308
EVI LASKARI, HONORARY VOLUME
made be public in the past, although it is no longer relevant to the public’s cur-
rent informational needs, is seen as undue.
. The case law approach
a. Recognition of the right to be forgotten
aa. France
France’s National Commission of Informatics and Freedom (CNIL),
6
the authori-
ty in charge of protecting personal data and the private lives of its citizens, on nu-
merous occasions, has pointed out violations of the right to be forgotten
7
, stress-
ing that digital freedom cannot exist in any other way. Indeed, the CNIL recently
issued a seminal decision in relation to the dissemination of personal data and
the violation of the right to be forgotten.
8
The decision comments on the practice
of a webpage that published court decisions available to the public online. The
decisions were published exactly as they had been issued publicly including the
names of the parties involved in the court cases (witnesses, accused persons and
those convicted), contrary to the CNIL’s well-established position for the ano-
nymization of court decisions.
9
Notwithstanding the CNIL’s references to the fundamental importance of the
right to be forgotten, French legislation does not recognize this as a free-standing
right. In the course of the debate that has commenced in France with regard to
establishing the express protection of the right to be forgotten, the CNIL’s po-
sition is clear: In an online environment where the collection and disclosure of
readily accessible personal data to the public domain is constantly increasing, the
protection of the freedom of opinion and expression must go hand-in-hand with
6. The Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) is responsible for ensuring
that information technology remains at the service of citizens and that it does not jeopardize
human identity or breach human rights, privacy or individual or public liberties. The
Commission fulfils its duties in pursuance of the law of January 6, 1978 as amended on August
6, 2004.
7. Recommendation No. 1988-052 regarding the compatibility of laws 78-17 of 6 January
1978 on computers, files and freedoms and 79-18 of 3 January 1979, Schedule No. 9
Articles 99 - 27 on the automated processing of personal data that concerns the lending of
books and audiovisual and artistic works, Decision No. 2010-028 of 4 February 2010
allowing French banks to amend the conditions of processing of the central registry of with-
drawals of “CB” bank cards.
8. See Decision No. 2011-238 (LEXEEK).
9. See Decision No. 2001-057, containing recommendations on the dissemination of personal
data from legal databases.