Editing Rb. Amsterdam - C/13/663563 / HA RK 19-97

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 2: Line 2:
 
! colspan="2" |Rb. Amsterdam - C/13/663563 / HA RK 19-97
 
! colspan="2" |Rb. Amsterdam - C/13/663563 / HA RK 19-97
 
|-
 
|-
| colspan="2" style="padding: 20px; background-color:#ffffff;" |[[File:courtsNL.png|center|250px]]
+
| colspan="2" style="padding: 20px; background-color:#ffffff;" | [[File:courtsNL.png|center|250px]]
 
|-
 
|-
 
|Court:||[[:Category:Rb. Amsterdam (Netherlands)|Rb. Amsterdam (Netherlands)]]
 
|Court:||[[:Category:Rb. Amsterdam (Netherlands)|Rb. Amsterdam (Netherlands)]]
Line 44: Line 44:
 
|}
 
|}
  
The Amsterdam Court of First Instance rejected dentist's request to Google for the removal of search results which linked to his name 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 information.  
+
The Amsterdam Court of First Instance decided that the rejection of a suspended lawyer's request to the Dutch Bar Association to erase a list showing the claimant's suspension as a lawyer is not unlawful nor contrary to the GDPR.
  
 
==English Summary==
 
==English Summary==
  
 
===Facts===  
 
===Facts===  
The plaintiff is a dentist in Germany but he used to practice in the Netherlands, where he was registered with the [https://www.bigregister.nl/ BIG-register] for healthcare professionals. Τhe Regional Health Care Disciplinary Boards in Amsterdam and Zwolle imposed disciplinary measures on him after complaints about his treatments. The plaintiff asked Google to remove all search results which linked to his name when searching for his name or the combination of his name and the search term "disciplinary law". Google removed some of them but refused to remove the rest claiming its legitimate interest under [[Article 6 GDPR#1f|Article 6(1)(f) GDPR]], the freedom of expression and the interest of the public in finding information online. The plaintiff on the other hand argued that he exercised his right to be forgotten on the basis of [[Article 17 GDPR#1a|Article 17(1)(a) GDPR]] and [[Article 17 GDPR#1c|Article 17(1)(c) GDPR]] and that the balancing test of the conflicting rights and interests should favor his rights and interests. He claimed that Google violated [[Article 12 GDPR|Article 12 GDPR]] by refusing to remove the links at stake without explaining the reasons why it did so in a transparent, concise and comprehensible form; these links reveal data relating to criminal convictions or otherwise sensitive data and require stricter protection under [[Article 9 GDPR|Article 9 GDPR]] and [[Article 10 GDPR|Article 10 GDPR]], which Google violated.  
+
The plaintiff is dentist in Germany but he used to practice in the Netherlands, where he was registered with the [https://www.bigregister.nl/ BIG-register] for healthcare professionals. Τhe Regional Health Care Disciplinary Boards in Amsterdam and Zwolle imposed disciplinary measures on the plaintiff after complaints about his treatments. The plaintiff asked Google to remove all search results which linked to his name when searching for his name or the combination of his name and the search term "disciplinary law". Google removed some of them but refused to remove the rest claiming its legitimate interest under [[Article 6 GDPR#1f|Article 6(1)(f) GDPR]], the freedom of expression and the interest of the public in finding information online. The plaintiff on the other hand argued that he exercised his right to be forgotten on the basis of [[Article 17 GDPR#1a|Article 17(1)(a) GDPR]] and [[Article 17 GDPR#1c|Article 17(1)(c) GDPR]] and that the balancing test of the conflicting rights and interests should favor his rights and interests. He claimed that Google violated [[Article 12 GDPR|Article 12 GDPR]] by refusing to remove the links at stake without explaining in a transparent, concise and comprehensible form the reasons why it did so; these links reveal data relating to criminal convictions or otherwise sensitive data implying stricter protection under [[Article 9 GDPR|Article 9 GDPR]] and [[Article 10 GDPR|Article 10 GDPR]], which Google violated.  
  
 
===Dispute===
 
===Dispute===
The Court had to assess whether Google had to remove all the links on the grounds of [[Article 17 GDPR#1a|Article 17(1)(a) GDPR]] and [[Article 17 GDPR#1c|Article 17(1)(c) GDPR]] or whether the exception of [[Article 17 GDPR#3a|Article 17(3)(a) GDPR]] about the freedom of expression and information shall be applicable. The Court had to go through this balancing exercise.   
+
The Court had to assess whether Google had to remove all the links on the ground of [[Article 17 GDPR#1a|Article 17(1)(a) GDPR]] and [[Article 17 GDPR#1c|Article 17(1)(c) GDPR]] or whether the exception of [[Article 17 GDPR#3a|Article 17(3)(a) GDPR]] about the freedom of expression and information shall be applicable. The Court had to go through this balancing exercise.   
  
 
===Holding===
 
===Holding===
The Court noted that, although it follows from the case law that the right to privacy and the right to the protection of personal data take precedence over the right to freedom of information when balancing interests, in this case the interference with the the plaintiff's right to privacy was justified by the overriding public interest in accessing the information. The Court pointed out that Google cannot be held responsible for the accuracy of the content of the webpages at stake, but on the other hand in its balancing test it cannot completely ignore this content. The Court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that this content was incorrect, irrelevant, excessive or outdated. Further, it confirmed Google's decisive argument that the plaintiff can be considered as a public figure, since he appeared on TV and joined public debates about aesthetic dentistry. Finally, the Court noted that there was no need to examine whether Google violated [[Article 12 GDPR|Article 12 GDPR]].  
+
The Court noted that, although it follows from the case law that the right to privacy and the right to protection of personal data take precedence over the right to freedom of information when balancing interests, in this case the interference with the right to privacy of the plaintiff was justified by the overriding public interest in accessing the information. The Court pointed out that Google cannot be held responsible for the accuracy of the content of the webpages at stake, but on the other hand in its balancing test it cannot completely ignore this content. The Court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that this content was incorrect, irrelevant, excessive or outdated. Further, it confirmed Google's decisive argument that the plaintiff can be considered as a public figure, since he appeared on TV and joined public debates about aesthetic dentistry. Finally, the Court noted that there is no need to examine whether Google violated [[Article 12 GDPR|Article 12 GDPR]].  
 
    
 
    
 
==Comment==
 
==Comment==

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)