首页> 外文期刊>International review of intellectual property and competition law >The ECJ's Decision in 'Planet49' (Case C-673/17): A Cookie Monster or Much Ado About Nothing?
【24h】

The ECJ's Decision in 'Planet49' (Case C-673/17): A Cookie Monster or Much Ado About Nothing?

机译:ECJ在'Planet49'(案例C-673/17)中的决定:一块饼干怪物或大约没有什么?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In "Planet49", the ECJ ruled that a pre-selected checkbox on a website (which the user must actively deselect to refuse consent) does not constitute valid consent under data protection law. In this context, the Court also provided guidance on the extent of the existing informational duties. It furthermore found that it does not make a difference with respect to Art. 5(3) ePrivacy Directive whether or not information that is stored or accessed on the terminal device of a user constitutes personal data. The majority of these findings is not surprising and in accordance with the values underlying today's data protection and privacy regulations. Unfortunately, the ECJ failed to address the role Art. 7(2) GDPR plays for online declarations referring to both consent and other matters. It thus missed a valuable opportunity to provide further clarity on how consent can be given in a way that is compliant with data protection regulations and user-friendly at the same time. Unfortunately, the Court was not asked to show a way out of the dogmatic Gordian knot arising from the German Telemedia Act, parts of which are still in clear contradiction to Art. 5(3) ePrivacy Directive.
机译:在“Planet49”中,ECJ裁定网站上的预选复选框(用户必须积极取消选择拒绝同意)不构成数据保护法下的有效同意。在这方面,法院还提供了关于现有信息职责的程度的指导。它发现它没有对艺术产生差异。 5(3)eprivacy指令是否在用户的终端设备上存储或访问的信息是构成个人数据的。这些发现的大多数并不令人惊讶,并根据今天的数据保护和隐私法规的价值观。不幸的是,欧洲委员会未能解决角色艺术。 7(2)GDPR参考同意和其他事项的在线申报。因此,它错过了一个有价值的机会,以便在以符合数据保护法规和同时用户友好的方式获得同意的进一步清晰。不幸的是,法院没有被要求出现出于德国远程信息法案所产生的教条戈尔迪结,其中部分仍然明确矛盾。 5(3)eprivacy指令。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号