AEPD (Spain) - R/00250/2021
|AEPD (Spain) - R/00250/2021|
|Relevant Law:||Article 17 GDPR|
Article 93 LOPDGDD
|National Case Number/Name:||R/00250/2021|
|European Case Law Identifier:||n/a|
|Original Source:||AEPD (in ES)|
The Spanish DPA decided to archive a 'right to be forgotten' case, stating that the data subject did not have any interests which overrode the rights to freedom of speech and information of the newspaper. The search result that the data subject wished to de-list was of public relevance, was not obsolete, and was not proven to be incorrect.
English Summary[edit | edit source]
Facts[edit | edit source]
A data subject lodged a complaint with the Spanish DPA (AEPD) after Google did not fulfilled their right to erasure. This request had to do with a Facebook group in which pictures from the military were uploaded. A picture of the complainant, along with their personal data, had been posted there.
Additionally, the information accompanying it was false, according to the complainant. The information was related to the alleged commission of a criminal offence while participating in a redacted act.
According to the DPA, the complainant had not been able to prove that the information was untrue.
Holding[edit | edit source]
The AEPD discussed the right to be forgotten and its requirements. The AEPD remarked that the right to be forgotten is a right to make a search engine de-list results that contain personal data that may be obsolete and/or incorrect, so as to avoid the harm that such publicly available information may cause to the data subject.
However, the DPA remarked that this is not a right to make an online curriculum on demand, to control the online discourse about oneself or to get a tailored past on the internet by only allowing there the information that is positive or desired.
The AEPD also stated that, in this case, there was no interest from the data subject overriding the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of information. Firstly, because the information was concerning a criminal offence, what is considered itself to be of public interest, according to national case law. It is also taken into account the fact that this information is related to the professional life of the data subject, that is less intimate than private life, and also implies a higher level of public interest towards it.
Also, the AEPD remarks, the fact that a criticism may be offensive, unpleasant, distasteful and hurtful, it does not mean that such opinions are not covered by the freedom of expression and opinion of their authors, as opposed to the right to data protection, specially when they contribute to the formation of public opinion on a publicly relevant topic.
Additionally, the DPA noted that the right to data protection should be distinguished and separated from the right to honour and self-image that is regulated in Spain by a national law. Attacks to one's honour, if the information is believed to be inaccurate and harmful for one's image, shall be discussed in civil courts with regards to this right.
Hence, the AEPD concluded that in this case there was no interest from the data subject overriding the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of information, specially when the information was not obsolete and not proven to be incorrect. The DPA therefore archived the case.
Comment[edit | edit source]
Share your comments here!
Further Resources[edit | edit source]
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision[edit | edit source]
The decision below is a machine translation of the Spanish original. Please refer to the Spanish original for more details.
1/12 File Nº: TD / 00277/2020 RESOLUTION NO: R / 00250/2021 Considering the claim made on September 18, 2020 before this Agency by Mr. A.A.A. , against GOOGLE LLC, for not having been duly attended to your request for exercise of the rights established in the RGPD. The procedural actions provided for in Title VIII of the Law have been carried out. Organic 3/2018, of December 5, Protection of Personal Data and guarantee of digital rights (hereinafter LOPDGDD), the following have been verified FACTS FIRST: On July 29, 2020, D. A.A.A. (hereinafter, the complaining party) exercised the right of deletion in relation to the URL that transcribes in its claim against GOOGLE LLC (hereinafter, the claimed party), without its request has received the legally established reply. The claimant reveals that a group uploads photos on the Facebook social network of the FAS staff, where they show your photograph as a member of XXXXXXXX and your personal data. Indicates that the information displayed is false so it has requested that the claimed person desindexe their personal data. The claim of the claimant refers to the elimination, in the motor index of search the following urls: 1. *** URL.1 2. *** URL.2 3. *** URL.3 SECOND: In accordance with article 65.4 of the LOPDGDD, which has provided for a mechanism prior to the admission for processing of claims made before the AEPD, consisting of transferring them to the Data Protection Delegates designated by those responsible or in charge of the treatment, for the intended purposes in article 37 of the aforementioned norm, or to these when they have not been designated, transferred the claim to the claimed entity to proceed with its analysis and respond to the complaining party and to this Agency within a period of month. The representative of the defendant states that the disputed information refers to opinions and criticism against the claimant, member of XXXXXXXX, for a news protected by freedom