Rb. Noord-Nederland - C/18/190912/HA RK 19-19
| Rb. Noord-Nederland - C18/190912 HA RK 19-19 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | Rb. Noord-Nederland (Netherlands) |
| Jurisdiction: | Netherlands |
| Relevant Law: | Article 6(1)(f) GDPR Article 10 GDPR Article 17 GDPR Article 21 GDPR |
| Decided: | 12. 12. 2019 |
| Published: | 17. 12. 2019 |
| Parties: | Anonymous GOOGLE LLC |
| National Case Number/Name: | C18/190912 HA RK 19-19 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2019:5169 |
| Appeal from: | |
| Appeal to: | |
| Original Language(s): | Dutch |
| Original Source: | de Rechtspraak (in Dutch) |
| Initial Contributor: | n/a |
The District Court of First Instance of the Northern Netherlands rejected plaintiff's request to Google for the removal of search results which linked to pages about his criminal history when searching for his name. The Court ruled that in this case the interference with the plaintiff's right to privacy was justified by the overriding public interest in accessing that information.
English Summary
Facts
TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT
Dispute
Defendant
TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT
Plaintiff
TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT
Holding
The data processing of Google is based on Article 6(1)(f). The content of the page linked to also has to be taken in account. Article 10 GDPR states that processing of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences or related security measures based on Article 6(1) shall be carried out in principle only under the control of official authority. When a trade-off has to be made, based on Article 17 and 21, plaintiff's right to privacy shall normally outweigh Google's economical interests. In this case, it is relevant what the CJEU has determined in CJEU - C-136/17 - GC et al v. CNIL paragraphs 46, 47, 66, 67, 68, 76, 77, 78 and 79.
Plaintif has been convicted for murderer committed in 2006. While the jail time has ended, the involuntary commitment had not been ended yet. Publicity which involved naming the full name of plaintif are caused by his own actions. Plaintif did not explain why the searchresult cause harm at this moment, considering the involuntary commitment is not finished yet. The search results do not point to wrong information in any way. The information, even from 2006 is still relevant.
The request will be rejected, because the conditions from Article 17(1) GDPR are not met. Listing of the search results shown after searching for the name of the plaintif are required to protect the freedom of expression and information as defined in Article 11 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This means the situation as described in Article 17(3)(a) GDPR applies.
Comment
Add your comment here!
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision
The decision below is a machine translation of the Dutch original. Please refer to the Dutch original for more details.
