English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Through the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights plays a central role in developing the case law of other European courts, and its guidance is of utmost importance for European states that seek to follow certain European minimum principles. While its case law is evolving continuously, the court seems unable to keep up with the pace of changes brought about developments in digital technology and the spread of the Internet. Thus, the principles developed by the court for the offline world need to be revised, even though the role and impact of the court on European legal theory is met by no other institution. Such phenomena may break down the foundations of our traditional theoretical frameworks and lead to the necessity to revisit the balancing principles applied when there is a conflict between individual rights. With regard to the ‘right to be forgotten’ introduced by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its Google Spain Judgement, this paper seeks to identify certain challenges the balancing standard applied concerning Articles 8 and 10 of European Convention of Human Rights may need to face in the future.

Difficulties Regarding the Right to Be Forgotten in the Case Law of the Strasbourg Court