The issue that we are going to discuss here is simple - whether privacy is an asset in its own right. It seems this issue has been resolved more than a hundred years ago in this highly influential article (which many have cited since but not many have carefully read - this is not a compulsory reading):

In the past centuries, a handful of privacy concepts emerged that are summarized in the following paper (this is not a compulsory reading):

There are, actually, very few cases where the 'right to be forgotten' would be at stake without being attached to other rights - personality, property, speech, work, fair trial etc. One of very few is Sidis v F-R Pub. (this is not a compulsory reading):

Another, more recent case concerns the question of the harm to privacy. Recently, it is pending at the UK Supreme Court. Here is the current judgment of the Court of Appeal that we are going to discuss in class (this is a compulsory reading):

Here is the docket of the UK Supreme Court with links to current hearings (this is not a compulsory reading):

The main question here is whether there is an actual harm caused by mere unauthorized processing of personal data provided that no other harm was caused. Subsequent question here is whether, shall there are no other means for redress in the national private laws across the EU members, it is possible to find a specific standalone title for claiming damages in such cases in Art. 82 of the GDPR.

The assignment for this module is on the link below: