Avrupa Birliği Kamu Sektöründe Unutulma Hakkı: Bireysel Gizlilik ile Kamu Yararı Arasındaki Dengenin Sağlanması

Öz

Bu çalışma, kamu sektöründe unutulma hakkı ile kamu yararı arasındaki hak çatışmasını ele almaktadır. GDPR kapsamında unutulma hakkının yasal temelleri ve hukuki statüsü incelenmiş olup, kamu sektöründe kamu yararı gibi önemli bir güvencenin nasıl bir dengeleme sürecinde olduğu, bu iki haktan birinin ağır basıp basmadığı, aralarındaki denge ve bu iki hakkın sınırları değerlendirilmiştir. Ayrıca, sağlık ve güvenlik alanlarında örnek olay incelemeleriyle pratikteki durum da değerlendirilmiştir. Araştırmada, Avrupa Birliği bağlamında kamu sektöründe veri saklama ile veri silme arasındaki etik ve hukuki değerlendirmeler de ele alınarak, bu iki yaklaşımın dengelenmesinin önemi vurgulanmıştır. Araştırma, unutulma hakkının kamu sektöründe uygulanmasının hem bireysel hakların korunması hem de kamu yararının gözetilmesi açısından önemli hukuki ve etik yaklaşımları ele almaktadır. Bu bağlamda, unutulma hakkı ile kamu yararı arasındaki denge ortaya konmaya çalışılmış ve nelerin nasıl geliştirilebileceğine dair önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Unutulma Hakkı
• GDPR
• Veri Koruma
• Gizlilik
• Kamu Yararı

The Right to be Forgotten in the European Union Public Sector: Balancing Individual Privacy and Public Interest

Öz

The study addresses the conflict of rights between the right to be forgotten and the public interest in the public sector. The legal foundations and legal status of the right to be forgotten under the GDPR have been examined, focusing on how right to be forgotten is balanced with the important safeguard of public interest in the public sector, whether one of these rights predominates, the balance between them, and the limits of these two rights. Additionally, practical situations have been assessed through case studies in the fields of health and security. The research also discusses the ethical and legal considerations of data retention versus data deletion in the public sector within the context of the European Union, emphasizing the importance of balancing these two approaches. The study highlights significant legal and ethical approaches regarding the implementation of the right to be forgotten in the public sector, both in terms of protecting individual rights and safeguarding the public interest. In this context, an attempt has been made to establish the balance between the right to be forgotten and public interest, along with recommendations on how improvements can be made.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Data Protection
• GDPR
• Public Interest
• Right to be Forgotten
• Public Sector

Kaynakça

1. Afra M, ‘An Assessment on Innovator’s Ability for Consent-Free Health Data Reuse, In the Context of the GDPR and EHDS: The Netherlands Case Study’ (2024) (Maastricht University Faculty of Law, 486).
2. Arjamand M, Cholistani MS, Shakoor S, Farhan M, Ashraf B, Naqqi M, Iqbal Q, Luqman M, Fatima SEEM, Kareem K and Khan HU, ‘Forensic DNA Profiling: Its Role and Advancements in Criminal Investigations’ (15 November 2024) 7(5) (International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Publications 42–46).
3. Ayday E and Hubaux JP, ‘Threats and Solutions for Genomic Data Privacy’ (2015) in Gkoulalas Divanis A and Loukides G (eds), Medical Data Privacy Handbook (Springer International Publishing 2015) 463–92.
4. Bartolini C and Siry L., ‘The Right to Be Forgotten in the Light of the Consent of the Data Subject’ (2016) (32 Computer Law & Security Review 218).
5. Christoph Bezemek ve Tomáš Dumbrovský, ‘The Concept of Public Interest’ (2020) SSRN Electronic Journal
6. Bougiakiotis E, ‘The Enforcement of the Google Spain Ruling’ (2016) (24 International Journal of Law and Information Technology 311).
7. Bugarski T, Tubić B and Pisarić M, ‘Legal Regulation of Air Pollution in Urban Environments at the Level of the European Union’ (2020) 54 (Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta Novi Sad 71–91).
8. Case C-131/12 Google Spain SL and Google Inc v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González [2014] ECLI:EU:C: 2014:317.

