|Abstract:||The European Court of Justice has made an exceptionally large step towards the protection of privacy when it stated in the Google Spain case in 2014 that the search results based on a personal name of the individual constitute personal data, and that search engine managers are basically data controllers, and therefore they are obligated to delete and/or block the results searches that violate the rights of individuals to whom the data relates. Although the so-called “right to forget” was first mentioned in the aforementioned judgement, it cannot, however, be said with certainty that the individuals’ privacy on the Internet is completely protected. It has become challenging for the legislation to follow the extremely rapid development of technology and artificial intelligence, as information has become quite easily and quickly accessible.
However, the right has been criticised, both regarding the naming which seems misleading, and the implementation of the right in practice, as links to content will only be removed from European websites, and will continue to be displayed on websites for which European legislation does not apply (for example, in the USA). In addition, there are also many concerns about whether or not, and to what extent, could the right to forget present a threat to freedom of speech.
This thesis therefore addresses the analysis of the right to forget as regulated by the new Regulation on the protection of personal data (GDPR), and the question of whether this right actually allows individuals to exercise greater control over the management of their personal data on the web.
It is found that the right to forget, however, creates a certain degree of conflict between individuals’ privacy and freedom of speech. These are two fundamental rights that need to be weighed. However, what is most problematic about this, is the fact that this weighing is not left to state authorities, but rather to private entities i. e. companies whose purpose is to generate profits, which cast doubt on the effective protection of guaranteed rights.|