ОСОБЛИВОСТІ РЕАЛІЗАЦІЇ ПРАВА НА ЗАБУТТЯ В КОНТЕКСТІ РІШЕНЬ СУДУ ЄС ТА ЄСПЛ.

The article is dedicated to the legal analysis of the case law of the CJEU and the ECtHR regarding the implementation of the right to be forgotten and the right to privacy. It is established that the development of digital technologies has enabled rapid information exchange and its almost indefinite storage in the digital environment. However, such widespread availability of data about individuals and the inability to update or supplement this information have posed new challenges to society in ensuring the protection of personal data and privacy. The right to be forgotten is one of the tools through which a person can delete truthful but outdated information about themselves on the Internet, provided that such information is not of public interest. It is proven that although the right to be forgotten has been implemented within the EU for over a decade, lawyers and human rights activists consider it the second most complex obligation of the General Data Protection Regulation to implement. It is argued that both the CJEU and the ECtHR often inadequately describe the factual circumstances of cases and disregard the confidentiality of the parties involved. Individuals who apply to the court for the deletion or anonymization of personal data on the Internet often receive the opposite effect due to the public and scientific community’s interest in such cases. It is argued that in order to maintain a reasonable balance between privacy and freedom of expression, court decisions should contain all factual circumstances of the case, but the personal data of the parties involved and other circumstances that may indicate the applicant should be anonymized. This will help avoid censorship, ensure the right to memory, and enable an understanding of the factual basis on which courts have developed their legal arguments. It is argued that since the materials of cases before the ECtHR and the CJEU are often transmitted to national courts of member states for quality protection of confidentiality, it is necessary for them to correctly anonymize the personal data of the parties involved in the case and information that could identify the applicant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]