9. Case C-293/12 and Case C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland, EU:C:2014:238.
10. Celeste E, Formici G, Constitutionalizing Mass Surveillance in the EU: Civil Society Demands, Judicial Activism, and Legislative Inertia, German Law Journal, 2024.
11. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2012] OJ C 326/391.
12. Chenou JM and Radu R, ‘The “Right to Be Forgotten”: Negotiating Public and Private Ordering in the European Union’ (2019) 58(1) (Business & Society 74–102).
13. Correia M, Rêgo G and Nunes R, 'Gender Transition: Is There a Right to Be Forgotten?' (2021) 29(3) (Health Care Analysis 283).
14. Correia M, Rêgo M and Nunes R, ‘Gender Transition: Is There a Right to Be Forgotten?’ (2021) 27(3) (Health and Technology 285).
15. Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 70/14 Luxembourg, 13 May 2014 Press and Information Judgment in Case C-131/12 Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González.
16. Court of Justice of the European Union, Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and Others (Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12) ECLI:EU:C:2014:238.
17. Demircioglu MA and Audretsch DB, Ethics and Public Sector Innovation (Cambridge University Press 2024).
18. Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data [1995] OJ L281/31.
19. Dulong de Rosnay M and Guadamuz A, ‘Memory Hole or Right to Delist? Implications of the Right to Be Forgotten for Web Archiving’ (2017) 6.
20. Engin Z and Treleaven P, ‘Algorithmic Government: Automating Public Services and Supporting Civil Servants in Using Data Science Technologies’ (2019) 62 The Computer Journal 448.
21. European Court of Human Rights and European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Right to be Forgotten: ECtHR and CJEU Case-Law – Joint Factsheet.
22. European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), Opinion of 14 January 2011 on the Communication from the Commission on “A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union” (EDPS 2011).
23. European Data Protection Supervisor, EDPS Guidelines on Assessing the Proportionality of Measures that Limit the Fundamental Rights to Privacy and to the Protection of Personal Data (19 December 2019).
24. Fabbrini F. ‘Human Rights in the Digital Age: The European Court of Justice Ruling in the Data Retention Case and Its Lessons for Privacy and Surveillance in the United States’ (2015) (28 Harvard Human Rights Journal 65).
25. Frankfurter F., Felix Frankfurter Reminiscences: recorded in talks with Harlan B. Phillips, Reynal, New York, 1960, p. 72. See also G. COLM, “The Public Interest: Essential Key to Public Policy” in C.J. FRIEDRICH (ed.), (Nomos V: The Public Interest, Atherton Press, New York, 1962, pp.).
26. Frantziou E, ‘Further Developments in the Right to be Forgotten: The European Court of Justice’s Judgment in Case C-131/12, Google Spain, SL, Google Inc v Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos’ (2014) (14 Human Rights Law Review 761).
27. Galea M, The Right to be Forgotten; a Balance Between Privacy and Public Rights? (LL.D. Thesis, University of Malta, 2015)
28. Garg S, Goldwasser S and Vasudevan PN, ‘Formalizing Data Deletion in the Context of the Right to Be Forgotten’ (2020) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 12106, 373–402).
29. Georgieva G, Simov Y and Nikolova R, Some National Security Issues under the European Convention on Human Rights Case-Law (Ministry of Interior 2021).
30. Gesetz zum Schutz vor Mißbrauch personenbezogener Daten bei der Datenverarbeitung (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz – BDSG), cited in Paul M Schwartz, ‘The EU–US Privacy Collision: A Turn to Institutions and Procedures’ (2013) (126 Harvard Law Review 1966).
