A Rights-Based Approach to Children’s Digital Participation in the Multi-Level System of the European Union

Kaesling, Katharina

doi:10.1007/978-3-658-39664-0_4

Katharina Kaesling⁶

Part of the book series: Juridicum – Schriften zum Medien-, Informations- und Datenrecht ((JSMID))

2716 Accesses

Abstract

Against predominating risk-based narratives, this chapter focusses on children’s rights to participation in transnational digital spheres, which need to be balanced with children's rights to protection. The importance of a rights-based approach in the multi-level system of the EU is shown with particular regard to the legal principle of the best interest of the child, proportionality and coherence of measures in the EU, and the interplay of EU and national legal norms.

You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF

Children’s Rights and Digital Technologies

Talking About Digital Responsibility: Children’s and Young People’s Voices

1 Rights-based Approaches Against Risk-based Narratives

At the young ages of six and seven, 40% of children in Germany used the internet in 2019. This percentage only increases with age, with 71% of those aged eight to nine, 85% of those aged ten to eleven, and 97% of those aged 12 to 18 being active internet users.^{Footnote 1} This is not surprising given that a considerable part of sociality has shifted from analogue to digital means, such as communication via social networks and smartphone apps.

Communication in the digital age encompasses not only messaging services, but also content creation on social media for the public or a selected audience. Social networking sites have become such an integral part of young people’s everyday lives that it is practically out of the question for young people to reject this form of communication.^{Footnote 2} Children’s main focus with online activities is actually communicating within existing relationships, i.e. the reinforcement of relationships with peers.^{Footnote 3} Creating and maintaining social capital is one of the social benefits of children’s online activities.^{Footnote 4} Taking part in online sociality can also prevent isolation of children.^{Footnote 5} A large part of children’s identity practices and experimentation takes place online.^{Footnote 6} In addition, it can further young people’s engagement with public life.^{Footnote 7} Digital spheres offer specific opportunities for (civic) engagement and participation^{Footnote 8} as well as for creativity.^{Footnote 9} Not all of these benefits are the focus of adults who decide about children’s participation, such as lawmakers and parents.^{Footnote 10} Parents especially associate more risks than benefits with their children’s use of mobile technology, including addiction, neglect of other activities, cognitive absorption, decrease in physical activities, impairment of physical health and cognitive development, decrease in personal interaction, and impairment of social skills.^{Footnote 11} These rather concrete concerns are accompanied by further, vague parental concerns.^{Footnote 12}

Children’s digital participation also concerns smart toys, enabling toy-child interaction, often with the use of “Artificial Intelligence” functions. Such toys can make enhanced learning experiences possible.^{Footnote 13} In doing so, they generally record information and transmit it offsite,^{Footnote 14} oftentimes creating cross-border data streams. Toymakers increasingly record more data,^{Footnote 15} leading to a ‘datafication’ of children.^{Footnote 16} In connection with internet-connected toys,^{Footnote 17} data hacking and other encroachments upon privacy and security have occurred,^{Footnote 18} most prominently with regard to Mattel’s ‘Hello Barbie’^{Footnote 19} and VTech^{Footnote 20} hacks.^{Footnote 21} Mattel’s talking ‘Hello Barbie’ doll recorded human’s speech when interacting and transmitted it to its partner ToyTalk, which then used it to improve its speech recognition technology.^{Footnote 22} Parents could also listen to their children’s conversations. In such a way, connected toys can be used as surveillance mechanisms by parents and third parties, with parental consent or by hacking.^{Footnote 23} Children are often unaware that their data is being processed, contrary to general principles of data protection law^{Footnote 24} and family law,^{Footnote 25} which generally foresee their involvement according to their abilities.^{Footnote 26} At present, it is hard to tell what ramifications this data collection will have for children. Both the potential and the risks associated with emerging digital spheres are only just beginning to be better understood and outlined.^{Footnote 27}

The magnitude of known risks as well as the uncertainty regarding further risks, both at present and in the future, has led to a risk-based narrative.^{Footnote 28} This is firstly true for coverage in popular media about children’s participation in connected activities.^{Footnote 29} Furthermore, risks pertaining to children’s use of online communication tools have also been found to be ‘grossly overstated’ in scholarly literature.^{Footnote 30} Children’s need for protection is thus emphasized, while the benefits associated with them partaking in digital communication, sociality, and play tend to be undervalued.

Children’s rights have been employed to balance that narrative and formulate their needs in an increasingly digitalized world from an educational and socio-psychological perspective.^{Footnote 31} Social psychologist Sonia Livingstone in particular has promoted the idea of basing children’s claims on their fundamental rights, namely those provided for in the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).^{Footnote 32} This chapter aims to demonstrate the impact of a rights-based approach from a juridic point of view and with special regard to specificities of European Union (EU) legal architecture, principles, and multi-level norm-setting.

2 Children’s Rights in the EU and Transnational Digital Spheres

Children’s rights are enshrined in various instruments at multiple regulatory levels. Around the world—albeit not in the United States—children’s rights are guaranteed by the UNCRC. The UNCRC has had a lasting effect on our understanding of children’s rights and their individual agency,^{Footnote 33} and it has proven to be a “touchstone for children’s rights throughout the world”.^{Footnote 34} As an instrument of public international law, its incorporation into internal national legal systems varies according to the respective legal order. In 47 countries, it is complemented by the Council of Europe’s European Convention of Human Rights. European children’s rights law is largely based on the UNCRC.^{Footnote 35} Within the EU and the scope of application of EU law, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights applies. Some national constitutions also provide for specific children’s rights,^{Footnote 36} while others do not formulate fundamental rights for children specifically.^{Footnote 37}

When the Lisbon Treaty took effect in 2009, the European Community became the European Union, and the protection of children’s rights was included in the general objectives in Art. 3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). The Charter of Fundamental Rights (hereafter EU Charter) was attributed the same legal status as the Treaties.^{Footnote 38} The EU Charter’s influence on the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), however, even predates its entry into force.^{Footnote 39} Once proclaimed by the EU Parliament, Council, and Commission in 2000,^{Footnote 40} the Advocate Generals already began relying upon the EU Charter.^{Footnote 41} Before the existence of an EU fundamental rights catalogue, the CJEU drew on the shared constitutional traditions of the Member States, determined by means of evaluative comparative law,^{Footnote 42} as well as on international treaties common to the Member States, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).^{Footnote 43} Hence, the EU Charter does not stand incoherently alongside the other instruments for the protection of children’s rights.

The EU Charter holds not only great symbolic value^{Footnote 44} and consequence for the constitutional architecture of the Union, but also for the protection of children’s rights.^{Footnote 45} Various rights of the EU Charter are of particular relevance for children, such as Art. 7, which safeguards private and family life as well as home and communications, the right to receive free education under Art. 14 and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age under Art. 21. General fundamental rights of the EU Charter extend to children as well.^{Footnote 46} Moreover, the changes brought about by the EU Charter gave visibility to children’s rights.^{Footnote 47} Building on the UNCRC,^{Footnote 48} Art. 24 of the EU Charter specifically addresses and recognizes children’s rights at the EU level. According to Art. 24 (1), children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being (Sentence 1). They may express their views freely (Sentence 2), and these views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity (Sentence 3). Art. 24 (2) mirrors Art. 3 of the UNCRC. According to these provisions, the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children. This principle of the best interest of the child and the principle of child participation are related to the understanding of children as autonomous rights holders. The recognition of children as such rights holders with individual agency is one of the key accomplishments of the UNCRC.^{Footnote 49} Its significance not only unfolds in analogue contexts,^{Footnote 50} but is also a fundament for the UNCRC’s potential in digital contexts.^{Footnote 51}

As an international human rights instrument, the UNCRC is part of the general principles of EU law, thus binding the EU when setting, interpreting, and applying law.^{Footnote 52} The EU has pledged to implement children’s rights in line with the UNCRC,^{Footnote 53} and the EU Commission has reaffirmed this commitment in key EU legal and policy documents.^{Footnote 54} Legal acts, such as the EU Citizenship Directive^{Footnote 55} or the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR),^{Footnote 56} contain references to children’s well-being and protection.^{Footnote 57} But the EU is still far away from realizing its potential as a children’s rights actor.^{Footnote 58} While the EU may not have the competence to set legal norms in a number of areas, more and more aspects of children’s lives are regulated at the supranational level, as online activities are transnational in nature. TikTok and Facebook, for example, are active in over 150 countries, with the short video application TikTok popular among young people in particular.^{Footnote 59} The protection of minors on video platforms is one of the areas the EU has regulated in its Audiovisual Media Services Directive (EU AVMSD).^{Footnote 60} So far, the EU’s instruments have focused on children’s rights to protection rather than on their rights to participation.^{Footnote 61} A rights-based approach in the EU can counteract one-sided, risk-based narratives of children’s digital activities already at the norm-setting stage. Both reactive and proactive policies require careful evaluations of both their objectives and the strategies for their realization with regard to affected fundamental rights.^{Footnote 62}

3 Balancing Rights to Participation and Protection

Regarding the participation of children in online contexts, a number of fundamental rights are relevant,^{Footnote 63} including the right to education,^{Footnote 64} freedom of expression,^{Footnote 65} children’s privacy,^{Footnote 66} and their right to play.^{Footnote 67} Children’s rights are often divided into three categories: rights to provision, protection, and participation.^{Footnote 68} Children’s protective and participative rights must be balanced. Following a rights-based approach means closely looking at regulatory measures as limitations of children’s rights, which need to be justified. A risk-based narrative cannot cancel out children’s claims. Even in light of danger to their safety, children have a right to privacy.^{Footnote 69}

The EU AVMSD, for example, contains measures “to protect minors from harmful content” (Recital 4) on video sharing platforms.^{Footnote 70} While the specific risks children encounter on such platforms are mentioned, there is no reference to specific benefits from their participation. Much like the accessibility of audiovisual content for elderly people and those with impairments was stated in Recital 22 to further their integration in the social and cultural life of the EU, the situation of children should have also been included. Participatory children’s rights have, however, not found their way into the recited motives of the AVMSD, despite shaping the limits of such restrictions on children’s participatory rights.

In addition to the freedom of expression (Art. 13 of the UNCRC), children’s right to engage in play and recreational activities as well as to participate freely in cultural life and the arts (Art. 31 of the UNCRC) is limited. In the context of children’s access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, Art. 17 of the UNCRC in lit. (e) also refers to the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to their well-being, but not without mentioning that Art. 13 and 18 of the UNCRC must be borne in mind. A rights-based approach to children’s activities online highlights the interplay between protection and participation. Children’s freedom of expression, for example, may be limited by protective measures, which in turn even increase the benefits of children’s online activities.

Given the risk-based narrative, which is susceptible to influence both norm-setting and judicial review, it is important to highlight these links and make the balancing of rights. As part of the judicial review, such balancing involves weighing each interest and considering all circumstances of the case in order to determine whether a fair balance was struck between interests in the particular case at hand.^{Footnote 71} The balancing of children’s protective and participative rights is, of course, directly linked to the implementation of the principle of the best interests of the child.^{Footnote 72} From the point of view of legal psychology, the best interests of the child are ensured if the child’s needs are in harmony with their living conditions and family situation,^{Footnote 73} so that age-appropriate personality development is possible.^{Footnote 74}

4 Implementing the Legal Principle of the Best Interest of the Child

The core principle of the best interests of the child (Art. 3 of the UNCRC, Art. 24 (2) of the EU Charter) shall ensure the full and effective enjoyment of all UNCRC rights.^{Footnote 75} It contains a fundamental interpretative legal principle, a substantive right, and a rule of procedure.^{Footnote 76} The principle of the best interests of the child influences the interpretation of legal norms: “If a legal provision is open to more than one interpretation, the interpretation which most effectively serves the child’s best interests should be chosen.”^{Footnote 77}

As holders of the substantive right, children have a right to have their best interests assessed and taken into account as a primary consideration.^{Footnote 78} This applies not only when determinations concerning an individual child are made, but also when decisions affect groups of children or children in general.^{Footnote 79} Procedurally, the principle of the best interests of the child includes the evaluation of the impact of these decisions on the children concerned.^{Footnote 80} In addition, the justification of a decision must show that the right has been explicitly taken into account by explaining “what has been considered to be in the child’s best interests, based on which criteria and how the child’s interests have been weighed against other considerations, be they broad issues of policy or individual cases”.^{Footnote 81} In order to satisfy these requirements, trans-sectorial analyses can be necessary. In particular, regulatory measures from different legal areas, such as data protection, platform regulation, youth media protection, contract law, and family law, may have to be considered collectively in order to understand the impact of the legal situation on children. This may also include measures that do not target children specifically, but that might affect children differently than adults.

