517:). On the first set of questions, the advocate general found that Google's business model brought Google Inc. and Google Spain within the scope of the Directive. On the second set of questions concerning the material scope of the Directive, the advocate general held that Google could not be regarded as a data controller: Google's search activities involve the processing of personal data, but Google does not thereby become a data controller for the content of the material when the processing is carried out in a haphazard, indiscriminate and random manner. In the advocate general's view the sense of the Directive was that "the controller is aware of the existence of a certain defined category of information amounting to personal data and the controller processes this data with some intention which relates to their processing as personal data".
559:. Article 14(a) of the Directive, relating to the data subject's rights, allows the data subject, at least in the cases covered by articles 7(e) and 7(f), to object at any time on compelling legitimate grounds relating to his particular situation to the processing of data relating to him, save where otherwise provided by national legislation. Article 12(b) of the directive, relating to the data subject's right of access to the data, allows the data subject to request erasure of the data. Such request may be made directly of the controller, who must then duly examine the merits of the request. If the request is not granted, the data subject may then direct the request to a supervisory authority or the judicial authority so that it carries out the necessary checks and orders the controller to take specific measures accordingly.
584:
ubiquitous manner, in a way that could not otherwise have been obtained formerly save only with the greatest difficulty. The data subject's rights must therefore in general override "as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine but also the interest of the general public in finding that information upon a search relating to the data subject's name", but that would not be the case if the role played by the data subject in public life is such "that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question".
646:
no specific public interest justification and there is no specific public interest which could relate to most pieces of biographical information about an individual. Facebook is an extremely valuable resource for freedom of expression and information sharing, but most of the "personal data" published there be it banal or wacky would not avail itself of any specific public interest defence. The point is that it shouldn't have to; there is an inherent value in the free circulation of information and ideas which the court has completely overlooked.
551:
in Spain, holding that the promotion and selling of advertising space by its subsidiary Google Spain was sufficient to constitute processing within the meaning of the directive. To have ruled otherwise would have been to undermine the effectiveness of the directive and the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals that the directive seeks to ensure. The court thus endorsed the
Advocate General's view that Google Inc. and Google Spain should be treated as a single economic unit.
1872:
524:. He held that the rights of freedom of information and expression took precedence over any such right to erasure, and urged the court not to allow case-by-case resolution of such conflicts as that would likely lead to the "automatic withdrawal of links to any objected contents or to an unmanageable number of requests handled by the most popular and important Internet search engine service providers."
415:, AEPD) asking both that the newspaper be required to remove the data, and that Google Spain or Google Inc. be required to remove the links to the data. On 30 July 2010, the Director of AEPD rejected the complaint against the newspaper but upheld the complaint against Google Spain and Google Inc., calling on them to remove the links complained of and make access to the data impossible.
42:
672:(HLR) examines criticism that the court got it wrong. HLR says these critics are ignoring that the Court made a reasonable interpretation of the Directive's text and the privacy values it contains. Their failure to fully engage with these values and to acknowledge that the measure enjoys widespread support across the EU undermine their contribution to the policy debate.
661:"Privacy by default" will encourage politicians, celebrities and other public figures to put their lawyers on track when they find inconvenient information online. And as the use of a search engine like Google is essential for finding information, the elimination from the results of search engines will provide a convenient and essential tool to suppress information.
550:
Regarding the territorial scope of the
Directive, the court observed that Google Spain is a subsidiary of Google Inc. on Spanish territory and, therefore, an 'establishment' within the meaning of the directive. The court rejected Google Inc.'s argument that it was not carrying out its data processing
645:
The court's reductionist approach is to require that all published information must have a specific public interest justification. This approach is profoundly erroneous and stems in large part from failing to keep in mind the private/public distinction. Most of what is published on the internet has
595:
to request the removal of links from its search results if the data linked is "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which they were processed". On 31 May 2014, the first day of the service, Google received over 12,000 requests from people asking
583:
with the legitimate interest of the public to access such information, and it does not mandate that information is instantly removed upon request. It distinguishes between public figures and private persons. The Court stressed that
Internet search engines profile individuals in modern society in an
603:("revenge porn") on request. Commentators noted that this was not the same thing as implementing a "right to be forgotten" as the company already has policies in place dealing with sensitive personal data such as social security numbers and credit card numbers. However, the consumer advocacy group
398:
One of the properties described in the newspaper announcements belonged to Mario
Costeja González, who was named in the announcements. In November 2009, Costeja contacted the newspaper to complain that when his name was entered in the Google search engine it led to the announcements. He asked that
570:
considered that this question should be answered in the negative. The court held, however, that the processing of data which is "inadequate, irrelevant or excessive" (i.e. not merely inaccurate) might also be incompatible with the directive. In such cases, where the data is incompatible with the
344:
The outcome of the ruling is that an
Internet search engine must consider requests from individuals to remove links to freely accessible web pages resulting from a search on their name. Grounds for removal include cases where the search result(s) "appear to be inadequate, irrelevant or no longer
554:
Concerning the obligations and duties of the operator of a search engine, the court held that in the present case
Article 7(f) of the directive, relating to legitimacy of processing, requires a balancing of the opposing rights and interests of the data subject (González) and the data controller
406:
Spain in
February 2010, asking for the erasure of the links to the announcements. Google Spain forwarded the request to Google Inc., whose registered office is in California, United States, taking the view that this was the responsible body. Costeja subsequently lodged a complaint with the
399:
the data relating to him be removed, arguing that the forced sale had been concluded years before and was no longer relevant. The newspaper replied that erasing his data was not appropriate since the publication had been on the order of the
Spanish Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.
345:
relevant or excessive in the light of the time that had elapsed." If the search engine rejects the request, the individual may ask relevant authorities to consider the case. Under certain conditions, the search engine may be ordered to remove the links from search results.
314:– Processing of data contained on websites – Searching for, indexing and storage of such data – Responsibility of the operator of the search engine – Establishment on the territory of a Member State – Extent of that operator's obligations and of the data subject's rights
1781:
532:
The Court of
Justice of the European Union ruled that an Internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties, upholding a right of erasure.
491:
Written proceedings followed by an oral hearing were held on 26 February 2013, at which, besides the parties, the governments of
Austria, Greece, Italy, Spain and Poland and the European Commission gave their opinion. Advocate General
571:
provisions of article 6(1)(e) to (f) of the directive, relating to data quality, the information and links in the list of the results must be erased. It is not necessary that the information is prejudicial to the data subject.
355:
657:
German Professor Niko Härting wrote a summary of the worries about undervaluing the importance of freedom of information and communication, as well as the dangers of abuse of such a system, stemming from this decision;
722:, has warned Google that it faces legal action if it fails to heed its warnings over the way Google is policing the ruling. The working party wants Google to stop notifying publishers and to remove its links globally.
359:
709:, a founder of Knowledge (XXG). The committee recommended that only national links, not global links, should be removed, and that publishers should be notified of the removals and have the right to challenge them.
536:
The court considered the material scope of the Directive first. The court rejected Google's submission, supported by the Advocate General, that it could not be regarded as a data controller within the scope of the
1364:"Guidelines on the implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union judgment on "Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González" C – 131/12"
908:
1658:
1139:
1175:
1097:
1620:
504:
The purpose of an advocate general's opinion is to advise the court on new points of law. It is not binding on the court. In this case the advocate general was Niilo Jääskinen from Finland.
1896:
1494:
732:
543:
387:
published two announcements in its printed edition regarding the forced sale of properties arising from social security debts. The announcements were published on the order of the
1643:
964:), accessed 16 May 2014. Translation: "Property auctions....the two undivided halves of a house at 8 Montseny St., owned by Mario Costeja González and Alicia Vargas Cots....."
1502:
556:
363:
317:
1008:
452:
The Audiencia Nacional joined the actions and stayed the proceedings pending a preliminary ruling from the CJEU on a number of questions regarding the interpretation of the
520:
In the event that the court did not agree with his finding that Google was not a data controller, the advocate general considered the third set of questions relating to a
388:
479:
All of these questions, also raising important points of fundamental rights protection, were new to the court. Because new points of law were involved, the opinion of an
373:
was mooted to include a right to be forgotten, but between the draft and the final version this was changed to a right to request erasure for a set of specific reasons.
1515:
1388:
1231:
827:
555:(Google), taking into account the data subject's rights deriving from articles 7 (respect for private and family life) and 8 (protection of personal data) of the
1089:
152:
operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties. An individual may request
71:
1212:
1551:
1259:
1702:
642:
characterises the judgment as profoundly harmful to the operation of the Internet and a betrayal of Europe's legacy in protecting freedom of expression:
1363:
1302:
1650:
1470:
Shoor, Emily Adams (2014). "Narrowing the Right to Be Forgotten: Why the European Union Needs to Amend the Proposed Data Protection Regulation".
1157:
689:
Google published its advisory committee's report on how the ruling should be implemented on 5 February 2015. Their advisory committee includes
334:
1282:
341:
operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal information which appears on web pages published by third parties.
