the EUCJ ruling, with the attempt to offer future reference concerning the building-up of data protection jurisprudence in Taiwan.

並列關鍵字

RTBF ； Right to Be Forgotten ； droit à l'oubli ； delisting ； right to privacy ； right to erase ； search Engine ； on-line privacy ； data protection ； personal data ； EU ； Data Protection Regulation ； Directive 95/46/EC ； Google ； General Data Protection Regulation

參考文獻

徐彪豪(2014)。從歐盟法院實務看資料保護在智慧聯網時代下發展─以資料保存指令無效案和西班牙Google案為例。科技法律透析。26(8)，60-66。

楊立新、韓煦(2015)。被遺忘權的中國本土化及法律適用。法律適用。2015(2)，24。

An internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties, EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE, May 13, 2014, http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-05/cp140070en.pdf (last visited Jun. 30, 2015).

Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152065&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&c id=73997 (last visited Jun. 30, 2015).

Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 1995 O. J.(L 281) 31.