31. Guild E and Carrera S, The Political and Judicial Life of Metadata: Digital Rights Ireland and the Trail of the Data Retention Directive (CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe No 65, May 2014).
32. Guillén M, Lareu MV, Pestoni C, Salas A and Carracedo Á, 'Ethical-legal problems of DNA databases in criminal investigation' (2000) 26(4) (Journal of Medical Ethics 266–71).
33. Hawkins K, Alhuwaish N,  Belguith S,  Vranaki A and  Charlesworth A, “A Decision Making Process to Implement the ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ in Machine Learning” (eds Rannenberg K, Drogkaris P and Lauradoux P; Privacy Technologies and Policy – 11th Annual Privacy Forum, APF 2023, Proceedings (Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol 13888, 2024) 20–38.
34. Hawkins K, Alhuwaish N, Belguith S, Vranaki A and Charlesworth A, 'A Decision-Making Process to Implement the 'Right to Be Forgotten' in Machine Learning' (2024) LNCS 13888, (Privacy Technologies and Policy - 11th Annual Privacy Forum 20).
35. He Z, ‘From privacy‑enhancing to health data utilisation: the traces of anonymisation and pseudonymisation in EU data protection law’ (2023) 2(2) (Digital Society 17).
36. Heylliard C, ‘Le droit à l’oubli sur Internet’ (Master 2 recherche thesis, Université Paris-Sud – Faculté Jean Monnet, 2012).
37. J. Bentham, “Principles of Judicial Procedure” in The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol. 2, William Tait, Edinburgh, 1843, p. 252 (Book III).
38. J. Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Batoche Books, Kitchener, Ont., 2000.
39. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), Google Spain SL and Google Inc v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González (Case C-131/12) ECLI:EU:C:2014:317.
40. Justickis V, ‘Balancing Personal Data Protection with Other Human Rights and Public Interest: Between Theory and Practice’ (2020) 13(1) (Baltic Journal of Law & Politics 140).
41. Katsirea I, Press Freedom and Regulation in a Digital Era: A Comparative Study (Oxford University Press 2024).
42. Kist I, ‘Assessment of the Dutch Rules on Health Data in the Light of the GDPR’ (2023) (30 European Journal of Health Law 322).
43. Kohl U, ‘The Right to Be Forgotten in Data Protection Law and Two Western Cultures of Privacy’ (2023) 72(3) International & Comparative Law Quarterly 737–769
44. Krošlák D, ‘Practical Implementation of the Right to Be Forgotten in the Context of Google Spain Decision’ (2015) 6 Communication Today 1 (Vol 6, No 1).
45. Kukava K, ‘Privacy and Personal Data Protection v. the Protection of National Security and the Fight Against Crime: An Analysis of EU Law and Judicial Practice’ (2024) (2 Journal of Law 243).
46. Maceratini A, ‘Subjective Identity and the Right to be Forgotten: A Multifaceted Claim in the Legal System’ (2024) 29(3) (Białostockie Studia Prawnicze 271–86).
47. Mantelero A, ‘The EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation and the roots of the “right to be forgotten”’ (2013) 29(3) (Computer Law & Security Review 229).
48. Mantelero A, 'The protection of the right to be forgotten: lessons and perspectives from open data' (2015) Jurisdiction & Dispute Resolution in the Internet Era: Governance and Good Practices, Geneva, Switzerland.
49. Mantelero, Alessandro, Il costo della privacy tra valore della persona e ragione d’impresa (Giuffrè Editore 2007).
50. Mitrou L and Karyda M, ‘EU’s Data Protection Reform and the Right to be Forgotten: A Legal Response to a Technological Challenge?’ (2012) (5th International Conference of Information Law and Ethics, Corfu, 29–30 June 2012).
51. Nandy D, 'Human Rights in the Era of Surveillance: Balancing Security and Privacy Concerns' (2023) (Journal of Current Social and Political Issues 11, 13–17).
