NL EN
  • Home»
  • Weblog »
  • Google Spain Costeja - ad verbatim repetition in para. 99 so we never forget para. 96/97?

Google Spain Costeja - ad verbatim repetition in para. 99 so we never forget para. 96/97?

Just was looking for the exact criteria used in the well-known Right to be Forgotten case (Court of Justice EU 13 May 2014, C-131/12, Google Spain vs. Costeja) when correcting student’s work. I was quite surprised to find that the Court repeats almost ad verbatim para. 96 and 97 in … para. 99. In favor of the Court I can add that para. 99 is the last consideration, but to me that is not enough to simply repeat what has just been said. Just saying it once would have been fine. I do not know whether copy/paste actions so close to each other happens more often, but if so I would advise a change of practice.

96    In the light of the foregoing (…) it should in particular be examined whether the data subject has a right that the information relating to him personally should, at this point in time, no longer be linked to his name by a list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of his name. In this connection, it must be pointed out that it is not necessary in order to find such a right that the inclusion of the information in question in the list of results causes prejudice to the data subject.

 99    It follows from the foregoing (…) it should inter alia be examined whether the data subject has a right that the information in question relating to him personally should, at this point in time, no longer be linked to his name by a list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of his name, without it being necessary in order to find such a right that the inclusion of the information in question in that list causes prejudice to the data subject.

 97           As the data subject may, in the light of his fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, request that the information in question no longer be made available to the general public by its inclusion in such a list of results, it should be held, as follows in particular from paragraph 81 of the present judgment, that those rights override, as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine but also the interest of the general public in finding that information upon a search relating to the data subject’s name. However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question.

  99 As the data subject may, in the light of his fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, request that the information in question no longer be made available to the general public on account of its inclusion in such a list of results, those rights override, as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine but also the interest of the general public in having access to that information upon a search relating to the data subject’s name. However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of its inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question.



PAGINA DOORSTUREN

DEZE PAGINA IS SUCCESVOL DOORGESTUURD!

EEN REACTIE PLAATSEN

UW E-MAIL ADRES WORDT NIET GETOOND AAN ANDERE BEZOEKERS.

  1. NAAM
  2. E-MAILADRES
  3. BERICHT
  4. WANNEER U DEZE REGEL KUNT LEZEN, VUL HET VOLGENDE VELD DAN NIET IN!
  5.