5 Proportionality and Coherence of Measures in the EU

The principle of proportionality plays an exceptional role in protecting children’s rights, specifically in the EU. It not only limits restrictions on children’s rights to the necessary amount, but also assures a certain coherence of measures in this multi-level system. The principle of proportionality does not only govern the balance of principles and rights, but also the balance of EU and Member State responsibilities and interests.^{Footnote 82}

With Art. 7 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), a general, cross-cutting clause^{Footnote 83} at the beginning of the operative part outlining EU policies is dedicated solely to coherence, hereby stressing the importance of the principle of coherence in primary law.^{Footnote 84} According to that provision, the EU shall ensure consistency between its policies and activities, taking all of its objectives into account and abiding to the principle of conferral of powers. The legal principle of coherence even extends beyond Art. 7 of the TFEU.^{Footnote 85} It is a general principle of lawmaking,^{Footnote 86} applicable to all EU law.^{Footnote 87} Additionally, coherence is an expression of the principle of proportionality.^{Footnote 88} While coherence as part of the proportionality test is not the coherence requirement of Art. 7 of the TFEU, it is based on the same theoretical background.^{Footnote 89}

The proportionality test is applied in different contexts and thus takes on meaning beyond the compatibility of national measures in purely national contexts. Much like the proportionality test in purely national contexts, the legality of EU restrictions on children’s rights is reviewed with regard to the principle of proportionality in Sect. 5.1, while aspects of proportionality and multi-level coherence in the EU will be discussed in Sect. 5.2.

5.1 Justification of EU Limitations to Children’s Rights

At EU level, the principle of proportionality is enshrined in Art. 52 (1) 2nd st. of the EU Charter and corresponds to a general principle of EU law.^{Footnote 90} Under Art. 52 (1), any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations are only legal if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest acknowledged by the EU or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The CJEU has long held—even before the Treaty of Lisbon^{Footnote 91}—that restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of fundamental rights, but only if they correspond to objectives of general interest and do not constitute a disproportionate and intolerable interference in relation to the aim pursued.^{Footnote 92} The proportionality test generally^{Footnote 93} includes an evaluation of objectives, suitability, and necessity.^{Footnote 94}

In that context, a focus on children’s rights sheds light on specific consequences for children. Regulations for the Digital Single Market, such as the Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (DSM Directive),^{Footnote 95} are not aimed at children particularly. Children’s experience online, especially on online platforms, differ from those of adults. They encounter certain particular risks, such as grooming, and rely to a greater extent on online communication to maintain social connections. The reach of filtering and monitoring obligations of these platforms, such as those following from the DSM Directive, the E-Commerce Directive,^{Footnote 96} and the planned Digital Services Act,^{Footnote 97} therefore needs to be evaluated with regard to children’s distinct situation online. In cases where children are concerned, the balancing of rights with a view to monitoring obligations on platforms might have a different outcome than in situations involving only adult users and platform operators.^{Footnote 98}

The special effect on children can also stem from an interplay with other legal instruments aimed at children specifically. For video sharing platforms, for example, the EU lawmaker has introduced specific protective measures for children with the AVMSD.^{Footnote 99} With regard to EU legislation, the coherence requirement in Art. 7 of the TFEU applies directly. First of all, the EU itself is obliged to maintain stringency and systemic justice in its measures.^{Footnote 100} Beyond that, it is the interplay between national and EU measures that characterizes the protection of children’s rights in the EU. Such protection in the context of audiovisual media, for example, is complemented by German national provisions in the Interstate Treaty on the Protection of Minors in the Media,^{Footnote 101} the Protection of Minors Act,^{Footnote 102} and the Network Enforcement Act.^{Footnote 103}

5.2 Limits to Member State Limitations to Children’s Rights

In addition to the supranational level of EU law, legal norms are set at the level of the Member States. Further regulatory levels existing in Member States, such as the German states (Länder), are only relevant within each Member State.^{Footnote 104} Member States may not rely on provisions, practices, or situations of its internal legal order in order to justify non-compliance with its obligations under EU law.^{Footnote 105} A coherence of measures must be ensured at the Member State level, i.e. in Germany at the federal level.^{Footnote 106}

Competences not conferred on the EU by the Treaties remain with EU countries (Art. 4 and 5 of the TEU). The use of these competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, designed to limit the powers of the EU vis-à-vis Member States.^{Footnote 107} The negative presumption of competence in favor of the Member States has now been explicitly laid down in Art. 4 (1) and Art. 5 (2) 2nd st. of the TEU.^{Footnote 108} Residual competences remain with the Member States. Member States must, however, also respect EU law even when they exercise powers falling within their exclusive competences.^{Footnote 109} In that context, coherence serves as a constraint on the national legislator’s room for maneuver.^{Footnote 110}

In Zenatti, the CJEU already invoked the idea of coherence when directing the national court to verify whether “the national legislation is genuinely directed to realising the objectives which are capable of justifying it and whether the restrictions which it imposes do not appear disproportionate in the light of those objectives”.^{Footnote 111} Relying on Zenatti, the Court went on to specify in Gambelli that national restrictions in the general interest must also be suitable for achieving those objectives, inasmuch as they must serve to reach the objectives “in a consistent and systematic manner”.^{Footnote 112} If this requirement is not fulfilled, the CJEU finds the concerned Member State’s restrictions are not suitable.^{Footnote 113} Coherence is thus used as a criterion for proportionality, to be assessed as part of the first of the three steps, which examines the suitability of the measure.^{Footnote 114} Some authors, however, do not see coherence as part of proportionality, but as a separate barrier that imposes additional requirements on a regulation of the Member States.^{Footnote 115} National measures must first be tested for individual proportionality and subsequently for coherence with other measures. Notwithstanding the classification, the coherence test entails a comprehensive evaluation of the legislator’s overall concept, including all measures in the relevant regulatory area.^{Footnote 116} Derogations do not necessarily impair coherence.^{Footnote 117} Several measures must, however, be coordinated and consistent with one another.^{Footnote 118} For example, various national regulations relating to gambling, player protection, prevention of addiction, and prevention of crime were considered together.^{Footnote 119}

The development of the criterion of consistency is intertwined with CJEU jurisprudence on the justification of the encroachment on the freedom to provide services by the ban on organizing and brokering games of chance.^{Footnote 120} This strand of case law is also related to the concurrence of national competences for regulation and cross-border elements due to the use of the internet. In Carmen Media, a company based in Gibraltar took action against the rejection of its application by the State of Schleswig–Holstein to be allowed to offer sports betting online.^{Footnote 121} Member States enjoy discretion in setting the objectives of their policy.^{Footnote 122} It is also not necessary, with a view to the criterion of proportionality, that “a restrictive measure decreed by the authorities of one Member State should correspond to a view shared by all the Member States concerning the means of protecting the legitimate interest at issue”.^{Footnote 123}

Member State discretion extends to the level of protection sought.^{Footnote 124} Particularly in areas where cultural or moral values are rooted in national traditions, Member States are largely free to determine the level of protection they wish to provide.^{Footnote 125} This applies beyond gambling, health policy,^{Footnote 126} and prohibitions under criminal law.^{Footnote 127} Especially with regard to family law and a harmonization or unification in Europe, the rootedness of the law in the national cultural context is emphasized.^{Footnote 128} With family law, general contract law, and tort law in Member State hands, the level of protection and autonomy of minors is largely determined by Member States.

It is essential for the application of the coherence requirement that all relevant measures across legal areas are identified. The principle of coherence applies only insofar as an interrelation or (systemic^{Footnote 129}) connection between regulated subject matters exists.^{Footnote 130} The rights-based approach to children’s participation online facilitates the application of the principle of coherence, as it can help identify all legal areas relevant for children’s participation. Regarding multiple aspects of children’s activities online, Member State competences are touched upon. Joining a social network and posting user-generated content, for example, might trigger the application of general contract law including the child’s (limited) legal capacity to contract, tort law, and penal law, including special provisions from copyright law.

With the level of protection being determined by Member States, national limits on children’s autonomy do not only vary in accordance with the subject matter and associated risks, but also from Member State to Member State. While it is the national lawmakers’ prerogative to assess the risks and determine minimum age requirements for children accordingly, they must still be consistent with one another. With regard to the focus on risks in online environments rather than on the potential of children’s participation online, this coherence can be assured by contrasting state limitations on children’s participation in analogue and digital sectors. For example, the capacity to contract is determined irrespectively of the (technological) means used. Even though situations encountered by children are arguably comparable among Member States, the growing recognition of children’s autonomy with increasing development and age differs from Member State to Member State.

The preconditions for contractual capacity of children, for instance, are subject to diverse national regulations.^{Footnote 131} The majority of Member States foresee age-based gradations of children’s contractual autonomy.^{Footnote 132} In German law, for example, minors below the age of seven are legally incompetent.^{Footnote 133} Between the ages of seven and 18, the persons have limited legal capacity,^{Footnote 134} meaning that their acts are only legally effective if they are purely legally advantageous or if the holder of parental responsibility consents.^{Footnote 135} Similar to the German law, advantages for the child often lead to an earlier autonomy.^{Footnote 136} Minors with a commercial enterprise or professional activity are accorded more autonomy within related fields.^{Footnote 137} Routine daily transactions are also privileged in many legal orders,^{Footnote 138} as are transactions of minors using their own (pocket) money.^{Footnote 139} The cognitive faculty of children is largely drawn from their age. In a number of circumstances, however, the development of the individual child in question is decisive.^{Footnote 140} The legal effectivity of acts then presupposes the individual maturity of the acting child.^{Footnote 141} Declarations made by persons lacking capacity are null and void under the legal orders of other Member States,^{Footnote 142} unless the legal representative consents.^{Footnote 143} However, the protection of minors can also be realized by giving rights to rescind^{Footnote 144} or withdraw from^{Footnote 145} the contract and to have the contract declared invalid by court order.^{Footnote 146}

While both prerequisites for contractual capacity and legal consequences of its limitation or lack of it vary, common points could already be identified in this short comparative overview,^{Footnote 147} begging the question whether national legal cultures would really prohibit European harmonization.

6 Interplay of EU and National Legal Norms

Due to the increasing importance of the Digital Single Market,^{Footnote 148} more and more subject matters also fall under the competence of the EU. The relationship between EU and Member States is based on the principle of loyalty (Art. 4 (3) of the TEU), which applies to all areas of EU activity. The EU thus generally offers limited answers to more general questions, i.e. sectorial approaches, that are then complemented by national legal norms.^{Footnote 149} Specific effects on children can result from the interaction of norms from different areas or from norms of different levels.

6.1 Interplay of EU and National Law in the Same Legal Area: The Example of Art. 8 (1) of the GDPR

A prime example for the interplay of EU and national law in the same legal area is the protection of children’s data. The EU’s GDPR contains a number of specific provisions on the protection of children’s data. Art. 8 of the GDPR provides the conditions applicable to a child’s consent in relation to the offer of information society services directly to a child. At least from the age of 16, minors are able to give their own effective consent to the processing of their data in accordance with Art. 8 of the GDPR.^{Footnote 150} Art. 8 of the GDPR thus standardizes specific requirements for consent pursuant to Art. 6 (1) (a) of the GDPR for personal data of minors.^{Footnote 151} Lowering the age of consent to not less than 13 years of age is possible by national regulation.^{Footnote 152} If the minor has not yet reached the relevant age limit, consent may be given either directly by the parents or guardian or, with their consent, by the minor themself.^{Footnote 153}

The provision of Art. 8 of the GDPR is complemented by Art. 12 of the GDPR, according to which particularly clear and simple language must be used in cases where information is addressed to children.^{Footnote 154} The use of such child-friendly language reflects the GDPR’s recognition of the heightened need for protection of children.^{Footnote 155} Art. 17 (1) (f) of the GDPR also provides for a separate right to delete data that was collected on the basis of Art. 8 of the GDPR,^{Footnote 156} even if the processing of the data was lawful.^{Footnote 157} It allows protected persons to request the deletion of content they have disclosed on the basis of consent under Art. 8 of the GDPR, even once they have reached adulthood. Data protection authorities have a duty to inform and educate under Art. 57 (1) (b) of the GDPR,^{Footnote 158} which particularly benefits children’s informed consent under Art. 8 of the GDPR.^{Footnote 159}

Although the GDPR as Regulation is directly applicable in all Member States, Member States still have room to maneuver when it comes to the definition of data minors. This is remarkable, as the GDPR aims to level out differences in the degree of protection of the rights and freedoms of natural persons in connection with the processing of personal data in Member States according to its Recital 9. While the purpose of the GDPR’s predecessor, the Data Protection Directive, was to achieve comprehensive harmonization,^{Footnote 160} the GDPR was also intended to reduce obstacles to the free movement of data in the internal market through a unification of law (cf. Art. 1 of the GDPR). Due to the introduction of the opening clause in Art. 8 (1) 3rd st. of the GDPR, only a partial harmonization of children’s autonomy has been achieved. The harmonization effect relates on the one hand to the autonomy of 16 to 18-year-olds under data protection law and on the other to the protection of children up to the age of 12. For minors between the ages of 13 and 16, harmonization has also been achieved, but merely to the extent that the child’s ability to consent is only to be considered on a blanket basis, namely by setting a rigid age limit. The opening clause does not allow for the possibility of reverting to a flexible model of age assessment based on capacity of insight. Member States have made use of this opening clause, leading to a diversity of national regulations on the child’s consent in the scope of application of Art. 8 of the GDPR.^{Footnote 161} It is private international law that designates the applicable legal order.^{Footnote 162}

Furthermore, Art. 8 of the GDPR has a rather limited scope of application. It only covers data processing in connection with information society services.^{Footnote 163} In order to define the term ‘information society’, Art. 4 No. 25 of the GDPR refers to the definition in Art. 1 No. 1 (b) of the Directive 2015/1535.^{Footnote 164} Services provided via the internet are included.^{Footnote 165} It is necessary that the offer is made directly to the child, e.g. by a child-friendly design.^{Footnote 166} For reasons of expediency, so-called dual-use offers should be included, as well as offers to the general public.^{Footnote 167} It is also a prerequisite that consent is involved as an element of justification for the collection of data.^{Footnote 168}

Even within the scope of application of Art. 8 of the GDPR, national laws come into play regarding the question of the persons giving or authorizing consent. Art. 8 of the GDPR refers to the holder of parental responsibility. The law on parental responsibility remains part of Member States’ competences.^{Footnote 169} Beyond the scope of application, national law generally determines the conditions for the child’s consent.^{Footnote 170} In German law, this means that the ability to give consent in the individual case is decisive, as was already the case under the German Federal Data Protection Act (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz, BDSG) before the GDPR entered into force.^{Footnote 171} It cannot be deduced from this EU Regulation that national orders must assume a capacity to consent starting at the age of 16,^{Footnote 172} but once this age threshold is reached, it is generally presumed that the necessary capacity for understanding exists.^{Footnote 173}

6.2 Interplay of EU Law and National Law Across Legal Areas: The Example of Art. 8 of the GDPR and National Contract Law

Finally, Art. 8 (3) of the GDPR explicitly states that it shall not affect the general contract law of Member States, such as the rules on the validity, formation, or effect of a contract in relation to a child. General contract law, as part of Member States’ competences, is thus not affected by the provision on the effectiveness of consent under data protection law.^{Footnote 174} But what influence do Member State rules on contractual legal autonomy have on data autonomy within the scope of application of Art. 8 of the GDPR? As per Art. 6 (1) (b) of the GDPR, data processing is lawful insofar as it is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract. Read together, the national rules on contractual capacity thus determine children’s data autonomy in the context of the respective contract. GDPR contains no indications, specifically with regard to children, that the application of Art. 6 (1) (b) of the GDPR should be excluded.^{Footnote 175} If the applicable rules on contractual legal capacity are followed, parental consent under data protection law is not required if the person with limited legal capacity can effectively conclude it without parental consent.^{Footnote 176} The data processing based on the contract does not have to meet the additional requirements of Art. 8 (1) of the GDPR.^{Footnote 177}

For the purposes of the contract, the permission for data processing lies within the conclusion of the contract (Art. 6 (1) (1) (b) of the GDPR).^{Footnote 178} Broad national rules, e.g. regarding contractual capacity when spending pocket money,^{Footnote 179} thus entail further consequences regarding the processing of data and associated risks, even though national rules on the necessary age or individual development do not address the children’s capacity to understand the significance of decisions regarding their data. Hence, EU law extends national rules on general contractual capacity to data protection law. This leads to a hybridization of these norms.^{Footnote 180} National contract law becomes EU data protection law through the GDPR.

While Art. 8 (1) 3rd st. of the GDPR is a testament to the national diversity and political power of the Member States despite the common goal of an EU digital market,^{Footnote 181} Art. 8 (3) does not, in fact, respect national legal traditions and law. Rather, EU law extends the proxies used for children’s capacity to conclude contracts, mainly individual development or attainment of a certain age, to another legal area where Member States do not necessarily use the same proxies. For example, German general contract law confers legal capacity to contract based on the attainment of a certain age, while the capacity to decide on the processing of data is determined in accordance with the individual development and ability to understand the significance of that particular decision. Under the German Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG), such an understanding was generally assumed at 14 years or older, and each individual case had to be considered. The individual age limit could also be higher.^{Footnote 182} The extension of contractual capacity into data autonomy in the framework of the GDPR bridges the gap between rules for the analogue and digital worlds, with rules on contractual capacity of minors being developed with regard to analogue contexts and Art. 8 of the GDPR applying to specific digital contexts. The interplay of EU law and national law across legal areas makes an approach based on the specific effects on the exercise of children’s rights all the more important.

7 Conclusions

Against risk-based narratives, which one-sidedly further the protection of children in digital spheres, a rights-based approach to children’s digital participation underscores vital points for their digital participation in the multi-level system of the European Union. The European Union’s role as a children’s rights actor has gained considerable importance with regard to digital and therefore commonly transnational contexts as well as in the EU’s legislative agenda with regard to the digital single market. Children’s rights, as established in the EU Charter, the ECHR, and the UNCRC, contain both protective and participative dimensions that need to be balanced. Currently, the benefits of children’s digital participation are not yet adequately reflected in legislative motives, regulations, and directives. The balancing of children’s protective and participative rights is directly linked to the implementation of the principle of the best interests of the child, which contains an interpretative legal principle, a substantive right, and a rule of procedure. Children’s best interests must be the primary consideration, also amid a large number of stakeholders. The principle of the best interests of the child requires a specific evaluation of the impact of these decisions on the children concerned and a justification demonstrating that the best interests of the child has been expressly taken into account when weighing interests. Depending on the issue and measure at hand, trans-sectorial analyses can be needed in order to carry out that impact assessment and give a suitable justification.

Children’s digital participation can be affected by a number of different instruments from various, partly overlapping legal areas, such as contract law, family law, private international law, platform regulation, and media law (including youth protection). As a result of sector-specific approaches and corresponding specializations of legal scholars analyzing the legal instruments, effects of such tools are rarely evaluated comprehensively. Instruments can also stem from various levels of norm-setting, such as the EU and Member State level. A rights-based approach emphasizes the need for integrative analyses, firstly, with regard to measures from different legal areas and secondly, with regard to those from different regulatory levels.

The principle of proportionality does not only govern the justification of EU limitations to children’s rights, but also the balance of EU and Member State responsibilities and interests. National limits on children’s participation and autonomy may vary, but coherence serves as a constraint on national legislators’ room to maneuver when exercising their competences. Specifically, Member States need to ensure coherence of all national measures in the relevant regulatory area. The rights-based approach to children’s participation online facilitates the application of the principle of coherence, as it can help identify all legal areas relevant for children’s participation in that specific context. As the example of children’s data autonomy shows, the interplay of EU and national law can not only take the shape of (partial) EU harmonization and supplement national law,^{Footnote 183} but also lead to hybridization, e.g. when EU law extends national rules on general contractual capacity to data protection law. In these cases, the rights-based, integrative approach becomes all the more important for the protection of children’s rights to digital participation in the European Union.

