Editing GHARL - 200.254.914

From GDPRhub

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 5: Line 5:
 
|Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png
 
|Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png
 
|Court_Abbrevation=GHAL
 
|Court_Abbrevation=GHAL
|Court_With_Country=GHAL (Netherlands)
+
|Court_With_Country=GHARL (Netherlands)
  
 
|Case_Number_Name=200.254.914
 
|Case_Number_Name=200.254.914
Line 58: Line 58:
 
The Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden confirmed, after conducting the balancing test of [[Article 21 GDPR#1|Article 21(1) GDPR]], that complainant's interest to have certain Google search results linking to his plagiarism, removed, does not outweigh Google's legitimate interest to process this data and the public's interest to receive the information.
 
The Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden confirmed, after conducting the balancing test of [[Article 21 GDPR#1|Article 21(1) GDPR]], that complainant's interest to have certain Google search results linking to his plagiarism, removed, does not outweigh Google's legitimate interest to process this data and the public's interest to receive the information.
  
==English Summary==
+
== English Summary ==
  
===Facts===
+
=== Facts ===
 
On 22 May 2018, complainant, who is a writer, requested Google via a  to remove ten search-results that appeared when someone would type in complainant's name via Google Search. The search-results refer to webpages that display a conflict between complainant and a literary critic, since the latter accused complainant of plagiarism and (the accompanying) unjustified use of academic titles.  
 
On 22 May 2018, complainant, who is a writer, requested Google via a  to remove ten search-results that appeared when someone would type in complainant's name via Google Search. The search-results refer to webpages that display a conflict between complainant and a literary critic, since the latter accused complainant of plagiarism and (the accompanying) unjustified use of academic titles.  
  
Line 66: Line 66:
  
 
Complainant appealed against this judgement.  
 
Complainant appealed against this judgement.  
===Holding===
+
=== Holding ===
 
Before the Court decided on the legitimacy of the deletion request, it assessed whether the applicable legislative instrument is the GDPR, or the (Dutch) Personal Data Protection Act (Wbp). It asserted that the legal proceedings started on 25 May 2018, and Article 48(10) of the General Data Protection Implementing Act (UAVG) states that the Wbp continuous to apply to proceedings that were pending before 25 May 2018 (the date the GDPR entered into force). However, it concluded that the GDPR is the applicable legislative instrument in this case, since the request concerns a request for removal, in respect of which it must be assessed ''ex nunc'' whether the processing is (currently) in accordance with the applicable rules.  
 
Before the Court decided on the legitimacy of the deletion request, it assessed whether the applicable legislative instrument is the GDPR, or the (Dutch) Personal Data Protection Act (Wbp). It asserted that the legal proceedings started on 25 May 2018, and Article 48(10) of the General Data Protection Implementing Act (UAVG) states that the Wbp continuous to apply to proceedings that were pending before 25 May 2018 (the date the GDPR entered into force). However, it concluded that the GDPR is the applicable legislative instrument in this case, since the request concerns a request for removal, in respect of which it must be assessed ''ex nunc'' whether the processing is (currently) in accordance with the applicable rules.  
  
Line 74: Line 74:
  
 
Lastly, the Court notes that, since complainant keeps posting on social media about the literary critic and the dispute, and keeps writing to newspapers and universities, he contributes to the fact that the content to which the URLs refer, is still topical. Hence, [[Article 17 GDPR#1a|Article 17(1)(a) GDPR]] does not apply since the there is no processing period longer than necessary.  
 
Lastly, the Court notes that, since complainant keeps posting on social media about the literary critic and the dispute, and keeps writing to newspapers and universities, he contributes to the fact that the content to which the URLs refer, is still topical. Hence, [[Article 17 GDPR#1a|Article 17(1)(a) GDPR]] does not apply since the there is no processing period longer than necessary.  
==Comment==
+
== Comment ==
 
''Share your comments here!''
 
''Share your comments here!''
  
==Further Resources==
+
== Further Resources ==
 
''Share blogs or news articles here!''
 
''Share blogs or news articles here!''
  
==English Machine Translation of the Decision==
+
== 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.
 
The decision below is a machine translation of the Dutch original. Please refer to the Dutch original for more details.
  

Please note that all contributions to GDPRhub are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (see GDPRhub:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To edit this page, please answer the question that appears below (more info):

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)

Template used on this page: