TFL Vsebine / Pravni letopis

Pri presoji kolizije med pravico do pozabe in svobodo izražanja je pomemben element vir spletnega mesta objave podatka, katerega izbris se zahteva, saj je treba upoštevati različnost položajev spletnih iskalnikov, izvornih spletnih mest in družbenih omrežij. Izbris podatkov, objavljenih na platformah družbenih omrežij, je mogoče v določenih primerih uveljavljati tudi na podlagi Direktive o elektronskem poslovanju. Ozemeljska implementacija izbrisne obveznosti ponudnika storitev spletnega gostovanja platforme družbenega omrežja ne bi smela presegati tistega, kar je nujno potrebno za varstvo oškodovanca, kar zahteva presojo od primera do primera. Odrejanje globalnih učinkov bi moralo biti zato extrema ratio. Izbrisna obveznost bi morala biti tudi časovno omejena. Nejasnost glede meril opredelitve enakovredne vsebine v zadevi C­18/18, Eva Glawischning-Piesczek proti Facebook Ireland Limited, postavlja vprašanje, ali ni dejansko uvedena obveznost uporabe (preventivnega) avtomatiziranega sistema splošnega filtriranja skozi zadnja vrata. Čeprav se morda na prvi pogled zdi, da Direktiva o elektronskem poslovanju omogoča širše pravno varstvo glede izbrisa on-line vsebin, podrobna analiza pravnih podlag za izbris Splošne uredbe o varstvu osebnih podatkov in Direktive o elektronskem poslovanju pokaže, da to ni nujno tako.

In the assessment of the conflict between the right to be forgotten and freedom of expression, the source of the site where the data to be erased is published represents an important element, since diverse positions of web browsers, source sites and social networks need to be taken into account. In certain cases, the erasure of the data published on social network platforms may also be enforced on the basis of the e­Commerce Directive. Territorial implementation of the erasure obligation of the social network hosting service provider should not exceed what is urgently required for the protection of the injured party, which calls for a caseby­case assessment. Therefore, imposing global impacts should have to be extrema ratio. Also, the erasure obligation should have to be time­restricted. The ambiguity regarding the criteria for the classification of equivalent contents in the case C­18/18, Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek versus Facebook Ireland Limited, raises the question of whether the obligation to use (preventive) automated general backdoor filtration system had actually been introduced. Even though it may appear at first glance that the e­Commerce Directive provides for a broader legal protection with regard to the erasure of on­line contents, a more detailed analysis of legal bases for erasure laid down in the General Data Protection Regulation and the e­Commerce Directive show that this is not necessarily

Social networks, media and the right to erasure