Notes

1.
Statista: Internetnutzung von Kindern und Jugendlichen nach Altersgruppen in Deutschland.
2.
Neumann-Braun/Autenrieth: Soziale Beziehungen im Web 2.0 und deren Visualisierung, p. 21.
3.
Autenrieth et al.: Gebrauch und Bedeutung von Social Network Sites im Alltag junger Menschen, in: Neumann-Braun (ed.): Freundschaft und Gemeinschaft im Social Web, p. 31, p. 51; Subrahmanyam/Greenfield: Online Communication and Adolescent Relationships, The Future of Children, 18, 2008, pp. 119–120; Moravscik: Negotiating the Single European Act, International Organization, 45(1), 1991, pp. 651–688.
4.
Cf. Ellison et al.: The Benefits of Facebook “Friends”, Journal of computer‐mediated communication, 12(4), 2007, pp. 1134–1161.
5.
Marwick et al.: Youth, Privacy and Reputation—Literature Review, pp. 10 f., 61 f.; Giroux: Racial Injustice and Disposable Youth, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16, 2003, p. 553 (examining the social costs of repressive policies regarding young people, including those that increase surveillance of youth).
6.
For everyday identity practices of young adults: Kleinen-von Königslöw/Förster: Multi-media theme repertoires in the everyday identity practices of young adults, Communications, 41(4) 2016, pp. 375–398; Schulz: Mediatisierte Sozialisation im Jugendalter, pp. 28–52; Valkenburg/Peter: Adolescents’ Identity Experiments on the Internet, Communication Research, 35(2), 2008, pp. 208–231.
7.
Carpini: Gen.com: Youth, Civic Engagement, and the New Information Environment, Political Communication, 17(4), 2000, pp. 341–349; Montgomery/Gottlieb-Robles: Youth as E-Citizens. The Internet’s Contribution to Civic Engagement, in: Buckingham/Willett (eds.): Digital Generations, pp. 131 ff.
8.
Margetts: Tiny Acts of Digital Democracy; “tiny acts of participation” such as “following, liking, tweeting, retweeting, sharing text or images relating to a political issue, or signing up to a digital campaign” should be regarded as the categorical difference “that social media have brought to the democratic landscape”, Margetts: Rethinking Democracy with Social Media, The Political Quarterly, 19(21), 2019, p. 108; see also Picone/Kleut et al.: Small acts of engagement, New Media & Society, 21(9), 2019, pp. 2010–2028; Shah et al.: Information and Expression in a Digital Age, Communication Research, 32(5), 2005, pp. 531–565; Kenski/Stroud: Connections Between Internet Use and Political Efficacy, Knowledge, and Participation, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 2006, pp. 173–192; see also Lane: In Search of the Expressive Citizen, Public Opinion Quarterly, 84, Special Issue 2020, pp. 257–283.
9.
Kaesling: The Making of Citizens, in: Neuberger/Friesike/Krzywdzinski/Eiermann (eds.): Proceedings of the Weizenbaum Conference 2021, p. 69; Kaesling/Knapp: Massenkreativität in sozialen Netzwerken, MMR (Multi Media und Recht), 23(12), 2020, pp. 816–821.
10.
For the use of mobile technology, see Bergert et al.: Missing Out on Life, International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik.
11.
Ibid.
12.
Ibid.
13.
Zaman/Castro/Miranda: Internet of Toys, Intercom: Revista Brasileira de Ciências da Comunicação, 41, 2018, pp. 216 f.
14.
Peyton: A Litigator’s Guide to the Internet of Things, Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, 22(3), 2016, p. 5.
15.
See Maple: Security and privacy in the internet of things, Journal of Cyber Policy, 2(2), 2017, p. 174; Jones: Your New Best Frenemy, Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 2, 2016, pp. 242–246; Peterson: Toymakers are tracking more data about kids—leaving them exposed to hackers.
16.
Nash: The Rise of the Algorithmic Child, in this volume; Holloway/Green: The Internet of Toys, Communication Research and Practice, 2(4), 2016, pp. 506–519.
17.
Ibid.
18.
Cf. Singer: Uncovering security flaws in digital education products for schoolchildren.
19.
Gibbs: Hackers can hijack Wi-Fi Hello Barbie to spy on your children.
20.
Gilbert: VTech Takes Learning Lodge Website Offline After Hack; Finkle/Wagstaff: VTech hack exposes ID theft risk in connecting kids to Internet.
21.
See Keymolen/Van der Hof: Can I still trust you, my dear doll? Journal of Cyber Policy, 4(2), 2019, pp. 143–159.
22.
ToyTalk: Privacy Policy.
23.
Chaudron et al.: Kaleidoscope on the Internet of Toys.
24.
Turner: Connected Toys, p. 3.
25.
Cf. e.g. Sec. 1626 (2) of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB): In caring for and raising the child, the parents shall take into account the child’s growing ability and need to act independently and responsibly. They discuss issues of parental care with the child, as far as is appropriate according to the child’s stage of development, and strive for agreement.
26.
Cf. Dethloff: Families and the Law: Taking Account of Children’s Evolving Capacities, in this volume.
27.
See Arewa: Data Collection, Privacy, and Children in the Digital Economy, in this volume.
28.
See generally Palfrey et al.: Enhancing Child Safety and Online Technologies; Stone: Now Parents Can Hire a Hall Monitor for the Web; regarding networking platforms Autenrieth et al.: Gebrauch und Bedeutung von Social Network Sites im Alltag junger Menschen, in: Neumann-Braun (ed.): Freundschaft und Gemeinschaft im Social Web, p. 31.
29.
See ibid.; Leamy: On parenting: The danger of giving your child ‘smart toys’; Venkataramakrishnan: Cyber risks take the fun out of connected toys; for the German media see e.g. Hönicke: Smartphone erst ab 14?.
30.
Holmes: Myths and Missed Opportunities, Information, Communication & Society, 12(8), 2009, pp. 1174, 1185.
31.
Livingstone: Children’s digital rights: a priority, Intermedia, 42(4/5), 2014, pp. 20–24; Kutscher/Bouillon: Kinder. Bilder. Rechte.; Kutscher: Positionings, Challenges, and Ambivalences in Children’s and Parents’ Perspectives in Digitalized Familial Contexts, in this volume.
32.
Livingstone: Reframing media effects, Journal of Children and Media, 10(1), 2016, pp. 4–12; Third/Livingstone/Lansdown: Recognizing children’s rights in relation to digital technologies, in: Wagner/Kettemann/Vieth (eds.): Research Handbook on Human Rights and Digital Technology, 2019, pp. 376–410; Livingstone/Bulger: A global research agenda for children’s rights in the digital age, Journal of Children and Media, 8(4), 2014, pp. 317–335.
33.
Cf. Dethloff/Maschwitz: Kinderrechte in Europa, FPR (Familie Partnerschaft Recht), 18(5), 2012, pp. 190–194; Dethloff: Families and the Law: Taking Account of Children’s Evolving Capacities, in this volume; Khazova: How to ensure a wider implementation of the CRC, in: Marrus/Laufer-Ukeles (eds.): Global Reflections on Children’s Rights and the Law, p. 4.
34.
Fortin: Children’s Rights and the Developing Law, p. 49; Kilkelly/Lundy: Children’s rights in action, Child and Family Law Quarterly, 18(3), 2006, p. 311.
35.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and Council of Europe: Handbook on European law relating to the rights of the child, p. 26.
36.
Ireland (Art. 42A of the Irish Constitution), Serbia (Art. 65 of the Serbian Constitution), Poland (Art. 72 of the Polish Constitution), Belgium (Art. 22 of the Belgian Constitution), Italy (Art. 31 of the Italian Constitution).
37.
E.g. Germany, where a recent bill providing for the introduction of specific children’s rights in the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz) did not pass, see Deutscher Bundestag: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Änderung des Grundgesetzes zur ausdrücklichen Verankerung der Kinderrechte, Bundestag Printed Matter (BT-Drucksache) 19/28138; Dethloff: Families and the Law: Taking Account of Children’s Evolving Capacities, in this volume.
38.
The Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
39.
Kokott/Sobotta: The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union after Lisbon, p. 94.
40.
OJ Official Journal of the European Union, C 364, December 18, 2000, p. 1–22.
41.
Cf. Opinion of AG Alber, February 1, 2001, Case C-340/99, TNT Traco, ECLI:EU:C:2001:74, para. 94; Opinion of AG Tizzano, February 8, 2001, Case C-173/99, BECTU, ECLI:EU:C:2001:81, para. 28; Opinion of AG Leger, July 10, 2001, Case C-353/99, Council v. Hautala, ECLI:EU:C:2001:392, para. 82, 83; Opinion of AG Mischo, September 20, 2001, Joined cases C-20/00 and C-64/00, Booker Aquaculture and Hydro Seafood, ECLI:EU:C:2001:469, para. 126; Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro, June 29, 2004, Case C-181/03, P Nardone, ECLI:EU:C:2004:397, para. 51; Opinion of AG Kokott, October 14, 2004, joined Cases C-387/02, C-391/02 and C-403/02 Berlusconi and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2004:624, para. 83.
42.
Kokott/Sobotta: The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union after Lisbon, p. 95 (“wertende Rechtsvergleichung”).
43.
See CJEU, decision from November 22, 2005 (C-144/04), Mangold, ECLI:EU:C:2005:709, para. 74.
44.
Pernice: Treaty of Lisbon and Fundamental Rights, in: Griller/Ziller (eds.): The Lisbon Treaty, pp. 235 ff.
45.
Stalford: The CRC in Litigation Under EU Law, in: Liefaard/Doek (eds.): Litigating the Rights of the Child, pp. 211–230.
46.
Fundamental right to liberty recognized in Art. 6 of the Charter as possessed by ‘everyone’, and, consequently, also by a ‘child’, CJEU, decision from March 28, 2012 (C-92/12), PPU Health Service Executive, ECLI:EU:C:2013:548, para. 111.
47.
Stalford/Drywood: Using the CRC to Inform EU Law and Policy-Making, in: Invernizzi (ed.): The Human Rights of Children, p. 206.
48.
Kisunaite/Delicati: Towards a fully-fledged European Union child rights strategy, in: Marrus/Laufer-Ukeles (eds.): Global Reflections on Children’s Rights and the Law, p. 17.
49.
Dethloff/Maschwitz: Kinderrechte in Europa, FPR (Familie Partnerschaft Recht), 18(5), 2012, pp. 190–194; Freeman: The Value and Values of Children’s Rights, in: Invernizzi/Williams (eds.): The Human Rights of Children, p. 7.
50.
For its relevance in the digital context, see Graziani: Les enfants et internet, Journal du droit des jeunes, 7, 2012, pp. 36–45.
51.
Kaesling: Children’s Digital Rights, in: Marrus/Laufer-Ukeles (eds.): Global Reflections on Children’s Rights and the Law, pp. 185–186.
52.
Stalford/Drywood: Using the CRC to Inform EU Law and Policy-Making, in: Invernizzi (ed.): The Human Rights of Children, p. 200.
53.
Iusmen: How are Children’s Rights (Mis)Interpreted in Practice? in: Rhodes (ed.): Narrative Policy Analysis, p. 100.
54.
Ibid. p. 97.
55.
Directive 2004/38/EU.
56.
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 (General Data Protection Regulation).
57.
See e.g. Recital 24 of the EU Citizenship Directive; Recital 38 of the General Data Protection Regulation.
58.
Kisunaite/Delicati: Towards a fully-fledged European Union child rights strategy, in: Marrus/Laufer-Ukeles (eds.): Global Reflections on Children’s Rights and the Law, p. 17.
59.
Worldpopulationreview.com: Facebook Users by Country 2021; Statista: TikTok—Statistics & Facts.
60.
Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive), Official Journal of the European Union, L 95/1, April 15, 2010; see specifically Art. 28b (1) (a) of the EU AVMSD; see also Specht-Riemenschneider/Marko/Wette: Protection of Minors on Video Sharing Platforms, in this volume.
61.
For GDPR and Children’s autonomy, see European Council speaking out against the COM Proposal of data autonomy at 13 years old, The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Position (EU) No 6/2016 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 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).
62.
O’Neill/Staksrud/McLaughlin: Towards a better internet for children, p. 18.
63.
For the range of children’s digital rights, see Kaesling: Children’s Digital Rights, in: Marrus/Laufer-Ukeles (eds.): Global Reflections on Children’s Rights and the Law, pp. 183 ff.
64.
See Art. 28 of the UNCRC, Art. 2 of the first additional protocol to the ECHR, Art. 14 (1) of the EU Charter.
65.
Art. 13 of the UNCRC, Art. 10 (1) of the ECHR, Art. 11 (1) of the EU Charter, Art. 5 of the German Basic Law.
66.
Art. 16 of the UNCRC, Art. 8 of the ECHR, Art. 7 of the EU Charter, Art. 2 (1) and Art. 1 (1) of the German Basic Law.
67.
Art. 31 of the UNCRC, Art. 2 (1), Art. 1 (1) of the German Basic Law; see Lester: Children’s right to play, in: Ruck/Peterson-Badali/Freeman (eds.): Handbook of Children’s Rights, pp. 312 ff.
68.
Critical Quennerstedt: Children, But Not Really Humans? The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 18, 2010, pp. 619–635.
69.
See Shmueli/Blecher-Prigat: Privacy for Children, Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 42, 2011, pp. 4, 759, 762; Palfrey/Gasser: Born Digital, p. 61; Blecher-Prigat: Lost Between Data and Family? in this volume.
70.
See for measures under Art. 28b Abs. 3 of the AVMD and the German implementation, Dreyer/Bernzen, in: Erdemir (ed.): Das neue Jugendschutzgesetz, § 5 Rn. 96 f.
71.
See CJEU, decision from June 12, 2003 (C-112/00), Schmidberger, ECLI:EU:C:2003:333, para 77, with regard to balancing a fundamental right and an economic freedom; with regard to the balance between the child’s liberty under Art. 6 of the EU Charter as well as its needs for protection see CJEU, decision from March 28, 2012 (C-92/12), PPU Health Service Executive, ECLI:EU:C:2013:548, para. 111.
72.
Rosas: Balancing Fundamental Rights in EU Law, Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, Vol. 16, p. 351.
73.
Kemper, in: Schulze, Sec. 1666 mn. 2.
74.
Dettenborn: Kindeswohl und Kindeswille: psychologische und rechtliche Aspekte, p. 51.
75.
For Art. 3 of the UNCRC, see Committee on the Rights of the Child: General Comment No. 14 at IV. 25 p. 8.
76.
Ibid., I. 5 p. 4.
77.
Ibid., I. 6 p. 4.
78.
Ibid., I. 5 p. 3.
79.
Ibid.
80.
Ibid., I 6 c p. 4.
81.
Ibid., I 6 p. 4.
82.
Sauter: Proportionality in EU Law, Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, Vol. 15, 2013, p. 466; cf. also Trstenjak/Beysen: Das Prinzip der Verhältnismäßigkeit in der Unionsrechtsordnung, Europarecht, 47, 2012, p. 265.
83.
Lippert: Das Kohärenzerfordernis des EuGH, Europarecht, 47, 2012, p. 90 (in German “Querschnittsklausel”).
84.
Ibid.
85.
See CJEU, decision from April 26, 2012 (RX-II C-334/12), Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB, ECLI:EU:C:2013:134, para. 50.
86.
In German: Rechtsgestaltungsprinzip.
87.
Blanke, in: Calliess/Ruffert (eds.): EUV/EGV, Art. 3 EUV mn. 6; Schorkopf, in: Grabitz/Hilf/Nettesheim (eds.): EUV/AEUV, Art. 7 AEUV mn. 1 ff.
88.
On the argumentive figure “in a consistent and systematic manner” as a part of the European fundamental freedoms, Schorkopf: Wahrhaftigkeit im Recht der Grundfreiheiten, DÖV (Die öffentliche Verwaltung), 2010, p.260; CJEU, decision from September 8, 2010 (C-46/08), Carmen Media, ECLI:EU:C:2010:505, para 55, 64 f.; CJEU, decision from March 3, 2011 (C-161/09), Kakavetsos, ECLI:EU:C:2011:110, para 42, 47 ff.
89.
Schorkopf, in: Grabitz/Hilf/Nettesheim (eds.): EUV/AEUV, Art. 7 AEUV mn. 12.
90.
Jarass, in: Jarass (ed.): EU-Grundrechte-Charta, Art. 52 GRCh mn. 23, 34, 39 f.
91.
For EEC law, see Tridimas: Principle of Proportionality, in: Schütze/Tridimas (eds.): Oxford Principles of European Union Law.
92.
CJEU, decision from September 9, 2004 (C-184/02), Spain/Parliament, ECLI:EU:C:2004:497, para. 52; CJEU, decision from December 6, 2005 (C-453/03), Fratelli, ECLI:EU:C:2005:741, para. 87; CJEU, decision from June 15, 2006 (C-28/05), Dokter, ECLI:EU:C:2006:408, para. 75; CJEU, decision from September 9, 2008 (C-120/06), Montecchio, ECLI:EU:C:2008:476, para. 183.
93.
Though not always consistently applied, see Sauter: Proportionality in EU Law, Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, Vol. 15, 2013, p. 466.
94.
Harbo: The Function of the Proportionality Principle in EU Law, European Law Journal, 16(2), 2010, p. 164; as, for example: CJEU, decision from May 13, 1986 (C-170/84), Bilka, ECLI:EU:C:1986:204, para. 36 (“appropriate with a view to achieving the objectives pursued and are necessary to that end”); CJEU, decision from March 11, 1987 (C-279/84), Rau and others, ECLI:EU:C:1987:119, para. 34; CJEU, decision from February 15, 2016 (C-601/15), J. N., ECLI:EU:C:2016:84, para. 54; CJEU, decision from September 14, 2017 (C-18/16), K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, ECLI:EU:C:2017:680, para. 37; CJEU, decision from January 25, 2018 (C-473/16), Bevándorlási, para. 56.
95.
Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC (Text with EEA relevance).
96.
Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’).
97.
See European Commission: Proposal for a Regulation on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC.
98.
Thanks to Louisa Specht-Riemenschneider, who introduced that idea at our conference “Families and New Media” in February 2020 with regard to general monitoring obligations in the E-Commerce-Directive and possible exceptions.
99.
Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in member states concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) regarding changing market conditions; see Specht Riemenschneider/Marko/Wette: Protection of Minors on Video Sharing Platforms, in this volume.
100.
Ruffert, in: Calliess/Ruffert (eds.): EUV/EGV, Art. 7 AEUV mn. 4; Schröder, in: Pechstein/Nowak/Häde (eds.): Frankfurter Kommentar zu EUV/GRC/AEUV, Art. 7 AEUV mn. 5.
101.
Jugendmedienschutz-Staatsvertrag (JMStV), Interstate Treaty on the Modernized Media Regulation (Staatsvertrag zur Modernisierung der Medienordnung in Deutschland; MoModStV) dated April 14, 2020, enacted November 7, 2020.
102.
Jugendschutzgesetz (JuSchG), Second Law amending the Protection of Minors Act (Zweites Gesetz zur Änderung des Jugendschutzgesetzes); adopted March 26, 2021; announced April 9, 2021; entered into force May 1, 2021.
103.
Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG).
104.