52. P. Riley, Will and Political Legitimacy, (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA/London, 1982).
53. Panneerchelvam S and Norazmi MN, ‘DNA profiling in human identification: from past to present’ (2023) 30(6) (Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences 5–21).
54. Pina E, Ramos J, Jorge H, Váz P, Silva J, Wanzeller C, Abbasi M and Martins P, ‘Data Privacy and Ethical Considerations in Database Management’ (2024) 4(3) (Journal of Cybersecurity and Privacy 494–517).
55. Post RC, ‘Data Privacy and Dignitary Privacy: Google Spain, the Right to Be Forgotten, and the Construction of the Public Sphere’ (2018) 67(5) (Duke Law Journal 981).
56. Giulio Ramaccioni, ‘Cases and Issues of the Right to Erasure (Right to Be Forgotten) under Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679’ (2024) 14 Computer Science & Information Technology 35–48
57. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) [2016] OJ L119.
58. Rojszczak M, ‘Gone in 60 Minutes: Distribution of Terrorist Content and Free Speech in the European Union’ (2022) 18(2) (International Journal of Law and Information Technology 149).
59. Rotaru v Romania (Application No 28341/95) (ECtHR, 4 May 2000)
60. Rouvroy A and Poullet Y, ‘The Right to Informational Self Determination and the Value of Self Development: Reassessing the Importance of Privacy for Democracy’ in S Gutwirth, Y Poullet, P De Hert, C De Terwangne and S Nouwt (eds), Reinventing Data Protection? (Springer 2009) 45–76.
61. Samonte M, ‘Google v CNIL: The Territorial Scope of the Right to Be Forgotten Under EU Law’ (Insight, European Papers vol 4, no 3, 2019) 839–851.
62. Sever T, ‘Public Benefit and Public Interest in the Slovenian Legal System – Two Sides of the Same Coin?’ (unpublished manuscript, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Public Administration, 20 June 2025).
63. Staunton C, Slokenberga S and Mascalzoni D, ‘The GDPR and the Research Exemption: Considerations on the Necessary Safeguards for Research Biobanks’ (2019) (27 European Journal of Human Genetics 1159).
64. Teixeira G, Pinho MF and Teixeira H, ‘Access to Financial Information for Tax Purposes and Proportionality – Balancing Public Interest with the Protection of Privacy’ in Monica Rosini and Gloria González Fuster (eds), Data Protection and Tax Information Exchange (Springer 2023).
65. Tichý L, ‘Public Interest and its Importance in Law’ in L Tichý and M Potacs (eds), Public Interest in Law (Intersentia 2021) 25.
66. Van Camp N Dierickx K and, ‘The retention of forensic DNA samples: a socio ethical evaluation of current practices in the EU’ (2008) (34 Journal of Medical Ethics 606).
67. Vedaschi A and Lubello V., 'Data Retention and its Implications for the Fundamental Right to Privacy: A European Perspective' (2015) 20(1) (Tilburg Law Review 14–34).
68. Vogiatzoglou P, Mass Data Surveillance and Predictive Policing: Contested Foundations and Human Rights Impact (Routledge 2025).
69. Waind E, ‘Trust, Security and Public Interest: Striking the Balance – A Narrative Review of Previous Literature on Public Attitudes towards the Sharing, Linking and Use of Administrative Data for Research’ (2020) (5 International Journal of Population Data Science 3).
70. World Health Organization, SMART Trust (v1.2.0) – Ethical Considerations and Data Protection Principles, HL7® FHIR® Standard v5.0.0 (WHO 2024).
71. Jorida Xhafaj, ‘The Right to Be Forgotten: A Controversial Topic Under the General Data Protection Regulation’ (2019) 7 International Scientific Conference of Faculty of Law – University of Latvia 26
72. Zhou J and others, 'A unified method to revoke the private data of patients in intelligent healthcare with audit to forget' (2023) 14(1) (Nature Communications 6255).