德國聯邦最高法院BGH對個人資訊自決權與網路言論自由間之比重衡量以2018年「Jameda」醫師評價網站一案之判決為例

The Opinions of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Weighing Personal Information Self-Determination and Online Freedom of Speech: A Case Study of the Judgment Involving the Doctor Rating Portal “Jameda” in 2018

德國聯邦最高法院（Bundesgerichtshof, BGH）在2018年2月20日之判決（Urt. V. 20.02.2018–Az. VI ZR 30/17）見解中認為1，醫師評價網站（Bewertungsportale）「Jameda」之商業模式雖未違反《聯邦資料保護法》（Bundesdatenschutzgesetz, BDSG）之規定，但其評價立場應維持中立。儘管如此，「Jameda」處理資料的過程仍違反歐盟《一般資料保護規則》，因為該網站提供專業醫師宣傳的機會，只需定期每月繳付會費，即可將其個人經歷放置在理應中立呈現之評價網頁上，並讓付費醫師的經歷與自有診所的宣傳與網站連結，同時還可透過搜尋引擎搜尋相關業務廣告介紹，因此醫師評價平台「Jameda」（www.jameda.de）之商業行為違反中立原則，侵害原告醫師之個人資訊自主權，故應依原告要求，刪除該醫師在評價網站之所有個人資料。 相較於2016年在相同被告之判決見解中2，聯邦最高法院採取「Jameda」作為提供社會大眾重要醫療資訊之平台，故應保障其網路言論與表見自由之立場，本次判決見解雖未直接限制言網路論自由之範圍，但卻透過加強醫師對其資訊自決權（informationelle Selbstbestimmung）之保障，縮減評價網站對其言論自由之不當擴張。此即，當不實言論或逾越合理言論自由範圍之非理性評論出現時，醫師可就此單一言論為自己辯護。在此前提下，醫師具有對網站上之不實言論，向「Jameda」提出刪除之請求權，而評論者之身分與其言論自然不再受法律所保護。 此外，依不正競爭防止法之觀點檢視相關判決發現，評價網站業者按其對評價言論介入之程度，而有直接或間接行為人之保證責任，本案「Jameda」網站利用顧客正反評價讓醫師加入會員，並以專業經歷為廣告進行同業競爭，其營業模式不無以本身營利需求介入評價言論之管理及公開，而有違反不正競爭防止法並負直接行為人責任之嫌。針對「Jameda」網站行銷模式造成之爭議，本文將以本次聯邦最高法院，及各邦層級法院相關判決之見解作為文獻分析之依據，並就各法院陳述之論點，研析歷次判決爭議之原因，並從歐盟《一般資料保護規則》及《不正競爭防止法》之規範角度，進一步探討基本人權中，言論自由與個人資訊自主權之間的矛盾、衝突與可能之平衡模式。

The legal opinions of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) in the judgment (Urt. V. 20.02.2018 –Az. VI ZR 30/17) on February 20, 2018 indicate that the business of online rating portals (Bewertungsportale) does not violate the Federal Data Protection Act (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz, BDSG) but must have a neutral rating standpoint. However, “Jameda,” acted in violation of the EU “General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR” in its data processing procedures. This is because the website provides promotion opportunities for medical professionals. By paying a regular monthly subscription they can post their personal background information on this rating website that should operate neutrally, and are allowed to link this information with the promotional materials and websites of their clinics and search for commercials and recommendations related to their business via search engines. “Jameda” (www.jameda.de) as a doctor rating website, and thus has violated this principle in its business activities and infringed upon the personal information autonomy of the plaintiff, a doctor. It shall delete all of the plaintiff’s personal data on the website as requested by the plaintiff. In comparison with the opinions in the previous judgment involving the same defendant in 2016, in which the Federal Court of Justice protected the freedom of speech and expression of “Jameda” as a platform providing important information to the public, the opinions in this judgment do not restrict the online freedom of speech directly, but set up a limit on the rating website in the inappropriate extension of freedom of speech by enhancing the protection of doctors’ informational self-determination (informationelle Selbstbestimmung). That is, when any false statements or any irrational comments beyond the reasonable scope of freedom of speech appear, doctors may defend themselves against any single statement. Hence, doctors have the right to request “Jameda” delete any false statement on the website and the identity of the person who give the statement is naturally not protected. When reviewing the judgment from the viewpoint of the Unfair Competition Act, the rating website operator takes the guarantee liability as a direct or indirect offender depending on the level of interference with the rating comments. In this case, “Jameda” made use of the clients’ positive and negative comments to attract doctors to join the website and compete against other doctors with their professional experience as advertisement materials. With this business model, the website might pursue earnings not without interfering with the management and publication of rating comments and, thus, acting in violation of the Unfair Competition Act and being subject to the liability of a direct or indirect offender. This study takes the opinions of the Federal Court of Justice in this case and the opinions in other related judgments of the district courts as the basis for document analysis. The causes of controversies on previous judgments were analyzed based on the opinions and comments of the courts. The contradictions and conflicts between freedom of speech and personal information autonomy in basic human rights as well as possible balance models are further discussed from the viewpoint of the EU “General Data Protection Regulation” and “Unfair Competition Act.”