CJEU, decision from September 8, 2010 (C-46/08), Carmen Media, ECLI:EU:C:2010:505, para. 69–70.
105.
Ibid. para. 69; CJEU, decision from September 13, 2001 (C-417/99), Commission v Spain, ECLI:EU:C:2001:445, para. 37.
106.
CJEU, decision from September 8, 2010 (C-46/08), Carmen Media, ECLI:EU:C:2010:505, para. 70.
107.
Konstadinides: The Competences of the Union, in: Schütze/Tridimas (eds.): Oxford Principles of European Union Law.
108.
Previously be derived from Art. 5 (1) of the EC Treaty.
109.
CJEU, decision from June 16, 2011 (C-10/10), Commission v. Austria, ECLI:EU:C:2011:399, para. 23 ff.; CJEU, decision from October 28, 2010 (C-72/09), Établissements Rimbaud, ECLI:EU:C:2010:645, para. 23 ff.; CJEU, decision from July 1, 2010 (C-233/09), Dijkman and Dijkman-Lavaleije, ECLI:EU:C:2010:397, para. 20 ff.; CJEU, decision from September 17, 2009 (C-182/08), Glaxo Wellcome, para. 34 ff.; Regarding the competence of the Member States in the field of education, CJEU, decision from September 11, 2007, Schwarz and Gootjes-Schwarz, ECLI:EU:C:2007:492, para. 70; Regarding the competence of the Member States of their social security systems, CJEU, decision from May 16, 2006 (C-372/04), Watts, ECLI:EU:C:2006:325, para. 92.
110.
See CJEU, decision from July 21, 2011 (C-159/10), Fuchs and Köhler, ECLI:EU:C:2011:508, para. 84 ff. (civil service law); CJEU, decision from January 12, 2010 (C-341/08), Domnica Petersen v. Appointment Committee for Dentists for the District of Westphalia-Lippe, ECLI:EU:C:2010:4, para. 53 ff. (maximum age limit for contract dentists); CJEU, decision from December 16, 2010 (C-137/09), Josemans, ECLI:EU:C:2010:774, para. 69 ff. (access to coffee shops).
111.
CJEU, decision from October 21, 1999 (C-67/98), Zenatti, ECLI:EU:C:1999:514, para. 37.
112.
CJEU, decision from November 6, 2003 (C-243/01), Gambelli, ECLI:EU:C:2003:597, para. 67 (“in a consistent and systematic manner”).
113.
See CJEU, decision from September 8, 2010 (C-46/08), Carmen Media, ECLI:EU:C:2010:505, para. 110; CJEU, decision from July 21, 2011 (C-159/10), Fuchs and Köhler, ECLI:EU:C:2011:508, para. 85; CJEU, decision from October 20, 2011 (C-123/10), Brachner, ECLI:EU:C:2011:675, para. 71; CJEU, decision from July 5, 2017 (C-190/16), Fries, ECLI:EU:C:2017:513, para. 48; CJEU, decision from September 8, 2010 (C-316/07), Markus Stoß and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2010:504, para. 107; CJEU, decision from March 6, 2007 (C-338/04), Placanica, ECLI:EU:C:2007:133, para 49; Jarass, in: Jarass (ed.): EU-Grundrechte-Charta, Art. 52 GRCh mn.38; Trstenjak/Beysen: Das Prinzip der Verhältnismäßigkeit in der Unionsrechtsordnung, Europarecht, 47, 2012, p. 265.
114.
Frenz: Kohärente und systematische nationale Normgebung, Europarecht, 47(3), 2012, p. 349; Kämmerer: Interprofessionelle Zusammenarbeit und europarechtliche Kohärenz, Deutsches Steuerrecht, 53 (Appendix 13), 2015, p. 36; Kirschner: Grundfreiheiten und nationale Gestaltungsspielräume, pp. 179 ff.
115.
Lippert: Das Kohärenzerfordernis des EuGHs, Europarecht, 47, 2012, p. 90; Schuster: Das Kohärenzprinzip in der Europäischen Union, p. 104.
116.
Schuster: Das Kohärenzprinzip in der Europäischen Union, p. 104.
117.
CJEU, decision from July 21, 2011 (C-159/10), Fuchs and Köhler, ECLI:EU:C:2011:508, para. 87 ff.
118.
Jarass, in: Jarass (ed.): EU-Grundrechte-Charta, Art. 52 GRCh mn. 38.
119.
Lippert: Das Kohärenzerfordernis des EuGH, Europarecht, 47, 2012, p. 99.
120.
CJEU, decision from November 6, 2003 (C-243/01), Gambelli, ECLI:EU:C:2003:597, para. 67; CJEU, decision from September 8, 2010 (C-46/08), Carmen Media, ECLI:EU:C:2010:505, para. 64 ff.; CJEU, decision from September 8, 2010 (C-316/07), Markus Stoß and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2010:504, para. 107; CJEU, decision from March 6, 2007 (C-338/04), Placanica and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2007:133, para. 52 and 53.
121.
CJEU, decision from September 8, 2010 (C-46/08), Carmen Media, ECLI:EU:C:2010:505.
122.
Ibid., para. 104.
123.
Ibid.; citing by analogy, CJEU, decision from September 9, 2008 (C‑518/06), Commission v. Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2008:477, para. 83 and 84.
124.
CJEU, decision from September 8, 2009 (C-42/07), Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional and Bwin International, ECLI:EU:C:2009:519, para. 58.
125.
Frenz: Kohärente und systematische nationale Normgebung, Europarecht, 47(3), 2012, p. 346.
126.
For example, CJEU, decision from March 10, 2009 (C-169/07), Hartlauer, ECLI:EU:C:2009:141, para. 55; CJEU, decision from July 17, 2008 (C-500/06), Corporación Dermoestética, ECLI:EU:C:2008:421, para. 39 f.
127.
CJEU, decision from December 16, 2010 (C-137/09), Josemans, ECLI:EU:C:2010:774, para. 70.
128.
De Oliveira: Um direito da família europeu? Revista de Legislação e de Jurisprudência, ano133, n.º 3913 e 3914, set. 2000, pp. 105–110; but see Antokolskaia: Family law and national culture, Utrecht Law Review, 4(2), 2008, pp. 25 ff.
129.
Kämmerer: Interprofessionelle Zusammenarbeit und europarechtliche Kohärenz, Deutsches Steuerrecht, 53 (Appendix 13), 2015, p. 33.
130.
Dieterich: Systemgerechtigkeit und Kohärenz, pp. 98 ff.
131.
See Dethloff: Families and the Law: Taking Account of Children’s Evolving Capacities, in this volume.
132.
Lithuania: Art. 2.7 and Art. 2.8 of the Civil Code Lithuania; Bulgaria: Art. 4 of the Bulgarian Persons and Family Act; see Mladenova, in: Rieck/Lettmaier (eds.): Ausländisches Familienrecht, Bulgarien, mn. 2; for an overview on age of majority, limited or partial legal capacity, see Mankowski, in: Staudinger: Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Annex to Art. 7 EGBGB.
133.
Due to Sec. 104 of the German Civil Code.
134.
Sec. 2, Sec.106 of the German Civil Code.
135.
Sec. 107, Sec. 108 (1), (3) of the German Civil Code.
136.
See for Greece Art. 129, 133 ff. of the Greek Civil Code; for Malta: Smehyl, in: Rieck/Lettmaier (eds.): Ausländisches Familienrecht, Malta, mn. 2 with further references; for Ireland: Blaser, in: Rieck/Lettmaier (eds.): Ausländisches Familienrecht, Irland, mn. 2; see for Switzerland: Art. 19 1st, 2nd st. of the Swiss Civil Law Code (ZGB; Zivilgesetzbuch) for gratuitous advantageous transactions; Italy: Enßlin, in: Rieck/Lettmaier (eds.): Ausländisches Familienrecht, Italien, mn. 2 for advantageous transactions corresponding to the to the age-appropriate development and will; Estonia: Sec. 11 and Sec. 12 of the Civil Code Estonia.
137.
Malta: Art. 156 of the Civil Code Malta for professional activities; Croatia: Art. 85 of the Croatian Family Act; as well as explanations from Majstorović/Hoško, in: Bergmann/Ferid: Internationales Ehe- und Kindschaftsrecht, Kroatien, III. A. 5.; Germany: Sec. 112, 113 of the German Civil Code (full legal capacity in related fields).
138.
For Belgium see Heitmüller, in: Rieck/Lettmaier (eds.): Ausländisches Familienrecht, Belgien mn. 2 (recognition of autonomy regarding routine daily transactions by customary law); Finland Sec. 24 of the Guardianship Act; Art. 14 § 2 of the Polish Civil Code; Art. 1263 No. 1 of the Civil Code Spain, (Código Civil, CC).
139.
Estonia Sec. 11 of the General Part of the Estonian Civil Code; Germany Sec. 110 of the German Civil Code; Denmark: Autonomy regarding income from professional activity under Sec. 42 of the Guardianship Act.
140.
For the rescission of the contract in Portugal e.g., see Art. 123, 127 of the Civil Code Portugal (Código Civil; CC).
141.
Sec. 31, 33, 34 of the Civil Code Czech Republic; Italy: Enßlin, in: Rieck/Lettmaier (eds.): Ausländisches Familienrecht, Italien, mn. 2; Sec. 11 of the Estonian Civil Code; for Slovakia see Sec. 9 of the Civil Code Slovakia.
142.
Art. 3 of the Bulgarian Persons and Family Act; Denmark Sec. 1 (2) of the Guardianship Act; Art. 130 of the Greek Civil Code; Art. 1.84 of the Lithuanian Civil Code; Sec. 170 (1) of the Civil Code Austria (Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch; ABGB); Art. 14 of the Polish Civil Code (recognition of autonomy regarding routine daily transactions in Art. 14 § 2 of the Polish Civil Code); Art. 123 of the Civil Code Portugal; Chapter 9 s. 1 of the Children and Parents Code of Sweden; Art. 1263 No. 1 of the Civil Code Spain; Sec. 2, 9 of the Hungarian Civil Code.
143.
Art. 4 (2) of the Bulgarian Persons and Family Act; Art. 197 of the Civil Code Latvia (otherwise no liability); Art. 17 of the Polish Civil Code; Art. 41 (2) of the Romanian Civil Code; Sec. 2:12 of the Civil Code Hungary.
144.
Denmark Sec. 44 of the Guardianship Act; Chapter 9 s. 6 of the Children and Parents Code of Sweden; Art. 125, 123, 127 of the Civil Code Portugal.
145.
Sec. 11 (6) of the Estonian Civil Code.
146.
Art. 192 of the Civil Code Malta; see also Art. 1.88 (1) of the Civil Code Lithuania; Art. 46 (2) of the Romanian Civil Code.
147.
See also Dethloff: Families and the Law: Taking Account of Children’s Evolving Capacities, in this volume.
148.
Cf. the legislative agenda including proposals for both the Digital Markets Act (COM/2020/842 final) and for the Digital Services Act (COM/2020/825 final), the proposal for a revised directive on the Security of Network and Information Systems (COM/2020/823 final), Proposal for an ePrivacy Regulation (COM/2017/010 final.
- 2017/03 (COD)) and Presidency Compromise Proposal 12,336/18; European Commission’s “Digital Compass” strategy (COM(2021) 118 final).
149.
Ackermann: Sektorielles EU-Recht und allgemeine Privatrechtssystematik, ZEuP (Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht), 26(4), 2018, p. 767.
150.
Kampert, in: Sydow (ed.): Europäische Datenschutzgrundverordnung, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 1; Roßnagel: Der Datenschutz von Kindern in der DS-GVO, ZD (Zeitschrift für Datenschutz), 10, 2020, p. 89.
151.
Schulz, in: Gola (ed.): Datenschutzgrundverordnung, Art. 8 mn. 1; Spindler/Dalby, in: Spindler/Schuster (eds.): Recht der elektronischen Medien, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 3; Tinnefeld/Conrad: Die selbstbestimmte Einwilligung im europäischen Recht, ZD (Zeitschrift für Datenschutz), 9, 2018, p. 393.
152.
Kampert, in: Sydow (ed.): Europäische Datenschutzgrundverordnung, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 1; Spindler/Dalby, in: Spindler/Schuster (eds.): Recht der elektronischen Medien, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 3.
153.
Spindler/Dalby, in: Spindler/Schuster (eds.): Recht der elektronischen Medien, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 3; Peuker, in: Sydow (ed.): Europäische Datenschutzgrundverordnung, Art. 17 DSGVO mn. 28; Heckmann/Paschke, in: Ehmann/Selmayr (eds.): Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 26; Taeger, in: Taeger/Gabel (eds.): DS-GVO/BDSG, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 24; Gola/Schulz: DS-GVO—Neue Vorgaben für den Datenschutz bei Kindern? ZD (Zeitschrift für Datenschutz), 3, 2013, p. 478.
154.
Franck, in: Gola (ed.): Datenschutzgrundverordnung, Art. 12 DSGVO mn. 17; Roßnagel: Der Datenschutz von Kindern in der DS-GVO, ZD (Zeitschrift für Datenschutz), 10, 2020, p. 89.
155.
Greve, in: Sydow (ed.): Europäische Datenschutzgrundverordnung, Art. 12 DSGVO mn. 17.
156.
Peuker, in: Sydow (ed.): Europäische Datenschutzgrundverordnung, Art. 17 DSGVO mn. 28.
157.
Ibid., mn. 29.
158.
Nguyen, in: Gola (ed.): Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Art. 57 DSGVO mn. 12; Ziebarth, in: Sydow (ed.): Europäische Datenschutzgrundverordnung, Art. 57 DSGVO mn. 16.
159.
Cf. Ziebarth, in: Sydow (ed.): Europäische Datenschutzgrundverordnung, Art. 57 DSGVO mn. 20.
160.
CJEU, decision from November 6, 2003 (C-101/01), Lindqvist, ECLI:EU:C:2003:596, mn. 95 ff.
161.
Dethloff/Kaesling: Datenmündigkeit Minderjähriger in Europa, in: Fischer et al. (eds.): Gestaltung der Informationsordnung, München 2022, p. 537, p. 541.
162.
Wolff, in: Schantz/Wolff (eds.): Das neue Datenschutzrecht, Grundprinzipien, mn. 482; Heckmann/Paschke, in: Ehmann/Selmayr (eds.): Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 4; Persano: GDPR and children rights in the EU Data Protection Law, European Journal of Privacy Law & Technologies, Special issue, 2020, p. 32, p. 34, pp. 37 f.; Talley: Major Flaws in Minor Laws, Indina Int’l & Comp. Law Review, 30(1), 2019, p. 153.
163.
Kampert, in: Sydow (ed.): Europäische Datenschutzgrundverordnung, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 8.
164.
Spindler/Dalby, in: Spindler/Schuster (eds.): Recht der elektronischen Medien, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 4; Heckmann/Paschke, in: Ehmann/Selmayr (eds.): Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 17; Wolff, in: Schantz/Wolff (eds.): Das neue Datenschutzrecht, mn. 479; Peuker, in: Sydow (ed.): Europäische Datenschutzgrundverordnung, Art. 17 DSGVO mn. 28; Gola/Schulz: DS-GVO—Neue Vorgaben für den Datenschutz bei Kindern? ZD (Zeitschrift für Datenschutz), 3, 2013, p. 475, p. 477.
165.
Spindler/Dalby, in: Spindler/Schuster (eds.): Recht der elektronischen Medien, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 4.
166.
Ibid. mn.6; Wolff, in: Schantz/Wolff (eds.): Das neue Datenschutzrecht, mn. 480; Kampert, in: Sydow (ed.): Europäische Datenschutzgrundverordnung, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 8; Joachim: Besonders schutzbedürftige Personengruppen, ZD (Zeitschrift für Datenschutz), 7, 2017, pp. 414, 416.
167.
Spindler/Dalby, in: Spindler/Schuster (eds.): Recht der elektronischen Medien, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 6; Wolff, in: Schantz/Wolff (eds.): Das neue Datenschutzrecht, mn. 481; critical Heckmann/Paschke, in: Ehmann/Selmayr (eds.): Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 20.
168.
Fenelon: GDPR series: children and parental consent, Privacy & Data Protection, 17(8), 2017, pp. 3–5; Persano: GDPR and children rights in the EU Data Protection Law, European Journal of Privacy Law & Technologies, Special Issue, 2020, p. 32, p. 34.
169.
For an overview of rules on parental responsibility, see Boele-Woelki et al.: Principles of European Family Law Regarding Parental Responsibilities.
170.
Fenelon: GDPR series: children and parental consent, Privacy & Data Protection, 17(8), 2017, pp. 3–5.
171.
Klement, in: Simitis/Hornung/Spiecker (eds.): Datenschutzrecht, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 10; Wolff, in: Schantz/Wolff (eds.): Das neue Datenschutzrecht, Grundprinzipien, mn. 486.
172.
Kampert, in: Sydow (ed.): Europäische Datenschutzgrundverordnung, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 8.; but see Klement, in: Simitis/Hornung/Spiecker (eds.): Datenschutzrecht, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 12.
173.
Heckmann/Paschke, in: Ehmann/Selmayr (eds.): Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 9.
174.
Spindler/Dalby, in: Spindler/Schuster (eds.): Recht der elektronischen Medien, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 14; Heckmann/Paschke, in: Ehmann/Selmayr (eds.): Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 7, 39; Taeger, in: Taeger/Gabel (eds.): DS-GVO/BDSG, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 46; Buchner/Kühling, in: Kühling/Buchner (eds.): DS-GVO BDSG, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 29; Persano: GDPR and children rights in the EU Data Protection Law, European Journal of Privacy Law & Technologies, Special issue, 2020, p. 32, p. 39.
175.
Spindler/Dalby, in: Spindler/Schuster (eds.): Recht der elektronischen Medien, Art. 8 DSGVO mn.15; Frenzel, in: Paal/Pauly (eds.): DS-GVO BDSG, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 16.
176.
Taeger, in: Taeger/Gabel (eds.): DS-GVO/BDSG, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 46, 52; Gola/Schulz: DS-GVO—Neue Vorgaben für den Datenschutz bei Kindern? ZD (Zeitschrift für Datenschutz), 3, 2013, p. 475, p. 480; Schulz, in: Gola (ed.): Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 23, 24; Frenzel, in: Paal/Pauly (eds.): DS-GVO BDSG, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 16; Wolff, in: Schantz/Wolff (eds.): Das neue Datenschutzrecht, Grundprinzipien, mn. 486; Nebel/Richter: Datenschutz bei Internetdiensten nach der DS-GVO, ZD (Zeitschrift für Datenschutz), 2, 2012, p. 407, p. 411; Persano: GDPR and children rights in the EU Date Protection Law, European Journal of Privacy Law & Technologie Special Issue, 2020, p. 32, p. 34 f.; Jandt/Roßnagel: Social Networks für Kinder und Jugendliche, MMR (Multimedia und Recht), 14, 2011, p. 637, p. 640; probably also Talley: Major Flaws in Minor Laws, Indina Int’l & Comp. Law Review, 30(1), 2019, p. 150; to the contrary, Spindler/Dalby, in: Spindler/Schuster (eds.): Recht der elektronischen Medien, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 15; Frenzel, in; Paal/Pauly (eds.): DS-GVO BDSG, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 16.
177.
Gola/Schulz: DS-GVO—Neue Vorgaben für den Datenschutz bei Kindern? ZD (Zeitschrift für Datenschutz), 3, 2013, p. 475, p. 480; Schulz, in: Gola (ed.): Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 23.
178.
Schulz, in: Gola (ed.): Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 22 f.
179.
See supra under Sect. 5.2.
180.
See Dethloff: Zusammenspiel der Rechtsquellen aus privatrechtlicher Sicht, in: Paulus et al. (eds.): Internationales, nationales und privates Recht: Hybridisierung der Rechtsordnungen?: Immunität, pp. 47–86.
181.
See Dethloff/Kaesling: Datenmündigkeit Minderjähriger in Europa, in: Fischer et al. (eds.): Gestaltung der Informationsordnung, München 2022, p. 537, p. 550–552.
182.
Schulz, in: Gola (ed.): Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Art. 8 DSGVO mn. 10; Gola/Schulz: DS-GVO—Neue Vorgaben für den Datenschutz bei Kindern? ZD (Zeitschrift für Datenschutz), 3, 2013, p. 475, p. 468.
183.
See supra Sect. 6.1.

References

Ackermann, Thomas: Sektorielles EU-Recht und allgemeine Privatrechtssystematik, ZEuP (Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht), 26(4), 2018, pp. 741–781.
Google Scholar
Antokolskaia, Masha: Family law and national culture: Arguing against the cultural constraints argument, Utrecht Law Review, 4, 2008, pp. 25–34.
Google Scholar
Arewa, Olufunmilayo B.: Data Collection, Privacy, and Children in the Digital Economy, in this volume.
Google Scholar
Autenrieth, Ulla/Bänziger, Andreas/Rohde, Wiebke/Schmidt, Jan: Gebrauch und Bedeutung von Social Network Sites im Alltag junger Menschen. Ein Ländervergleich zwischen Deutschland und der Schweiz, in: Neumann-Braun, Klaus (ed.): Freundschaft und Gemeinschaft im Social Web. Bildbezogenes Handeln und Peergroup-Kommunikation auf Facebook & Co, Baden-Baden 2011, pp. 31–54.
Google Scholar
Bergert, Cora/Köster, Antonia/Krasnova, Hanna/Turel, Ofir: Missing Out on Life: Parental Perceptions of Children’s Mobile Technology Use, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, March 8–11, Potsdam, 2020.
Google Scholar
Blanke, Herman J., in: Calliess, Christian/Ruffert, Matthias (eds.): EUV/EGV, Munich, 3rd ed. 2007, Art. 3 EUV.
Google Scholar
Blaser, T., in: Rieck, Jürgen/Lettmaier, Saskia (eds.): Ausländisches Familienrecht, Munich, 21st ed. 2021, Ireland.
Google Scholar
Blecher-Prigat, Ayelet: Lost Between Data and Family? Shortcomings of Current Understandings of the Law, in this volume.
Google Scholar
Boele-Woelki, Katharina/Ferrand, Frédérique/González-Beilfuss, Cristina/Jänterä-Jareborg, Maarit/Lowe, Nigel/Martiny, Dieter/Pintens, Walter: Principles of European Family Law Regarding Parental Responsibilities, Cambridge 2007.
Google Scholar
Buchner, Benedikt/Kühling, Jürgen, in: Kühling, Jürgen/Buchner, Benedikt (eds.): DS-GVO BDSG, Munich, 3rd ed. 2020, Art. 8 DSGVO.
Google Scholar
Carpini, Michael X. Delli: Gen.com: Youth, Civic Engagement, and the New Information Environment, Political Communication, 17(4), 2000, pp. 341–349.
Google Scholar
Chaudron, Stèphane/Di Gioia, Rosanna/Gemo, Monica/Holloway, Donell/Marsh, Jackie/Mascheroni, Giovanna/Peter, Jochen/Yamada-Rice, Dylan: Kaleidoscope on the Internet of Toys—Safety, security, privacy and societal insights, 2017.
Google Scholar
Committee on the Rights of the Child: General comment No. 25 on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment, 2021, CRC/C/GC/25.
Google Scholar
Cullingford, Cedric: Children and Society—Children’s Attitudes to Politics and Power, London 1992.
Google Scholar
De Oliveira, Guilherme: Um direito da família europeu? Play it again… Europe!, Revista de Legislação e de Jurisprudência, ano133, n.º 3913 e 3914, set. 2000, pp. 105–110.
Google Scholar
Dethloff, Nina: Families and the Law: Taking Account of Children’s Evolving Capacities in Analogue and Digital Contexts, in this volume.
Google Scholar
Dethloff, Nina: Zusammenspiel der Rechtsquellen aus privatrechtlicher Sicht, in: Paulus, Andreas et al. (eds.): Internationales, nationales und privates Recht: Hybridisierung der Rechtsordnungen?: Immunität, Heidelberg 2014, pp. 47–86.
Google Scholar
Dethloff, Nina/Kaesling, Katharina: Datenmündigkeit Minderjähriger in Europa, in: Fischer, Veronika/Nolte, Georg/Senftleben, Martin/Specht-Riemenschneider, Louisa (eds.): Gestaltung der Informationsordnung—Festschrift für Thomas Dreier, München 2022, pp. 537–552.
Google Scholar
Dethloff, Nina/Maschwitz, Alexandra: Kinderrechte in Europa—wo stehen wir? FPR (Familie Partnerschaft Recht), 18(5), 2012, pp. 190–194.
Google Scholar
Dettenborn, Harry: Kindeswohl und Kindeswille: psychologische und rechtliche Aspekte, Munich 2017.
Google Scholar
Deutscher Bundestag: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Änderung des Grundgesetzes zur ausdrücklichen Verankerung der Kinderrechte, Bundestag Printed Matter (BT- Drucksache) 19/28138.
Google Scholar
Dieterich, Peter: Systemgerechtigkeit und Kohärenz, Berlin 2014.
Google Scholar
Dittler, Ullrich/Hoyer, Michael (eds.): Social Network—Die Revolution der Kommunikation: Kundenkommunikation, Facebook-Freundschaften, digitale Demokratie und virtuelle Shitstorms unter medienpsychologischer und mediensoziologischer Perspektiven, Munich 2014.
Google Scholar
Dreyer/Bernzen, in: Erdemir (ed.): Das neue Jugendschutzgesetz, Baden-Baden 2021, § 5.
Google Scholar
Ellison, Nicolle B./Steinfield, Charles/Lampe, Cliff: The benefits of Facebook “Friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites, Journal of Computer‐mediated Communication, 12(4), 2007, pp. 1143–1168.
Google Scholar
Enßlin, R., in: Rieck, Jürgen/Lettmaier, Saskia (eds.): Ausländisches Familienrecht, Munich, 21st ed. 2021, Italien.
Google Scholar
European Commission: Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC, December 15, 2020, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52020PC0825&from=en; last accessed September 21, 2021.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and Council of Europe: Handbook on European law relating to the rights of the child, 2015, https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Handbook_rights_child_ENG.PDF; last accessed August 19, 2021.
Fenelon, James: GDPR series: children and parental consent, Privacy & Data Protection, 17(8), 2017, pp. 3–5.
Google Scholar
Finkle, Jim/Wagstaff, Jeremy: VTech hack exposes ID theft risk in connecting kids to Internet, Reuters, December 6, 2015, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vtech-cyberattack-kids-analysis-idUSKBN0TP0FQ20151206; last accessed October 6, 2021.
Fortin, Jane: Children’s Rights and the Developing Law, Cambridge 2009.
Google Scholar
Franck, Lorenz, in: Gola, Peter (ed.): Datenschutzgrundverordung, Munich, 2nd ed. 2018, Art. 8 DSGVO.
Google Scholar
Freeman, Michael: The Value and Values of Children’s Rights, in: Invernizzi, Antonella/ Williams, Jane (eds.): The Human Rights of Children: From Visions to Implementation, London 2016.
Google Scholar
Frenz: Kohärente und systematische nationale Normgebung—nicht nur im Glücksspielrecht, Europarecht, 47(3), 2012, pp. 346–354.
Google Scholar
Frenzel, Eike M., in: Paal, Boris/Pauly, Daniel A. (eds.): DS-GVO BDSG, Munich, 3rd ed. 2021, Art. 8 DSGVO.
Google Scholar
Gibbs, Samuel: Hackers can hijack Wi-Fi Hello Barbie to spy on your children, The Guardian, November 26, 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/26/hackers-can-hijack-wi-fi-hello-barbie-to-spy-on-your-children; last accessed October 6, 2021.
Gilbert, David: VTech Takes Learning Lodge Website Offline After Hack Reveals Details of Over 200,000 Children, International Business Times, November 30, 2015, https://www.ibtimes.com/vtech-takes-learning-lodge-website-offline-after-hack-reveals-details-over-200000-2203642; last accessed October 6, 2021.
Giroux, Henry A.: Racial Injustice and Disposable Youth in the Age of Zero Tolerance, Injustice and Disposable Youth in the Age of Zero Tolerance, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16, 2003, pp. 553–565.
Google Scholar
Gola, Peter/Schulz, Sebastian: DS-GVO—Neue Vorgaben für den Datenschutz bei Kindern? Überlegungen zur einwilligungsbasierten Verarbeitung von personenbezogenen Daten Minderjähriger, ZD (Zeitschrift für Datenschutz), 3, 2013, pp. 475–481.
Google Scholar
Gottlieb-Robles, Barbara/Montgomery, Kathryn: Youth as E-Citizens. The Internet’s Contribution to Civic Engagement, in: Buckingham, David/Willett, Rebekah (eds.): Digital Generations. Children, Young People and the Media, London 2006, pp. 131–148.
Google Scholar
Graziani, Laurène: Les enfants et internet: La participation des jeunes à travers les réseaux sociaux, Journal du droit des jeunes, 7, 2012, pp. 36–45.
Google Scholar
Greve, Holger, in: Sydow, Gernot (ed.): Europäische Datenschutzgrundverordnung, Baden-Baden, 2nd ed. 2018, Art. 12 DSGVO.
Google Scholar
Harbo, Tor-Inge: The Function of the Proportionality Principle in EU Law, European Law Journal, 16(2), 2010, pp. 158–185.
Google Scholar
Heckmann, Dirk/Paschke, Anne, in: Ehmann, Eugen/Selmayr, Martin (eds.): Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Munich, 2nd ed. 2018, Artikel 8 DSGVO.
Google Scholar
Heitmüller, M., in: Rieck, Jürgen/Lettmaier, Saskia (eds.): Ausländisches Familienrecht, Munich, 21st ed. 2021, Belgien.
Google Scholar
Helwig, Charles C./Turiel, Elliot: Civil liberties, autonomy, and democracy: Children’s perspective, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 25(3), 2002, pp. 253–270.
Google Scholar
Hönicke, Christian: Smartphone erst ab 14? Ja unbedingt, Tagesspiegel, February 15, 2019, https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/kinderschutz-smartphone-erst-ab-14-ja-unbedingt/23991512.html; last accessed September 21, 2021.
Holloway, Donnell/Green, Leila: The Internet of Toys, Communication Research and Practice, 2(4), 2016, pp. 506–513.
Google Scholar
Holmes, John: Myths and Missed Opportunities: Young People’s Not So Risky Use of Online Communication, Information, Communication & Society, 12(8), 2008, pp. 1174–1196.
Google Scholar
Iusmen, Ingi: How are Children’s Rights (Mis)Interpreted in Practice? The European Commission, Children’s Rights and Policy Narratives, in: Rhodes, Roderick Arthur William (ed.): Narrative Policy Analysis, 2018, pp. 97–120.
Google Scholar
Jandt, Silke/Roßnagel, Alexander: Social Networks für Kinder und Jugendliche—Besteht ein ausreichender Datenschutz? MMR (Multimedia und Recht), 14, 2011, pp. 637–642.
Google Scholar
Jarass, Hans D., in: Jarass, Hans D. (ed.): EU-Grundrechte-Charta, Munich, 4th ed. 2021, Art. 52 Grundrechte-Charta.
Google Scholar
Joachim, Katharina: Besonders schutzbedürftige Personengruppen, ZD (Zeitschrift für Datenschutz), 7, 2017, pp. 414–418.
Google Scholar
Jones, Meg Leta: Your New Best Frenemy: Hello Barbie and Privacy Without Screens, Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 2, 2016, pp. 242–246.
Google Scholar
Kämmerer, Jörn Axel: Interprofessionelle Zusammenarbeit und europarechtliche Kohärenz, Deutsches Steuerrecht, 53 (Appendix 13), 2015, pp. 33–44.
Google Scholar
Kaesling, Katharina: Children’s Digital Rights: Realizing the Potential of the CRC, in: Laufer-Ukeles, Pamela/Marrus, Ellen (eds.): Children’s Rights and Interests: 30 Years After the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, London/New York 2021a, pp. 183–196.
Google Scholar
Kaesling, Katharina/Knapp, Jacob: “Massenkreativität” in sozialen Netzwerken, MMR (Multi Media und Recht), 23(12), 2020, pp. 816–821.
Google Scholar
Kaesling, Katharina: The Making of Citizens: Democracy and Children’s Rights in Digital Spheres, in: Neuberger, Christoph/Friesike, Sascha/Krzywdzinski, Martin/Eiermann, Karin-Irene (eds.): Proceedings of the Weizenbaum Conference 2021b “Democracy in Flux: Order, Dynamics and Voices in Digital Public Spheres”, 2021b, pp. 67–71.
Google Scholar
Kampert, David, in: Sydow, Gernot (ed.): Europäische Datenschutzgrundverordnung, Baden-Baden, 2nd ed. 2018, Art. 8 DSGVO.
Google Scholar
Kemper, Rainer, in: Schulze, Reiner (ed.): Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB), Baden-Baden, 10th ed. 2019, Sec. 1666 BGB.
Google Scholar
Kenski, Kate/Stroud, Natalie Jomini: Connections Between Internet Use and Political Efficacy, Knowledge, and Participation, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 2006, pp. 173–192.
Google Scholar
Khazova, Olga: How to ensure a wider implementation of the CRC, in: Marrus, Ellen/Laufer-Ukeles, Pamela (eds.): Global Reflections on Children’s Rights and the Law: 30 Years after the Convention on the Rights of the Child, London/New York 2021, pp. 4–15.
Google Scholar
Kilkelly, Ursula/Lundy, Laura: Children’s rights in action: Using the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as an auditing tool, Child and Family Law Quarterly, 18(3), 2006, pp. 311–350.
Google Scholar
Kirschner, Julia: Grundfreiheiten und nationale Gestaltungsspielräume, Munich 2013.
Google Scholar
Kisunaite, Aida/Delicati, Simone: Towards a fully-fledged European Union child rights strategy, in: Marrus, Ellen/Laufer-Ukeles, Pamela (eds.): Global Reflections on Children’s Rights and the Law—30 years after the Convention on the Rights of the Child, London/New York 2021.
Google Scholar
Kleinen-von Königslöw, Katharina/Förster, Kati: Multi-media theme repertoires in the everyday identity practices of young adults, Communications, 41(4), 2016, pp. 375–398.
Google Scholar
Klement, Jan Henrik, in: Simitis, Spiros/Hornung, Gerrit/Spiecker, Indra (eds.): Datenschutzrecht, Munich 1st ed. 2019, Art. 8 DSGVO.
Google Scholar
Kokott, Juliane/Sobotta, Christoph: The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union after Lisbon, Revista Romana de Drept European 2012, 5, 2012, pp. 93–112, https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/15208/AEL_WP_2010_06.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y; last accessed September 21, 2021.
Konstadinides, Theodore: The Competences of the Union, in: Schütze, Robert/Tridimas, Takis (eds.): Oxford Principles of European Union Law: The European Union Legal Order: Volume I, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199533770.003.0008.
Kutscher, Nadia/Bouillon, Romana: Kinder. Bilder. Rechte. Persönlichkeitsrechte von Kindern im Kontext der digitalen Mediennutzung in der Familie, Berlin 2018.
Google Scholar
Kutscher, Nadia: Positionings, Challenges, and Ambivalences in Children’s and Parents’ Perspectives in Digitalized Familial Contexts, in this volume.
Google Scholar
Lane, Daniel S.: In Search of the Expressive Citizen: Citizenship Norms and Youth Political Expression on Social Media, Public Opinion Quarterly, 84, Special Issue, 2020, pp. 257–283.
Google Scholar
Leamy, Elisabeth: On parenting: The danger of giving your child ‘smart toys’, Washington Post, September 29, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/on-parenting/giving-your-child-internet-connected-smart-toys-could-be-dumb/2017/09/29/a168218a-a241-11e7-8cfe-d5b912fabc99_story.html; last accessed September 21, 2021.
Lester, Stuart: Children’s right to play—From the Margins to the Middle, in: Ruck, Martin D./Peterson-Badali, Michele/Freeman, Michael: Handbook of Children’s Rights: Global and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, New York 2017, pp. 312 ff.
Google Scholar
Lippert, André: Das Kohärenzerfordernis des EuGH—Eine Darstellung am Beispiel der Rechtsprechung zum deutschen Glücksspielmonopol, Europarecht, 47, 2012, pp. 90–99.
Google Scholar
Livingstone, Sonia/Bulger, Monica E.: A global research agenda for children’s rights in the digital age, Journal of Children and Media, 8(4), 2014, pp. 317–335.
Google Scholar
Livingstone, Sonia: Children’s digital rights: a priority, Intermedia, 42(4/5), 2014, pp. 20–24.
Google Scholar
Livingstone, Sonia: Reframing media effects in terms of children’s rights in the digital age, Journal of Children and Media, 10(1), 2016, pp. 4–12.
Google Scholar
Majstorović, Irena/Hoško, Dubravka, in: Bergmann, Alexander/Ferid, Murad: Internationales Ehe- und Kindschaftsrecht, Frankfurt a. M./Berlin 2019, Kroatien.
Google Scholar
Mankowski, Peter, in: Staudinger, Julius: Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Berlin, 14th ed. 2019, Art. 7 EGBGB.
Google Scholar
Maple, Carsten: Security and privacy in the internet of things, Journal of Cyber Policy, 2(2), 2017, pp. 155–184.
Google Scholar
Margetts, Helen: Rethinking Democracy with Social Media, The Political Quarterly, 19(21), 2019, pp. 107–123.
Google Scholar
Margetts, Helen: Tiny Acts of Digital Democracy: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Weizenbaum Conference 2021.
Google Scholar
Marwick, Alice E. et al.: Youth, Privacy and Reputation—Literature Review, Harvard University Public Law Working Paper No. 10–29, 2010.
Google Scholar
Mladenova, K., in: Rieck, Jürgen/Lettmaier, Saskia (eds.): Ausländisches Familienrecht, Munich, 21st ed. 2021, Bulgarien.
Google Scholar
Moravscik, Andrew: Negotiating the Single European Act. National Interests and Conventional Statecraft in the European Community, International Organization, 45(1), 1991, pp. 651-688.
Google Scholar
Nash, Victoria: The Rise of the Algorithmic Child: Protecting Children in Smart Homes, in this volume.
Google Scholar
Nebel, Maxi/Richter, Philipp: Datenschutz bei Internetdiensten nach der DS-GVO—Vergleich der deutschen Rechtslage mit dem Kommissionsentwurf, ZD (Zeitschrift für Datenschutz), 2, 2012, pp. 407–413.
Google Scholar
Neumann-Braun, Klaus/Autenrieth, Ulla P.: Soziale Beziehungen im Web 2.0 und deren Visualisierung, in: Neumann-Braun, Klaus (ed.): Freundschaft und Gemeinschaft im Social Web. Bildbezogenes Handeln und Peergroup-Kommunikation auf Facebook & Co, Baden-Baden 2011, pp. 9–30.
Google Scholar
Neumann-Braun, Klaus: Freundschaft und Gemeinschaft im Social Web. Bildbezogenes Handeln und Peergroup-Kommunikation auf Facebook & Co, Baden-Baden 2011.
Google Scholar
Nguyen, Alexander, in: Gola, Peter (ed.): Datenschutzgrundverordung, Munich, 2nd ed. 2018, Art. 57 DSGVO.
Google Scholar
O’Neill, Brian/Staksrud, Elisabeth/McLaughlin, Sharon: Towards a better internet for children: Policy pillars, players and paradoxes, NORDICOM, 2013, https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1534762/FULLTEXT01.pdf; last accessed September 21, 2021.
Palfrey, John et al.: Enhancing Child Safety and Online Technologies: Research Advisory Board Report for the Internet Safety Technical Task Force, 2008, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/isttf/; last accessed September 21, 2021.
Palfrey, John/Gasser, Urs: Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives 71, New York 2008.
Google Scholar
Patti, Salvatore/Cubeddu, M. Giovanna: Introduzione al diritto della famiglia in Europa, Milan 2008.
Google Scholar
Pernice, Ingolf: Treaty of Lisbon and Fundamental Rights, in: Griller, Stefan/Ziller, Jaques (eds.): The Lisbon Treaty. EU Constitutionalism without a Constitutional Treaty? Vienna/ New York 2008, pp. 235–254.
Google Scholar
Persano, Federcia: GDPR and children rights in the EU Data Protection Law, European Journal of Privacy Law & Technologies, Special issue, 2020, p. 32 ff.
Google Scholar
Peterson, Andrea: Toymakers are tracking more data about kids—leaving them exposed to hackers, Washington Post, November 30, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/11/30/toymakers-are-tracking-more-data-about-kids-leaving-them-exposed-to-hackers/; last accessed September 21, 2021.
Peuker, Enrico, in: Sydow, Gernot (ed.): Europäische Datenschutzgrundverordnung, Baden-Baden, 2nd ed. 2018, Art. 17 DSGVO.
Google Scholar
Peyton, Antigone: A Litigator’s Guide to the Internet of Things, Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, 22(3), 2016, Article 4, available at: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/jolt/vol22/iss3/4; last accessed September 21, 2021.
Picone, Ike/Kleut, Jelena et al.: Small acts of engagement: Reconnecting productive audience practices with everyday agency, New Media & Society, 21(9), 2019, pp. 2010–2028.
Google Scholar
Quennerstedt, Ann: Children, But Not Really Humans? Critical Reflections on the Hampering Effect of the “3 p’s”, The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 18, 2010, pp. 619–635.
Google Scholar
Rosas, Allan: Balancing Fundamental Rights in EU Law, Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, Vol. 16, 2014, pp. 347–360.
Google Scholar
Roßnagel, Alexander: Der Datenschutz von Kindern in der DS-GVO, ZD (Zeitschrift für Datenschutz), 10, 2020, pp. 88–92.
Google Scholar
Ruffert, Matthias, in: Calliess, Christian/Ruffert, Matthias (eds.): EUV/EGV, Munich, 3rd ed. 2007, Art. 7 AEUV.
Google Scholar
Sauter, Wolf: Proportionality in EU Law: A Balancing Act? Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, Vol. 15, 2013, pp. 439–466.
Google Scholar
Schorkopf, Frank, in: Grabitz, Eberhard/Hilf, Meinhard/Nettesheim, Martin (eds.): Das Recht der Europäischen Union: EUV/AEUV, Munich, 73rd ed. 2021, Art. 7 AEUV.
Google Scholar
Schorkopf, Frank: Wahrhaftigkeit im Recht der Grundfreiheiten—Zu Maßstab und Rechtsfolgen der Glücksspielurteile des Europäischen Gerichtshofs, (DÖV) Die öffentliche Verwaltung, 64, 2011, pp. 260 ff.
Google Scholar
Schröder, Rainer, in: Pechstein, Matthias/Nowak, Carsten/Häde, Ulrich (eds.): Frankfurter Kommentar zu EUV/GRC/AEUV, Tübingen 2017, Art. 7 AEUV.
Google Scholar
Schulz, Iren: Mediatisierte Sozialisation im Jugendalter—Kommunikative Praktiken und Beziehungsnetze im Wandel, Berlin 2010.
Google Scholar
Schulz, Sebastian, in: Gola, Peter (ed.): Datenschutzgrundverordung, Munich, 2nd ed. 2018, Art. 8 DSGVO.
Google Scholar
Schuster, Ulrike: Das Kohärenzprinzip in der Europäischen Union, Baden-Baden 2017.
Google Scholar
Shah, Dhavan/Jaeho, Cho/Eveland, William/Kwak, Nojin: Information and Expression in a Digital Age: Modeling Internet Effects on Civic Participation, Communication Research, 32(5), 2005, pp. 531–565.
Google Scholar
Shmueli, Benjamin/Blecher-Prigat, Ayelet: Privacy for Children, Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 42, 2011, pp. 758–795.
Google Scholar
Singer, Natasha: Uncovering security flaws in digital education products for schoolchildren, New York Times, February 8, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/technology/uncovering-security-flaws-in-digital-education-products-for-schoolchildren.html; last accessed September 21, 2021.
Smehyl, S., in: Rieck, Jürgen/Lettmaier, Saskia (eds.): Ausländisches Familienrecht, Munich, 21st ed. 2021, Malta.
Google Scholar
Specht-Riemenschneider, Louisa/Marko, Alina/Wette, Sascha: Protection of Minors on Video Sharing Platforms, in this volume.
Google Scholar
Spindler, Gerald/Dalby, Lukas, in: Spindler, Gerald/Schuster, Fabian (eds.): Recht der elektronischen Medien, Munich, 4th ed. 2019, Art. 8 DSGVO.
Google Scholar
Stalford, Helen: The CRC in Litigation Under EU Law, in: Liefaard, Ton/Doek, Jaap E. (eds.): Litigating the Rights of the Child, 2015, pp. 211–230.
Google Scholar
Stalford, Helen/Drywood, Eleanor: Using the CRC to Inform EU Law and Policy-Making, in: Invernizzi, Antonio/Williams, Jane (eds.): The Human Rights of Children from Visions to Implementation, London 2011.
Google Scholar
Statista: Internetnutzung von Kindern und Jugendlichen nach Altersgruppen in Deutschland 2019, June 18, 2020, https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/298170/umfrage/internetnutzung-von-kindern-und-jugendlichen-in-deutschland/; last accessed September 21, 2021.
Statista: TikTok—Statistics & Facts, May 5, 2021, https://www.statista.com/topics/6077/tiktok/; last accessed September 21, 2021.
Stone, Brad: Now Parents Can Hire a Hall Monitor for the Web, New York Times, July 4, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/technology/04ping.html; last accessed September 21, 2021.
Subrahmanyam, Kaveri/Greenfield, Patricia: Online Communication and Adolescent Relationships, The Future of Children, 18, 2008, pp. 119–120.
Google Scholar
Taeger, Jürgen, in: Taeger, Jürgen/Gabel, Detlev (eds.): DS-GVO/BDSG, Munich, 3rd ed. 2019, Art. 8 DSGVO.
Google Scholar
Tagesspiegel: Regierungsberaterin fordert Smartphone-Verbot für Kinder unter 14, Tagesspiegel, February 15, 2019, https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/panorama/schutz-vor-pornografie-regierungsberaterin-fordert-smartphone-verbot-fuer-kinder-unter-14/23990654.html; last accessed September 21, 2021.
Talley, Virginia A. M.: Major Flaws in Minor Laws, Indina Int’l & Comp. Law Review, 30(1), 2019, p. 150.
Google Scholar
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Position (EU) No 6/2016 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 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), May 3, 2016, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016AG0006(01)&from=EN; last accessed September 21, 2021.
Thimm, Caya: Digitale Werteordnung: Kommentieren, kritisieren, debattieren im Netz, Forschung und Lehre, 12, 2017, pp. 1062–1063.
Google Scholar
Third, Amanda/Livingstone, Sonia/Lansdown, Gerison: Recognizing children’s rights in relation to digital technologies: Challenges of voice and evidence, principle and practice, in: Wagner, Ben/Kettemann, Matthias C./Vieth, Kilian (eds.): Research Handbook on Human Rights and Digital Technology, Cheltenham 2019, pp. 376–410.
Google Scholar
Tinnefeld, Marie-Theres/Conrad, Isabell: Die selbstbestimmte Einwilligung im europäischen Recht, ZD (Zeitschrift für Datenschutz), 9, 2018, pp. 391–398.
Google Scholar
ToyTalk: Privacy Policy, https://www.toytalk.com/legal/privacy/, archived at https://perma.cc/Z8K8-2DRS; last accessed September 21, 2021.
Tridimas, Takis: Principle of Proportionality, in: Schütze, Robert/Tridimas, Takis: Principle of Proportionality, in: Oxford Principles of European Union Law: The European Union Legal Order: Volume 1.
Google Scholar
Trstenjak, Verica/Beysen, Erwin: Das Prinzip der Verhältnismäßigkeit in der Unionsrechtsordnung, Europarecht, 47, 2012, pp. 265–284.
Google Scholar
Turner, Sarah: Connected Toys—What Device Documentation Explains about Privacy and Security, 2020.
Google Scholar
Valkenburg, Patty M./Peter, Jochen: Adolescents’ Identity Experiments on the Internet: Consequences for Social Competence and Self-Concept Unity, Communication Research, 35(2), 2008, pp. 208–231.
Google Scholar
Keymolen, Esther/Van der Hof, Simone: Can I still trust you, my dear doll? A philosophical and legal exploration of smart toys and trust, Journal of Cyber Policy, 4(2), 2019, pp. 143–159.
Google Scholar
Venkataramakrishnan, Siddharth: Cyber risks take the fun out of connected toys, Financial Times, November 25, 2020, https://www.ft.com/content/c653e977-435f-4553-8401-9fa9b0faf632; last accessed September 21, 2021.
Wolff, Heimrich A., in: Schantz, Peter/Wolff, Heinrich A. (eds.): Das neue Datenschutzrecht, Munich 2017.
Google Scholar
Worldpopulationreview.com: Facebook Users by Country 2021, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/facebook-users-by-country; last accessed September 21, 2021.
Zaman, Bieke/Castro, Theresa Sofia/Miranda, Fernanda Chocron: Internet of Toys: advantages, risks and challenges of a consumption scenario that is intriguing parents and researchers, Intercom: Revista Brasileira de Ciências da Comunicação, 41, 2018, pp. 213–219.
Google Scholar
Ziebarth, Wolfgang, in: Sydow, Gernot (ed.): Europäische Datenschutzgrundverordnung, Baden-Baden, 2nd ed. 2018, Art. 57 DSGVO.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Institute of International Law, Intellectual Property and Technology Law (IRGET), University of Dresden (TU), Dresden, Germany
Katharina Kaesling

