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
On 1 December 2006 plaintiff was arrested and charged of murdering an 8-year old boy. The first conviction was on 6 September 2007 and after multiple appeals on 22 may 2012 the final verdict was 11 years and 7 month prison followed by an involuntary commitment. The European Court of Human Rights rejected the application he made there. During the whole time, there was a lot of media coverage about this case and all proceedings. On 24 May 2015 the involuntary commitment started, and it has been extended with two years twice on 2 June 2017 and 29 May 2019. There was also media coverage about these extensions.
When searching using Google search for the name of plaintiff, a lot of search results are found with publications about the crime he committed and the legal proceedings afterwards. After a request, Google removed 100 search results, but denied to remove 82 other results. It explained that with: "It is Google's understanding that the information about your client on these URL's - with regard to all the circumstances of the case we are aware of - is still relevant in relation to the purposes of data processing, and therefore the reference to this document in our search results is justified by the public interest."
Dispute
Plaintiff
The search results include information about criminal convictions and background of the crime. Based on Article 10 GDPR data processing about criminal convictions is only allowed under the control of an official authority. Data processing would also be allowed if processing is authorised by Union or Member State law, but this does not apply. Based on this, Google may not process this data. Article 32 GDPR and Article 33 GDPR also cannot justify the processing.
Based on CJEU - C-131/12 - Costeja, Hoge Raad - 15/03380 and Article 17 GDPR a weighing of the interests should take place as defined in the Costeja ruling.
Plaintiff's right to privacy shall normally outweigh Google's economical interests.
In this case Plaintiff's right to privacy shall prevail because information about a crime committed 12 years ago is not relevant any more. Every month, there are just 110 searches made about this case. Plaintiff is released from prison, and want to start a new life. This becomes impossible because of these search results. Plaintiff is not a public figure, but even if he is, the public does not need this particular information any more. There is no longer a discussion about the conviction of plaintiff.
The search results make it difficult for plaintiff to find a job. Employers use Google to find information about applicants. This causes him to limit the jobs he can find. The only relevant information could be the extension of the involuntary commitment, but the public discussion about problems related to involuntary commitment should not hurt him.
Not only the current list of URL's should be considered, but Google must also be forced to remove all future search results.
Defendant
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.
Plaintiff 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 plaintiff are caused by his own actions. Plaintiff did not explain why the search results 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 plaintiff 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.
