sh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Le droit à l'oubli numérique en Suède
Södertörn University, School of Social Sciences, Public Law.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5624-6152
2017 (French)Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Right to be Forgotten in Sweden 

Google has received about 15,000 requests for delisting regarding Swedish websites. Yet, in more than half of the cases the American search engine operator refused to remove the disputed websites from their results.

What kind of help may individuals to whom a request for delisting has been denied expect from public authorities expect from public authorities? In other words, how do the Swedish authorities apply the Google ruling? These are the questions we tackle in this paper, first by focusing on the manner in which the Data Protection Authority, the Datainspektion (DI), deals with the issue; then by looking on how the courts – in the current case, the ordinary judge – handle complaints against search engine operators’ decisions not to delist incriminated URLs.

The first section, dedicated to the theme of the right to be delisted and the data protection authority, begins with a brief review of the information provided by the Data Protection Authority’s website on the right to be forgotten and the manner to exercise it. We notice that there is a need for clearer information but that some improvements seem to be underway, not least concerning the right to erasure laid down in the General Data Protection Regulation.

The next two parts of Section 1 deal with the twofold procedure initiated in May 2015 by the DI towards Google, following complaints submitted to the Swedish authority. One part of the procedure concerns thirteen individual complaints selected by the DI that the Swedish supervisory authority required Google to review. The second part of the procedure consists of a general investigation of the way the American search engine operator complies with the European case law on the right to be forgotten. In a decision closing these two procedures on May 2nd 2017, the Data Protection Authority, assesses that in five of these cases Google’s reiterated refusal to delist websites from the search results were in breach of the Swedish data protection legislation and requires Google to delist the incriminated websites by August 2nd 2017. Moreover, the Swedish Data Protection Authority makes two recommendations to Google with regard to the procedure its removals-team follows when receiving a request from an individual to remove links. Additionally the DI requires Google to apply the right to be forgotten not only for search results on Google’s Swedish pages, but also on Google’s search engine for other countries that ”have such a relationship to Sweden and to the data subject that they cause an infringement in the privacy of the data subject”. The American search engine operator has three weeks from the date of reception of the decision for lodging an appeal to the administrative court.

The second section, entitled The right to be delisted and the ordinary judge, provides an analysis of the first Swedish judgment in the field. The court of first instance of Stockholm, in its decision from May 9th 2016, made upon the appeal of a businessman in the construction sector complaining about the refusal of Google to remove links to webpages publishing critical articles regarding the plaintiff, decided in favor of the search engine operator. We analyse this judgement with a particular focus, first, on the balancing of the interests the judge makes in the present case, as well as on the legality of the data processing, and, second, on the question raised by the defendant on the competence of the ordinary judge to prohibit the continued processing of data. On the first issue, the Swedish authority, taking inter alia into account the role of public figure of the plaintiff and the seriousness of the news outlets which published the incriminated articles, concluded that the interests of Google and third persons to diffuse and access information contained in the articles outweight the right to protection of privacy and the right of data protection of the plaintiff. Consequently, the judge assessed that the data processing wasn’t illegal. On the second issue of the competence of the ordinary judge to order the cessation of the listing of websites, we first review the different opinions on that issue before raising the question of the compliance of the Swedish legal framework in terms of the effectiveness of the application of the European ruling on the right to be delisted.

Our general conclusion is that it is too early to give a straightforward appreciation on the way the Swedish authorities apply the right to be forgotten. Indeed, we don’t know how the legally robust decision taken by the DI in May 2017 will impact its policy in the field of the right to be forgotten; will the DI, for instance, endorse more individuals’ complaints? Furthermore, to this date, there has been no decision on the right to be forgotten by the administrative court and only one by an ordinary court. In any case, the absence of obligation for the Datainspektion to forward individual complaints to search engine operators, if combined with a lack of power for the ordinary judge to order a delisting, would raise questions on the effectivness in Sweden of the application of the right to be forgotten.

 

 

Abstract [fr]

La société Google a été saisie de quelques 15 000 demandes de déréférencement concernant des sites suédois. Dans un peu plus de la moitié des cas Google a refusé de faire droit à de telles demandes. La question qui nous occupe est celle de savoir quel concours les autorités suédoises peuvent apporter et apportent en pratique aux individus déboutés de leur demande de déréférencement par un exploitant de moteur de recherche. Autrement dit, nous nous intéressons à la manière dont les autorités suédoises mettent en œuvre le droit européen en matière de droit à l’oubli numérique.

Nous examinons dans un premier temps la façon dont l’autorité de contrôle suédoise de protection des données personnelles, la Datainspektion (DI), s’acquitte de sa tâche de protection des individus face au référencement. Pour ce faire nous nous intéressons à l’information mise par la DI à la disposition de potentiels plaignants sur les droits dont ils disposent et les démarches à effectuer. Puis nous examinons, au travers de l’étude de la première procédure initiée par la DI à l’encontre de Google, au sujet de treize plaintes par elle sélectionnées, comment l’autorité de contrôle suédoise donne suite dans des cas concrets aux refus de Google de désindexer des sites mis en cause. Pour finir, nous nous intéressons à la procédure d’inspection générale mise en oeuvre par la DI sur la façon dont la Googles removal-team traite les plaintes qu’elle reçoit ainsi qu’aux recommandations et à l’injonction émises par la Datainspektion à l’encontre de l’exploitant de moteur de recherche américain dans le cadre de cette procédure.

Nous examinons dans un deuxième temps comment le juge judiciaire s’est positionné dans la première affaire de droit au déréférencement traitée par une juridiction suédoise. Pour ce faire nous analysons la manière dont le juge a effectué la pondération des intérêts en présence, ceux du plaignant, un homme d’affaires de la branche du bâtiment, d’un coté, et ceux de Google et des tiers, de l’autre. L’examen de cette affaire nous donne également l’occasion d’examiner la question de la compétence du juge judiciaire suédois d’enjoindre à un exploitant de moteur de supprimer des sites de résultats de recherche, question controversée et soulevée par la partie défenderesse.

Cette interrogation sur les pouvoirs du juge face au référencement, combinée à l’absence d’obligation de la Datainspektion de donner suite aux plaintes dont elle est saisie, nous amène en conclusion à poser la question de l’effectivité en Suède de la mise en oeuvre du droit au déréférencement tel que posé par le droit européen.

 

 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017.
Keyword [en]
Right to be forgotten, Google, supervisory authority, delisting, personal data, data protection
Keyword [fr]
Droit à l'oubli, Google, autorité de contrôle, déréférencement, données personnelles
Keyword [sv]
Rätten att bli glömd, Google, Datainspektion, personnuppgifter, dataskydd
National Category
Law
Research subject
Other research area
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-32494OAI: oai:DiVA.org:sh-32494DiVA: diva2:1110133
Conference
E-conference on the Right to be Forgotten E-conférence Droit à l'oubli, May 15- , 2017.
Projects
Privatlivet- Den undanskymda aspekten i svensk demokrati
Funder
Swedish Research Council, HS-2015-1
Available from: 2017-06-15 Created: 2017-06-15 Last updated: 2017-07-03Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

https://blogdroiteuropeen.com/tag/patricia-jonason/

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Jonason, Patricia
By organisation
Public Law
Law

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Total: 78 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf