KamR Göteborg - 2232-21: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|Court-BG-Color= | |Court-BG-Color= | ||
|Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png | |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png | ||
|Court_Abbrevation= | |Court_Abbrevation=KamR Göteborg | ||
|Court_With_Country= | |Court_With_Country=KamR Göteborg (Sweden) | ||
|Case_Number_Name=2232-21 | |Case_Number_Name=2232-21 | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
|Party_Link_5= | |Party_Link_5= | ||
|Appeal_From_Body=FiS | |Appeal_From_Body=FiS (Sweden) | ||
|Appeal_From_Case_Number_Name= | |Appeal_From_Case_Number_Name= | ||
|Appeal_From_Status= | |Appeal_From_Status= | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
}} | }} | ||
The Gothenburg Court of Appeal upheld a fine of €4,800,000 (SEK 50,000,000) imposed on Google by the Stockholm Administrative Court for its practice of informing webmasters when search results were erased. It also held that Google had ignored the Article 29 Working Group's opinion on the right to erasure from search engines over a long period of time. | |||
== English Summary == | == English Summary == | ||
=== Facts === | === Facts === | ||
In March 2020, the Swedish DPA Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten (IMY) fined Google | In March 2020, the Swedish DPA Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten (IMY) fined Google €7,200,000 (SEK 75 million) for violating [[Article 17 GDPR|Article 17 GDPR]] (the right to erasure). In particular, the IMY considered that Google had violated the right to erasure in connection with two complaints from data subjects (Complaint No. 2 and Complaint No. 8 in the supervisory case), as well as because of its general practice of regularly informing webmasters when search results are being removed. | ||
Google appealed | Google appealed that decision before the Stockholm Administrative Court (FiS). In December 2020, the FiS upheld that Google had breached the right to erasure with respect to Complaint No. 2, but found no such breach with respect to Complaint No. 8. In both cases, however, the FiS concluded that Google had acted contrary to data protection law because of its practice of notifying webmasters of deleted search results. The FiS further justified a reduction of the overall fine calculated by IMY for the breaches that were upheld. | ||
Google further appealed the FiS decision before the Court of Appeal in Gothenburg. In the context of these appeal proceedings, IMY argued that Google had breached the right to erasure with respect to both Complaint No. 2 and Complaint No. 8, and had also acted contrary to data protection law because of its practice of notifying webmasters of removed search results. IMY wanted the overall fine to be set at €6,300,000 (SEK 66 million). In particular, the proposed fine of €6,300,000 included: | |||
* a fine of €96,639 (SEK 1 million) for not respecting the right to erasure with respect to Complaint No. 2; | |||
* a fine of €1,448,547 (SEK 15 million) for not respecting the right to erasure with respect to Complaint No. 8; and | |||
* a fine of € 4,800,000 (SEK 50 million) for the practice of regularly informing webmasters of deleted search results. | |||
=== Holding === | === Holding === | ||
==== | ==== The right to erasure ==== | ||
The Gothenburg Court of Appeals found that Google | The Gothenburg Court of Appeals partly reversed the findings of the the FiS and found that Google had complied with Article 17 GDPR on the right to erasure with respect to both Complaint No. 2 and Complaint No. 8. In particular: | ||
With respect to Complaint No. 2, the Gothenburg Court of Appeals found that the data subject had first only provided the main web address (URL) of the discussion thread where his/her name was mentioned, but had failed to provide the specific URLs where his/her name was mentioned each time. The Gothenburg Court of Appeal noted in this respect that Google's instructions on erasure requests clearly require the data subject to provide each and every URL that is part of the erasure request, as even small changes to the URL can lead to a different website. The Gothenburg Court of Appeal further noted that Google has set up a help page explaining the importance of providing each URLs in details. Finally, the Court of Appeals noted that, once the data subject had completed his/her erasure request by providing the specific URLs where his/her name was mentioned, Google had proceeded to the erasure of these pages without undue delay. Based on these considerations, the Court of Appeals concluded that Google had complied with [[Article 17 GDPR]]. | |||
With respect to Complaint No. 8, the Court of Appeals agreed with FiS that Google had complied with [[Article 17 GDPR]] by removing the concerned search result three days before IMY had ordered Google to do so. Hence, the Court of Appeals concluded that Google had deleted the requested search results without undue delay, in accordance with [[Article 17 GDPR]]. | |||
==== | ==== Google's practice of informing webmasters ==== | ||
The Gothenburg Court of Appeal upheld the FiS decision that Google's | The Gothenburg Court of Appeal upheld the FiS decision that Google's practice to regularly inform webmasters of the removal of search results was contrary to [[Article 5 GDPR#1a|Article 5(1)(a) GDPR]] (principle of lawfulness), [[Article 5 GDPR#1b|Article 5(1)(b) GDPR]] (principle of purpose limitation) and [[Article 6 GDPR]] (absence of valid legal basis for the processing). The Gothenburg Court of Appeals found in this respect that Google had systematically ignored the [https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/redirection/document/64437 Article 29 Working Party's Opinion on the right to erasure] over an extended period of time. Although the Opinion is not strictly binding, the Gothenburg Court of Appeal pointed out that the Article 29 Working Party's mandate is to ensure that the European Union's data protection rules are applied consistently in all Member States, and that controllers should thus consider such opinions and guidelines. In conclusion, the Gothenburg Court of Appeal found that Google's practice to inform webmaster of deleted search results was contrary to the GDPR, and upheld the fine of €4,800,000 million (SEK 50 million) imposed on Google by FiS. | ||
== Comment == | == Comment == | ||
The entire decision is unfortunately not published on the the website of the The Gothenburg Court of Appeal. To get the decision one has to | The entire decision is unfortunately not published on the the website of the The Gothenburg Court of Appeal. To get a summary of the decision, one has to read the press release: https://www.domstol.se/nyheter/2021/11/googles-rutin-strider-mot-gdpr/ and then use a webform (Swedish) to request a copy of the judgement. Another way might be to email the court: kammarratten.goteborg@dom.se and supply this case number: 2232-21. | ||
Another way might be to email the court: | |||
(Comment by initial contributor) | (Comment by initial contributor) | ||
Latest revision as of 11:52, 9 December 2021
| KamR Göteborg - 2232-21 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | KamR Göteborg (Sweden) |
| Jurisdiction: | Sweden |
| Relevant Law: | Article 5(1)(a) GDPR Article 5(1)(b) GDPR Article 6 GDPR Article 17 GDPR |
| Decided: | 30.11.2021 |
| Published: | 30.11.2021 |
| Parties: | Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY) Google LLC |
| National Case Number/Name: | 2232-21 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | |
| Appeal from: | FiS (Sweden) |
| Appeal to: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | Swedish |
| Original Source: | Pressrelease of the The Gothenburg Court of Appeal (in Swedish) |
| Initial Contributor: | Kave Noori |
The Gothenburg Court of Appeal upheld a fine of €4,800,000 (SEK 50,000,000) imposed on Google by the Stockholm Administrative Court for its practice of informing webmasters when search results were erased. It also held that Google had ignored the Article 29 Working Group's opinion on the right to erasure from search engines over a long period of time.
English Summary
Facts
In March 2020, the Swedish DPA Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten (IMY) fined Google €7,200,000 (SEK 75 million) for violating Article 17 GDPR (the right to erasure). In particular, the IMY considered that Google had violated the right to erasure in connection with two complaints from data subjects (Complaint No. 2 and Complaint No. 8 in the supervisory case), as well as because of its general practice of regularly informing webmasters when search results are being removed.
Google appealed that decision before the Stockholm Administrative Court (FiS). In December 2020, the FiS upheld that Google had breached the right to erasure with respect to Complaint No. 2, but found no such breach with respect to Complaint No. 8. In both cases, however, the FiS concluded that Google had acted contrary to data protection law because of its practice of notifying webmasters of deleted search results. The FiS further justified a reduction of the overall fine calculated by IMY for the breaches that were upheld.
Google further appealed the FiS decision before the Court of Appeal in Gothenburg. In the context of these appeal proceedings, IMY argued that Google had breached the right to erasure with respect to both Complaint No. 2 and Complaint No. 8, and had also acted contrary to data protection law because of its practice of notifying webmasters of removed search results. IMY wanted the overall fine to be set at €6,300,000 (SEK 66 million). In particular, the proposed fine of €6,300,000 included:
- a fine of €96,639 (SEK 1 million) for not respecting the right to erasure with respect to Complaint No. 2;
- a fine of €1,448,547 (SEK 15 million) for not respecting the right to erasure with respect to Complaint No. 8; and
- a fine of € 4,800,000 (SEK 50 million) for the practice of regularly informing webmasters of deleted search results.
Holding
The right to erasure
The Gothenburg Court of Appeals partly reversed the findings of the the FiS and found that Google had complied with Article 17 GDPR on the right to erasure with respect to both Complaint No. 2 and Complaint No. 8. In particular:
With respect to Complaint No. 2, the Gothenburg Court of Appeals found that the data subject had first only provided the main web address (URL) of the discussion thread where his/her name was mentioned, but had failed to provide the specific URLs where his/her name was mentioned each time. The Gothenburg Court of Appeal noted in this respect that Google's instructions on erasure requests clearly require the data subject to provide each and every URL that is part of the erasure request, as even small changes to the URL can lead to a different website. The Gothenburg Court of Appeal further noted that Google has set up a help page explaining the importance of providing each URLs in details. Finally, the Court of Appeals noted that, once the data subject had completed his/her erasure request by providing the specific URLs where his/her name was mentioned, Google had proceeded to the erasure of these pages without undue delay. Based on these considerations, the Court of Appeals concluded that Google had complied with Article 17 GDPR.
With respect to Complaint No. 8, the Court of Appeals agreed with FiS that Google had complied with Article 17 GDPR by removing the concerned search result three days before IMY had ordered Google to do so. Hence, the Court of Appeals concluded that Google had deleted the requested search results without undue delay, in accordance with Article 17 GDPR.
Google's practice of informing webmasters
The Gothenburg Court of Appeal upheld the FiS decision that Google's practice to regularly inform webmasters of the removal of search results was contrary to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR (principle of lawfulness), Article 5(1)(b) GDPR (principle of purpose limitation) and Article 6 GDPR (absence of valid legal basis for the processing). The Gothenburg Court of Appeals found in this respect that Google had systematically ignored the Article 29 Working Party's Opinion on the right to erasure over an extended period of time. Although the Opinion is not strictly binding, the Gothenburg Court of Appeal pointed out that the Article 29 Working Party's mandate is to ensure that the European Union's data protection rules are applied consistently in all Member States, and that controllers should thus consider such opinions and guidelines. In conclusion, the Gothenburg Court of Appeal found that Google's practice to inform webmaster of deleted search results was contrary to the GDPR, and upheld the fine of €4,800,000 million (SEK 50 million) imposed on Google by FiS.
Comment
The entire decision is unfortunately not published on the the website of the The Gothenburg Court of Appeal. To get a summary of the decision, one has to read the press release: https://www.domstol.se/nyheter/2021/11/googles-rutin-strider-mot-gdpr/ and then use a webform (Swedish) to request a copy of the judgement. Another way might be to email the court: kammarratten.goteborg@dom.se and supply this case number: 2232-21.
(Comment by initial contributor)
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision
The decision below is a machine translation of the Swedish original. Please refer to the Swedish original for more details.
& # 13;
& # 13;
Google has a routine of informing webmasters when a search result has been removed from the list of search results in accordance with the "right to be forgotten". The Court of Appeal considers that this is not permitted under the Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). & # 13;
The right to be forgotten means that an individual has the right to have one or more links to web pages with personal data deleted from the list of search results displayed during a search on the person's name.
The Court of Appeal considers that Google's routine of regularly informing webmasters that search results have been deleted constitutes a processing of personal data that is not in accordance with the Data Protection Regulation.
- The Court of Appeal has made the same assessment as the Administrative Court, that Google's routines regarding requests to remove search results are contrary to the Data Protection Ordinance, says the Court of Appeal's lawyer Petter Classon.
However, the Court of Appeal finds that Google has removed individual search results without undue delay. The Court of Appeal therefore reduces the sanction fee by an additional SEK 2 million, in relation to the Administrative Court's ruling, to a total of SEK 50 million. & # 13;
& # 13;