Authors

Katharina Kaesling
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katharina Kaesling .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rechtswissenschaftlicher Fachbereich sowie Käte Hamburger Kolleg „Recht als Kultur“, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
Nina Dethloff
Institut für Internationales Recht, Geistiges Eigentum und Technikrecht (IRGET), TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Katharina Kaesling
Rechtswissenschaftlicher Fachbereich, Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany
Louisa Specht-Riemenschneider

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kaesling, K. (2023). A Rights-Based Approach to Children’s Digital Participation in the Multi-Level System of the European Union. In: Dethloff, N., Kaesling, K., Specht-Riemenschneider, L. (eds) Families and New Media. Juridicum – Schriften zum Medien-, Informations- und Datenrecht. Springer, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39664-0_4

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39664-0_4
Published: 02 March 2023
Publisher Name: Springer, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-39663-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-39664-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

A Rights-Based Approach to Children’s Digital Participation in the Multi-Level System of the European Union

Abstract

Similar content being viewed by others

Children’s Rights and Digital Technologies

Children’s Rights and Digital Technologies

Talking About Digital Responsibility: Children’s and Young People’s Voices

1 Rights-based Approaches Against Risk-based Narratives

2 Children’s Rights in the EU and Transnational Digital Spheres

3 Balancing Rights to Participation and Protection

4 Implementing the Legal Principle of the Best Interest of the Child

5 Proportionality and Coherence of Measures in the EU

5.1 Justification of EU Limitations to Children’s Rights

5.2 Limits to Member State Limitations to Children’s Rights

6 Interplay of EU and National Legal Norms

6.1 Interplay of EU and National Law in the Same Legal Area: The Example of Art. 8 (1) of the GDPR

6.2 Interplay of EU Law and National Law Across Legal Areas: The Example of Art. 8 of the GDPR and National Contract Law

7 Conclusions

Notes

References

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Corresponding author

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Download citation

Publish with us

Navigation

A Rights-Based Approach to Children’s Digital Participation in the Multi-Level System of the European Union

Abstract

Similar content being viewed by others

Children’s Rights and Digital Technologies

Children’s Rights and Digital Technologies

Talking About Digital Responsibility: Children’s and Young People’s Voices

1 Rights-based Approaches Against Risk-based Narratives

2 Children’s Rights in the EU and Transnational Digital Spheres

3 Balancing Rights to Participation and Protection

4 Implementing the Legal Principle of the Best Interest of the Child

5 Proportionality and Coherence of Measures in the EU

5.1 Justification of EU Limitations to Children’s Rights

5.2 Limits to Member State Limitations to Children’s Rights

6 Interplay of EU and National Legal Norms

6.1 Interplay of EU and National Law in the Same Legal Area: The Example of Art. 8 (1) of the GDPR

6.2 Interplay of EU Law and National Law Across Legal Areas: The Example of Art. 8 of the GDPR and National Contract Law

7 Conclusions

Notes

References

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Corresponding author

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Publish with us

Search

Navigation