of expression. THIRD: The result of the transfer procedure indicated in the previous Fact does not allowed to understand satisfied the claims of the complaining party. On C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 2/12 Consequently, dated December 18, 2020, for the purposes provided in its Article 64.2 of the LOPDGDD, the Director of the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Data agreed to admit the submitted claim for processing and the parties were informed on maximum period to resolve this procedure, which is understood to have started by means of said agreement for admission to processing. The aforementioned agreement granted the claimed entity a hearing procedure, to that within a period of fifteen business days it present the allegations it deems convenient. Said entity made, in summary, the following allegations: That by means of an email dated August 24, 2020, the interested that link 1 did not appear among the results provided by the Google search engine when performing a search based on its name; URL 2 already had been the subject of a previous blocking request, referring the interested party to the answer already formulated; and the block was denied on the grounds of URL 3 remaining object of claim. The request of the interested party has been examined again and, in relation to the result of disputed search, consider that the link refers to a publication that contains opinions and criticisms protected by the freedom of expression of its author, it is a article or very recent entry of *** DATE.1, published in the blog "*** BLOG.1", in which criticizes the claimant as member XXXXXXXX for allegedly having participated in XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX. The claimant has not established that the disputed information is untrue. That also It is possible to find other publications on the same facts already exposed. It relies on jurisprudence to defend that the publication to which the URL refers disputed is protected by the freedom of expression and opinion of its author and, without doubt, it contributes to the formation of a public opinion, being of manifest interest for citizenship because of the interested party's membership in a public body. That the claimant may feel upset by some of the information and published opinions, but it cannot be lost sight of the fact that criticism, even bland, hurtful or annoying, is protected by freedom of expression. It should be noted that, although it has been decided not to adopt measures for the moment, that does not mean that the complainant approves, subscribes or endorses the information or opinions in question. That the published link does not refer to obsolete information, it is It is a publication of *** DATE.1, there is no doubt that it is current. The CJEU has stated that blocking search results can have an impact in the legitimate interest of users potentially interested in having access to the information in question, and that for that reason only the blocking of search results, after the appropriate weighting between the different rights in game, taking into account the nature of the information in question, the character sensitive to the private life of the person concerned and the public interest in have this information, which may vary, for example, depending on the paper that the interested party plays in public life. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 12/3 The right to be forgotten is a right that finds its limit in freedom of expression and information. It is a right that cannot imply censorship retrospective of the information correctly published in its day, and not allows building a past tailored to the people mentioned in the information accessible on the Web. The complaining party may be upset by some of the information and published opinions, but it cannot be lost sight of the fact that criticism, even bland, hurtful or annoying, is protected by freedom of expression. According to repeated Spanish jurisprudence, freedom of expression has a field of action even broader than freedom of information. That personal data are not contrary to the regulations on the protection of data, nor could it be considered inappropriate, impertinent or excessive in relation to the purposes of the treatment and the time elapsed. In reality, what the complaining party is seeking is the protection of their right to honor, so his claim has no place in a procedure instructed by this Agency in defense of their right to data protection and must be resolved and resolved in the corresponding instance. FOUNDATIONS OF LAW FIRST: The Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection, in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in in relation to paragraph 1 f) of article 57, both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 27, 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and the free circulation of these data (hereinafter, GDPR); and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. SECOND: In accordance with the provisions of article 55 of the RGPD, the Agency Spanish Data Protection is competent to perform the functions that are assigned to it in its article 57, among them, that of enforcing the Regulation and promote the awareness of those responsible and those in charge of the treatment about their obligations, as well as dealing with claims submitted by an interested party and investigate the reason for them. Correlatively, article 31 of the RGPD establishes the obligation of those responsible and those in charge of the treatment to cooperate with the control authority that requests it in the performance of their duties. In the event that they have designated a data protection officer, article 39 of the RGPD attributes to him the function of cooperate with said authority. Similarly, the domestic legal system, in article 65.4 of the LOPDGDD, has Provided a mechanism prior to the admission for processing of the claims that are made before the Spanish Agency for Data Protection, which consists of giving transfer of the same to the data protection delegates designated by the responsible or in charge of the treatment, for the purposes provided in article 37 of the aforementioned norm, or to them when they have not designated them, to proceed to the analysis of said claims and to respond to them within a month. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 4/12 In accordance with these regulations, prior to the admission for processing of the claim that gives rise to the present procedure, it was transferred to the responsible entity to proceed with its analysis, provide a response to this Agency within a month and certify having provided the claimant with the proper response, in the event of exercise of the rights regulated in articles 15 to 22 of the GDPR. The result of said transfer did not allow for the satisfaction of the claims of the complaining party. Consequently, on December 18, 2020, for the purposes provided for in article 64.2 of the LOPDGDD, the Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection agreed to admit the submitted claim for processing. Saying The agreement of admission for processing determines the opening of the present procedure of lack of attention to a request to exercise the rights established in the Articles 15 to 22 of the RGPD, regulated in article 64.1 of the LOPDGDD, according to the which: "1. When the procedure refers exclusively to the lack of attention of a request to exercise the rights established in articles 15 to 22 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679, will start by agreement of admission for processing, which will be adopt in accordance with the provisions of the following article. In this case, the term to resolve the procedure will be six months from from the date the claimant was notified of the admission agreement to Procedure. After this period, the interested party may consider their claim". The purging of administrative responsibilities in the framework of the of a sanctioning procedure, whose exceptional nature implies that it is chosen, whenever possible, due to the prevalence of alternative mechanisms that have I amparo in the current regulations. It is the exclusive competence of this Agency to assess whether there are responsibilities administrative procedures that must be purged in a sanctioning procedure and, in Consequently, the decision on its opening, there being no obligation to initiate a procedure before any request made by a third party. Such a decision must be based on the existence of elements that justify said start of the activity sanctioning, circumstances that do not concur in the present case, considering that With this procedure, the guarantees and Claimant's rights. THIRD: The rights of people in terms of data protection Personal data are regulated in articles 15 to 22 of the RGPD and 13 to 18 of the LOPDGDD. The rights of access, rectification, deletion, opposition, right to limitation of treatment and right to portability. The formal aspects relating to the exercise of these rights are established in the Articles 12 of the RGPD and 12 of the LOPDGDD. It also takes into account what is expressed in Considering paragraphs 59 and following of the GDPR. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 5/12 In accordance with the provisions of these rules, the person responsible for the treatment should arbitrate formulas and mechanisms to facilitate the interested party the exercise of their rights, which will be free (without prejudice to the provisions of articles 12.5 and 15.3 of the RGPD), and is obliged to respond to requests made no later than a month, unless you can show that you are unable to identify the interested party, and to express their reasons in case they were not to attend said request. The person responsible is responsible for proof of compliance with the duty of Respond to the request for the exercise of their rights made by the affected party. The communication addressed to the interested party on the occasion of their request must express themselves in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible way, with a clear and simple language. FOURTH: The right to be forgotten is contemplated in article 17 of the RGPD, as well as in Article 93 of the LOPDGDD, on the right to be forgotten in Internet searches, which determines, in its section 1, the following: "1. Everyone has the right to have Internet search engines remove of the lists of results that were obtained after a search carried out from your name the published links that contain information related to that person when they are inadequate, inaccurate, irrelevant, outdated or excessive or have become as such over time, taking into account the purposes for which they were collected or processed, the time elapsed and the nature and public interest of the information. In the same way, it should be done when the personal circumstances that in your If the affected party invokes evidence in the prevalence of their rights over the maintenance of the links by the Internet search service. This right will subsist even when the conservation of the information is lawful. published on the website to which the link was directed and did not proceed for the same to its previous or simultaneous erasure ”. As stated in the Judgment of the Supreme Court of January 11, 2019 “This The fundamental right to be forgotten is not an unlimited right - maintains the doctrine constitutional - because, although the Constitution does not expressly establish limits specific, based on the principle of unity of the Constitution, are applicable the limits derived from respect for other fundamental rights, including special relevance is the freedom of information proclaimed in article 20 of the Constitution". Regarding the nature of the search engine as data controller, It should be noted that a search engine is a tool that facilitates the internet user the access to certain web pages. To do this, the tool accesses a list of links previously indexed and offers the user a list of web addresses that refer to pages that contain the words selected by the user. The Judgment of the Court of the European Union of May 13, 2014 declares that following: C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 6/12 Section 28: (…) “when exploring the Internet in an automated, constant and systematically in search of the information that is published there, the manager of a search collects such data that it extracts, records and subsequently organizes in the framework of its indexing programs, it keeps on its servers and, where appropriate, communicates and facilitates access to its users in the form of results lists of its searches. Since these operations are explicitly stated and unconditional in Article 2 (b) of Directive 95/46, must be classified as treatment within the meaning of said provision, without it being relevant that the manager of the search engine also perform the same operations with other types of information and do not distinguish between these and personal data ”. Section 33: “Now, the search engine manager is the one who determines the purposes and means of this activity and, thus, of the processing of personal data that carries out the same in the framework of this and, therefore, it should be considered responsible for said treatment by virtue of the aforementioned article 2, letter d ". Section 35: “In this regard, it must be stated that the treatment of personal data carried out in the framework of the activity of a search engine differs from that carried out by Internet site editors, which consists of making to include this information on a page on the Internet, and is added to it ”. Consequently, the Court of Justice considers that the operator of the search is responsible for the processing of the data when determining the purposes and means of its activity. In relation to the possibility of exercising the right of deletion before the search engine Internet without going to the person in charge of the website, the Court of Justice of the Union Europea, in Judgment of May 13, 2014, (case C-131/12), has indicated: “(…) A data processing (…) carried out by the manager of a search engine, can significantly affect the fundamental rights of respect for life privacy and protection of personal data when the search carried out using this search engine it is carried out from the name of a natural person, since such treatment allows any Internet user to obtain through the list of results a structured view of the information related to this person that can be found on the Internet, potentially affecting a multitude of aspects of his private life, which, without said engine, would not have been interconnected or only could have been very difficult and thus allowing him to establish a more or less detailed profile of the person in question. Furthermore, the effect of interference in said rights of the interested party is multiplied due to the important role played by the Internet and search engines in modern society, which make the information contained in such a hit list ubiquitous (see, in this sense, the judgment eDate Advertising and others, C-509/09 and C-161/10, EU: C2011: 685, paragraph 45) ". “The Court of Justice maintains that, the deletion of links from the list of results from the name of the natural person affected by the dissemination of the news could have an impact on the legitimate interest of potentially interested Internet users in having access to the information in question, so it is necessary to seek a fair C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 7/12 balance between this interest and the fundamental right of the affected person with in accordance with articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union European ”. “(…) To respect the rights established by these provisions, provided that actually meet the requirements set forth in them, the manager of an engine search is obliged to remove from the list of results obtained after a search carried out from the name of a person links to web pages, published by third parties and containing information related to this person, also in the event that this name or this information is not previously deleted or simultaneously of this web pages, and, where appropriate, although the publication in said pages is in itself lawful ”. Consequently, the processing of personal data carried out by the manager from a search engine allows a "name" to be obtained from a list of results that provide information about a person that may affect their scope private. Once the interested party has submitted their request to delete their personal data before the search engine, you must examine it and proceed, in your case, to the suppression of the specific links from the list of results, without prior or simultaneously you have to go to the person in charge of the website. Likewise, it also follows from the foregoing that they must be weighed, in each specific case, the rights and interests in conflict in order to determine what law is prevalent. In order to carry out the balancing work, the Judgment of the Supreme Court, number 545/2015, of October 15, 2015, which states that “the called "right to digital oblivion", which is a realization in this field of rights derived from the quality requirements of the processing of personal data, does not protect each one from building a past to suit him, forcing editors to of web pages or search engine managers to eliminate the treatment of your personal data when they are associated with events that are not considered positive. Nor does it justify that those who expose themselves publicly can demand that a curriculum be built to their liking, controlling the discourse about themselves themselves, eliminating negative information from the Internet, "positioning" their craving the results of Internet searches, so that the most favorable occupy the top positions. If this thesis were admitted, they would be seriously disturbed the information mechanisms necessary for citizens to adopt their decisions in the democratic life of a country ”. The doctrine contained in the judgment of the Hearing is also relevant. Nacional, of June 21, 2019, which specifies, in its fifth right foundation, what is following, in relation to the information related to the professional life of the interested: “(…) General doctrine that is also developed in sections 81, 93 and 97 of the repeated Judgment of the CJEU - of May 13, 2014 - indicating that, notwithstanding prevalence, a fair balance must be found between the legitimate interest of the Internet users in having access to the information in a search to be seen on the C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 12/8 name of a person and the fundamental rights of the same and can be that, for specific reasons such as the role played by the aforementioned interested in public life, interference in their fundamental rights is justified by the preponderant interest of said public in having, as a result of this inclusion, access to the information in question. In the present case, entering into the weighting of the rights and interests in game, it should be noted in the first place, that it refers to the professional life of the claimant, employer, and not to personal life, as this is very relevant to modulate the intensity that the protection of the right regulated in art. 18.4 of the Constitution, as stated by this Chamber in the judgments of May 11 of 2017 -resource nº 30 / 2016-, and June 6, 2017 -recourse nº 1,797 / 2015- ”. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the guidelines of the Working Group of the 29 on the right to be forgotten (Guidelines on the implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on “Google Spain and inc v. AEPD and Mario Costeja ”C-131/12), according to which:“ There is a basic difference between the private life of the person and public or professional life. The availability of the information in the search results become more acceptable the less information it reveals about a person's private life (…) the information is more likely to have relevance if it is related to the professional life of the interested party, but it will depend the nature of the work of the interested party and the legitimate interest of the public in having access to that information through a search by name (…) ”. When the information refers to private persons, the Constitutional Court has stated that “even when the news for the matter to which it refers concerns the public interest, it is not protected by freedom of information - in this case freedom of expression - all its content, but it can be considered disproportionate transmission of those facts that, within the news, affect the honor or the privacy of the person concerned and that they are revealed as “manifestly unnecessary and irrelevant to the public interest of the information ”(SSTC 105/1990, of June 6, FJ 8, and 121/2002, of May 20, FJ 5). Likewise, in order to assess the public relevance of the matter, it must be analyzed whether the Published information remains of general interest due to the time that has elapsed. On this issue, the National High Court has declared, in its judgment dated August 8, November 2017, the following: “also, unlike the first link, it has not an excessive amount of time has elapsed between the date on which the request for cancellation before the search engine and the date of publication of the news. Indeed, from the date the news was published (August 2011) and the date you exercised the right of cancellation (July 2015) not even four years have passed, without that the fact that it is a file, given the terms that concur in the case and as previously stated, affect said conclusion ”. In this regard, the aforementioned Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union declares in its section 93 the following: “even an initially lawful treatment of exact data may become, over time, incompatible with said Directive when these data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were collected or tried. This is the case, in particular, when they are inappropriate, irrelevant or already not relevant or excessive in relation to these purposes and the time elapsed ”. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 9/12 FIFTH: Finally, the origin or not of attending must be analyzed, in the present case, the request that, after a search carried out, the name of the party claimant is not linked to certain results. In the present case, a claim was filed against the defendant for denial of the right of deletion in relation to url 3 already referenced and this denied motivated the right of deletion as it is news of general interest. The url shows a link where the name and surname of the complaining party appear, It is a news published on the blog "*** BLOG.1" in which a unlawful criminal. The list of results obtained in a search from a name, web page or Information relating to a person facilitates the accessibility and dissemination of information to any Internet user who performs a search on the interested party, and may constitute an interference in the fundamental right to respect for the private life of the same, general criterion that is excepted if, for specific reasons, such as the dissemination of information that presents unquestionable relevance and public interest because it is of a criminal offense and consequently a public interest when dealing with news of current and that awakens a social and political debate and the maximum public scrutiny. In relation to the representations made by the complaining party, once After examining the documentation in the file, it is observed that the URL disputed refer to information and opinions that refer to a criminal offense, so they acquire a manifest interest, and contribute to the formation of an opinion public. In accordance with the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court and the Court Supreme, all the information referring to an event of criminal relevance has for its own nature, public interest information on positive results or negative, especially if the crimes committed are of a certain gravity or have caused a considerable impact on public opinion. Publications or links to content that are part of a personal campaign against someone, although the criticism may be annoying, unpleasant, bland and hurtful, there is nothing to indicate that they are not protected by the freedom of expression and opinion of their authors, against the protection of data that, without a doubt, contribute to the formation of a public opinion about a criminal offense, even when the people on whom the news is projected do not hold public or political office or profession of public notoriety, but that, being related to the event, the fact newsworthy causes the public projection. In this sense, the Judgment of the National High Court of dated May 11, 2017, in which the following is stated: "EIGHTH. The foregoing considerations lead this Chamber to conclude that, Contrary to what is appreciated by the Administration, the page whose blocking requires the The contested resolution is protected by the fundamental right to freedom of expression, insofar as it consists, essentially, in the critique of the professionalism of a doctor. Freedom of expression of Article 20 EC that C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 10/12 understands, as already indicated, together with the mere expression of thoughts, beliefs, opinions and value judgments, criticism of the behavior of another, even when the itself is bland and may annoy, disturb or displease the person it addresses, since This is required by pluralism, tolerance and a spirit of openness, without which there is no democratic society exists. Freedom of expression to whose exercise, as has also been indicated and reiterates the Constitutional Court, the internal truth limit is not applicable, which is applicable to freedom of information. In short, we consider that in this case the right to liberty must prevail. of expression on the right to the protection of personal data of the complainant, and This despite the fact that the final part of the comment refers to expressions hurtful like: "How can you be so shameless?" ... "the great scam that some of these little characters suppose "..." I would give my soul to the devil for one day meet that scoundrel Dr. A.A.A., who is nothing more than a bitch-buster for which patients are nothing more than mutts ... " The foregoing in line with the consolidated doctrine of the Constitutional Court whose tenor (STC 51/1989, of February 22 by all), freedom of expression prevails even when expressions are used that are offensive in isolation, when they are put into relation to the information that is intended to be communicated or the situation in which it has place criticism, experience a decrease in their offensive significance and suggest a Increased tolerance required even though they may not be fully justifiable. Doctrine on which the Working Group of 29 (Guidelines on the Implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on "Google Spain and Inc v. AEPD and Mario Costeja C-131/12), stating that: the authorities data protection authorities recognize that some search results may include links to content that may be part of a personal campaign against someone, consisting of aggressive criticism or unpleasant personal comments. Although the availability of such information may be hurtful or unpleasant, this does not necessarily means that data protection authorities should consider that the result in question should be blocked (de- listed). Freedom of expression that assists not only the owner of the website of origin but also also, in this case, to the Google Inc. search engine, taking into consideration the eminently professional nature of the published personal data, the relevance public, at least in the health field, of the person to whom said data, to which it should be added that these are "opinions" or "comments" made in a forum for discussion rather than information concerning said affected / complainant (in no case subject to the internal limit of truthfulness) and in definitively, and above all, that the public interest, of Internet users and of potential future patients to meet, regarding a doctor who continues to active, the experiences and opinions expressed by other users of the same professional. All this given that in short, and as STS (1ª) 545/2015, of 15 October, the so-called "right to digital oblivion" which is a realization in this field of rights derived from the quality requirements of data processing C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 11/12 personal, does not protect each one to build a past to suit, forcing web page publishers or search engine managers to remove the processing of your personal data when they are associated with events that are not they consider positive. Nor does it justify that those who expose themselves publicly can demand that a curriculum be built to their liking, controlling the discourse about themselves themselves, eliminating negative information from the Internet, "positioning" at will the results of Internet searches, so that the most favorable ones occupy the top positions. If this thesis is admitted, the information mechanisms necessary for citizens to adopt their decisions in the democratic life of a country. " The right to be forgotten contemplates the de-indexing of old news or those that are has documented that they are inaccurate, whose permanence in the network can cause harm to people who have already left that past behind long time, and this has been recognized by the main sentences passed in the matter; but it is not designed to erase all traces of according to what news by the mere request of those who consider themselves harmed by them, in the idea of eliminating still recent information and create a kind of curriculum à la carte on the internet. Finally, if the complaining party considers that there is an interference in its privacy for violation of your honor by publications, information or expressions expressed in the media, by attributing to this person certain irregular behaviors. This claim procedure is not the channel appropriate, since this Agency can only strictly assess what refers to the observance of the principles established by data protection regulations, therefore, To determine the legitimacy of information, the appropriate channel is found in the Organic Law 1/1982, on Civil Protection of the Right to Honor, to Personal Privacy and Family and Self Image, therefore, the protection of the alleged injured right, must be raised before the corresponding procedural instances to declare the existence or nonexistence of the same, by exceeding the competence of this Agency. In this sense, the provisions of the Judgment of the Hearing must be taken into account National of February 24, 2011, in whose third legal basis is stated: «In this case it is necessary to begin by untying the matter of protection from data relating to the right to honor and therefore for the protection of this right There is a specific claim procedure provided for in Organic Law 1/1982 of Civil Protection of the Right to Honor, to Personal and Family Privacy and to Own Image whose article 1 establishes that "The fundamental right to honor, personal and family privacy and self-image, guaranteed in article 18 CE, will be civilly protected against all kinds of illegitimate interference, in accordance with with the provisions of this organic law ". On the other hand, this Agency has verified that, when conducting a search for the name of the complaining party in the search engine, they do not appear among the results the urls 1 and 2 questioned. Based on the foregoing, considering that the present procedure is intended to object that the guarantees and rights of those affected are duly C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 12/12 restored, and since, it has not been proven that the data and information that contained in the published documentation are inaccurate or have become obsolete, therefore that the claim made should be rejected. Considering the cited precepts and others of general application, the Director of the Spanish Data Protection Agency RESOLVES: FIRST: DISMISS the claim made by D.A.A.A. in front of GOOGLE LLC. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution to D.A.A.A. and GOOGLE LLC. In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of the LOPDGDD, this Resolution will be made public once it has been notified to the interested parties. Against this resolution, which ends the administrative procedure in accordance with art. 48.6 of the LOPDGDD, and in accordance with the provisions of article 123 of the LPACAP, the Interested parties may optionally file an appeal for reconsideration before the Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection within a month to counting from the day after the notification of this resolution or directly contentious-administrative appeal before the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the National High Court, in accordance with the provisions of article 25 and section 5 of the fourth additional provision of Law 29/1998, of July 13, regulating the Contentious-administrative jurisdiction, within two months from the day following notification of this act, as provided in article 46.1 of the referred Law. 1035-150321 Mar Spain Martí Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es