GLOSSES
Protection in Germany of the fundamental rights of the European Union (GrCH). Case note of the BVerfG (German Federal Constitutional Court) of 06.11.2019 - 1 BvR 16/13 concerning the interpretation of the fundamental rights within the Basic law with regard to non-fully harmonized EU law.
 
More details
Hide details
1
University of Bologna
 
 
Submission date: 2021-09-20
 
 
Final revision date: 2021-12-07
 
 
Acceptance date: 2021-12-08
 
 
Publication date: 2021-12-22
 
 
Corresponding author
Filippo Luigi Giambrone   

University of Bologna
 
 
JoMS 2021;47(2):523-541
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
With the groundbreaking resolution on the so-called right to be forgotten, the First Senate of the BVerfG has positioned itself in every respect as a contemporary guarantor of effective protection of fundamental rights. The bigger surprise is likely to be the reorientation of its role in cooperation with the ECJ. In the future, the BVerfG will also see itself as the guardian of individual protection of fundamental rights in national law that has been completely reformed under EU law. However, when reviewing the application of EU law by German authorities, the BVerfG does not fall back on the standard of the fundamental rights of the Basic Law, which have been superseded by the priority of application under EU law, but on the fundamental rights of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. In national law, on the other hand, which is not entirely determined by EU law, the standard of review of national fundamental rights remains, which, however, are interpreted in the light of EU fundamental rights. How fruitful the perception of the role thus redesigned can be is then demonstrated by the decision in substance. Very carefully, the BVerfG works out the complex conflicting personality and media fundamental rights in the "right to be forgotten". The differentiated balancing parameters of the BVerfG can enrich the further development of the multi-layered "right to be forgotten" in a very sustainable way.
 
REFERENCES (36)
1.
Büttel, jurisPR-ITR 2/2020 Anm. 5.
 
2.
BVerfG, Beschl. v. 6.11.2019 – 1 BvR 16/13 (Recht auf Vergessen I).
 
3.
BVerfG, Beschluss von 06.11.2019 – 1 BvR 276/17.
 
4.
BVerfG, Recht auf Vergessen II, Rn. 85 ff.
 
5.
BVerfG NVwZ 2004, 1346 (1346).
 
6.
BVerfG, Decision of 06.11.2019 – 1 BvR 276/17 Paragraph 141 – WRP 2020, 57.
 
7.
BVerfG, Ur. v. 15.01.1958 – 1 BvR 400/51 rs 21 ff. – BVerfGE 7, 198 „Lüth-judgment”; BVerfG, Beschl. v. 11.04.2018 – 1 BvR 3080/09 Rn 31 ff. – BVerfGE 148, 267.
 
8.
BVerfG, Urt. v. 15.12.1983 – 1 BvR 209/83 – BVerfGE 65, 1 „Census judgment”.
 
9.
Buchner/Tinnefeld, in: Kühling/Buchner (Fn. 29), Art. 85 DS-GVO Rn. 1.
 
10.
C-136/17, GRUR 2014, 1310.
 
11.
C-507/17, GRUR 2019, 1317.
 
12.
C-131/12, K&R 2014, 502.
 
13.
Corasaniti G., L’eliminazione della doppia imposizione nell’ordinamento italiano e nell’ordinamento federale tedesco, in Dir. prat. trib., 1997, III, pp. 433-453.
 
14.
Denga, Referendarexamensklausur – Europarecht: Verfassungsrecht und Geselllschaftsrecht – Umwandlung in Europa, JuS 2020, 247.
 
15.
ECJ, judgment of 16.12.2008 – C-73/07 paragraph 52.
 
16.
ECJ, judgment of 14.02.2019 – C-345/17 paragraph 48 ff.
 
17.
ECt. v. 25.05.2004 – No 57597/00.
 
18.
ECtHR, Urt. v. 28.06.2018 – No. 60798/10 and No. 65599/19, Section 100.
 
19.
ECJ, Urt. v. 13.05.2014 – C-131/12 rn. 98 „Google Spain”.
 
20.
Giusti C. A., Global take down: deindicizzazione e territorialitá. Un nuovo caso Google alla Corte di Giustizia. Comparazione e diritto civile,1-15.
 
21.
Giusti C. A., Big Data ed internet delle cose: quale destino per la tutela della privacy.
 
22.
Kühling/Klar/Sackmann, Datenschutzrecht, 4. Aufl. 2018, Rn. 622;.
 
23.
Kühling/Martini, Die Datenschutz-Grundverordnung und das nationale Recht, 2018, S. 287 f.
 
24.
Höch, K&R 2015, 632, 633.
 
25.
Lauber-Rönsberg/Hartlaub NJW 2017, 1057, 1061.
 
26.
Lang/Rust/Owens/Pistone/Schuch/Staringer/Storck/Essers/Kemmeren/Öner/Smit, Tax Treaty Case Law around the Globe 2019, 57-110, IBFD und Linde 2020.
 
27.
Lang M., Recent Case Law of the ECJ in Direct Taxation: Trends, Tensions and Contradictions, 61.
 
28.
Peuker, in: Sydow, Europäische Datenschutzgrundverordnung, 2. Aufl. 2018, Art. 17 DS-GVO Rn. 47.
 
29.
Pardolesi P, Responsabilità civile e altre fonti delle obbligazioni, in Codice della responsabilità civile e RC auto – Utet, 2015, 19.
 
30.
Schorkopff, Ein Geburtstagsgeschenk für das Grundgesetz, (zul. abgerufen 05.01.2020).
 
31.
Smekal, Ch., Steuerpolitik in Deutschland und Österreich: 2 Nachbarn – verschiedene Wege?, 93-115, in, Ulrich/Ried, Effizienz, Qualität und Nachhaltigkeit im Gesundheitswesen.
 
32.
Smekal Ch., Thöni E., Österreichs Föderalismus zu teuer?, 100.
 
33.
Toros/ Weiß, Echte Kooperation – Wandel des Grundrechtsschutzes im Mehrebenensystem Zu den Entscheidungen „Recht auf Vergessen I“ und „Recht auf Vergessen II“ des BVerfG, Zeitschrift für das juristische Studium, 100-108.
 
34.
Uricchio, A. F., Giambrone F. L.(2020), European Finance at the Emergency Test, Cacucci editore.
 
35.
Uricchio A.F., Die zwischen der Haushaltsaufsicht, den ausserordentlichen Finanzinstrumenten und der sogenannten windfall taxes anfallenden Kosten der Sozialrechte, 131-172, in A.F. Uricchio/ F. L. Giambrone, Entwicklungen im italienischen Steuerrecht als Herausforderung des neuen europäischen Entwicklungsprozesses, Cacucci editore, 2020.
 
36.
Uricchio A. F., Giambrone F. L., Entwicklungen im italienischen Steuerrecht als Herausforderung des neuen europäischen Entwicklungsprozesses,Cacucci editore.
 
eISSN:2391-789X
ISSN:1734-2031
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top