No abstract

No abstract

33 An example of this is its reworking of art. 55(3) (b) on bankruptcy; the Council had agreed to the Parliament's requirement that arrangements with creditors did not need to lead to exclusion before, but Parliament's first reading text widens this general principle to saying that where an economic operator in any of the bankruptcy-related situations does not need to be excluded if they can perform the contract and national law does not preclude this.

No abstract

This article considers the much‐criticized ‘right to be forgotten’ in the context of the European Court of Justice's judgment in the Google Spain case. It defends the ‘right to be forgotten’ as a metaphor that can provide us with a better understanding of the particular privacy concerns of the search‐engine age and their interaction with the freedom to access information, and draws on Goffman's idea of ‘information games’ and Nissenbaum's theory of ‘contextual integrity’. While supporting the principles that underpin the judgment, the article rejects the Court's binary approach of ‘forgetting’ versus ‘remembering’ personal information. Instead, it argues that the EU legislator should introduce more nuanced means of addressing modern privacy concerns. By establishing two remedies – ‘delisting’ or ‘reordering’, depending on the nature of the information – online information flows can be adjusted to preserve both the right to privacy and the freedom to access information in more contextually appropriate ways.