AEPD (Spain) - EXP202202000: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
=== Holding === | === Holding === | ||
In reaching its decision, the DPA followed the Mario Costeja González ruling to determine that | In reaching its decision, the DPA followed the Mario Costeja González ruling to determine that the information referred to publications about the data subject's professional life. That is, participation in the public selective process. The DPA agreed with the controller that a balancing test must be conducted when several competing rights are at play, i.e. freedom of expression, right to privacy, and public interest. To do so, it had to analyse whether the published information continued to be of general interest. | ||
The DPA considered that this processing activity falls under the exception established in [[Article 17 GDPR#3b|Article 17(3)(b) GDPR]]. The Right to Erasure shall not apply when processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject. In this case, ''Law 39/2015, of October 1 on the Common Administrative Procedure of Administrations'' provides this legal obligation. Such publication of personal data does not depend on the will of the interested party. In this case, the DPA agreed that the remaining URLs complied with these specifications. | |||
The DPA considered that this processing activity falls under the exception established in [[Article 17 GDPR#3b|Article 17(3)(b) GDPR]]. The Right to Erasure shall not apply when processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject. | |||
In this case, ''Law 39/2015, of October 1 on the Common Administrative Procedure of Administrations'' provides this legal obligation. Such publication of personal data does not depend on the will of the interested party. In this case, the DPA agreed that the remaining URLs complied with these specifications. | |||
Consequently, the DPA dismissed the data subject's claim with respect to the two remaining URLs. | Consequently, the DPA dismissed the data subject's claim with respect to the two remaining URLs. | ||
Revision as of 12:48, 7 September 2022
| AEPD - PD-00081-2022 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Authority: | AEPD (Spain) |
| Jurisdiction: | Spain |
| Relevant Law: | Article 17 GDPR Article 17(3)(b) GDPR |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | Rejected |
| Started: | 02.02.2022 |
| Decided: | 16.08.2022 |
| Published: | 16.08.2022 |
| Fine: | n/a |
| Parties: | Google LLC |
| National Case Number/Name: | PD-00081-2022 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | n/a |
| Appeal: | n/a |
| Original Language(s): | Spanish |
| Original Source: | AEPD (in ES) |
| Initial Contributor: | PL |
The Spanish DPA held that Google LLC had a legal obligation to preserve search results related to publications from a competition procedure and rightfully rejected a data subject's request to de-index the search results relating to their name.
English Summary
Facts
The data subject exercised their right to erasure by requesting Google LLC (controller) to block search results of 4 URLs that contained their personal data. The controller denied this twice per email. The data subject then filed a complaint with the Spanish DPA.
The DPA notified the controller's DPO of the complaint, who indicated that it previously denied the request twice. However, during the investigation, the controller reconsidered and removed 2 of the 4 URLs. The two remaining URLs related to the State General Administrative Body competition. A provisional list of candidates and an assessment were published in relation to the selection procedure.
The controller stated that the two remaining URLs refer to information that is relevant and of public interest related to the professional life of the data subject. It argued that institutional websites play an important role in keeping citizens informed on matters of interest to them. The information should therefore be accessible without restrictions.
The controller argued that the CJEU has declared that search results should only be blocked after a balancing test of the rights at stake (right to be forgotten and freedom of information). The right to be forgotten cannot imply a retrospective censorship of the information correctly published at the time.
Holding
In reaching its decision, the DPA followed the Mario Costeja González ruling to determine that the information referred to publications about the data subject's professional life. That is, participation in the public selective process. The DPA agreed with the controller that a balancing test must be conducted when several competing rights are at play, i.e. freedom of expression, right to privacy, and public interest. To do so, it had to analyse whether the published information continued to be of general interest.
The DPA considered that this processing activity falls under the exception established in Article 17(3)(b) GDPR. The Right to Erasure shall not apply when processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject. In this case, Law 39/2015, of October 1 on the Common Administrative Procedure of Administrations provides this legal obligation. Such publication of personal data does not depend on the will of the interested party. In this case, the DPA agreed that the remaining URLs complied with these specifications.
Consequently, the DPA dismissed the data subject's claim with respect to the two remaining URLs.
Comment
Share your comments here!
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision
The decision below is a machine translation of the Spanish original. Please refer to the Spanish original for more details.
(June 28, 2022). The director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection (AEPD), Mar España Martí, and the president of UNICEF Spain, Gustavo Suárez Pertierra, have signed a General Protocol of Action for the development of actions aimed at the protection of...