1472:
855:
1693:
1906:
1758:
1718:
1734:
1674:
1666:
1612:
632:
513:
370:
588:
1053:
1341:
981:
1544:
592:
1596:
1425:
463:
the legal position of an Internet search engine service provider under the Directive, especially in terms of the Directive's
408:
1710:
354:, although the Court did not explicitly grant such a right, depending instead on the data subject's rights deriving from
1774:
705:
on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, from August 2008 to August 2014, and
391:
and their purpose was to attract as many bidders as possible. A version of the edition was later made available on the
464:
1323:
949:
1911:
1875:
1537:
1396:
420:
1916:
1901:
1111:
805:
719:
600:
480:
429:
305:
285:
165:
46:
1054:"Further Developments in the Right to be Forgotten: The European Court of Justice's Judgment in Case C-131/12,
748:
683:
608:
1216:
1161:
1093:
100:
1009:"Case comment: Google Spain SL, Google Inc v Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos, Mario Costeja González"
448:
in any event, the data subject (Costeja) did not have the right to the erasure of lawfully published material
1766:
1604:
1588:
311:
607:
subsequently called on Google to extend the right to be forgotten to US users, filing a complaint with the
1855:
1831:
1741:
338:
157:
149:
1651:
United States v. Adobe Systems, Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corporation, Intuit, Inc., and Pixar
934:
1839:
1788:
1726:
1236:
702:
472:
350:
90:
493:
268:
1847:
1796:
694:
566:, the court noted that Google Spain, Google Inc., the Greek, Austrian and Polish governments and the
1410:
627:
piece, Julia Powles remarks that the ruling provides an essential platform for public debate as the
212:
1571:
1374:
988:
628:
567:
418:
Google Spain and Google Inc. subsequently brought separate actions against the decision before the
222:
207:
1446:
859:
252:
1349:
961:
832:
668:
443:
135:
1031:
330:
Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González
217:
1560:
1485:
1481:
604:
1267:
755:
263:
173:
1520:
1016:
762:
690:
639:
511:
predates the Google era (it dates from 1995 and, as of May 2018, has been replaced by the
178:
442:
even were there processing, neither Google Inc. nor Google Spain could be regarded as a
1140:"Opinion of Advocate General Niilo Jääskinen delivered on 25 June 2013 – Case C‑131/12"
1065:
740:
541:, adopting a literal interpretation of article 2(b), giving definitions and relying on
507:
Advocate General Jääskinen made frequent reference in his opinion to the fact that the
392:
232:
1890:
1812:
954:
383:
299:
237:
61:
1426:"Should You Have The Right To Be Forgotten on Google? Nationally, Yes. Globally, No"
1307:
698:
686:
issued its guidelines on how the ruling should be implemented on 26 November 2014.
623:
580:
1782:
Judgement of the German Federal Court of Justice on Google's autocomplete function
1389:"Implementing the "right to be forgotten": the Article 29 Working Party speaks up"
1196:
782:
496:
gave his opinion on 25 June 2013, after which judgment was given on 13 May 2014.
17:
1495:"Free Speech versus Human Dignity: Comparative Perspectives on Internet Privacy"
930:
706:
202:
758:– filing lawsuits to protect privacy may result in significant media attention
247:
189:
1627:
1451:
1430:
1213:"Google to Give Effect to Right to Remove Personal Data from Search Results"
714:
242:
227:
153:
41:
1090:"EU Court of Justice Advocate-General Issues Opinion in Google Search Case"
436:) and its subsidiary Google Spain was not responsible for the search engine
467:
and as to whether the search engine could be regarded as a data controller
1286:
1283:"Consumer Watchdog: Google Should Extend 'Right To Be Forgotten' to U.S."
787:
1411:"The Advisory Committee to Google on the Right to be Forgotten (report)"
596:
the company to remove certain links about them from its search results.
1112:"Press release No 77/13 (Advocate General's Opinion in Case C-131/12)"
1056:
Google Spain, SL, Google Inc v Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos
302:– Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of such data
456:. These questions fell into three groups. In essence they concerned:
403:
67:
1529:
1303:"What did the media miss with the 'right to be forgotten' coverage?"
1158:"EU Court of Justice Upholds Right to Erasure in Google Search Case"
439:
there was no processing of personal data within the search function
587:
Google subsequently published an online form which can be used by
1659:
Umar Javeed, Sukarma Thapar, Aaqib Javeed vs. Google LLC and Ors.
982:"Factsheet on the "Right to be Forgotten" ruling (case C-131/12)"
1232:"Google receives 12,000 requests to be 'forgotten' on first day"
1183:
1143:
1118:
916:
812:
579:
The ruling balances the right to privacy and data protection in
1533:
718:
reported that the chairwoman of the Article 29 Working Party,
1621:
Google, Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc.
1516:"Google privacy law 'means total rethink of basic freedoms'"
1342:"Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos"
1083:
1081:
1079:
1077:
1075:
1197:
Google sets up 'right to be forgotten' form after EU ruling
693:, Professor of Philosophy and Ethics of Information at the
599:
On 19 June 2015, Google announced it would remove links to
424:(National High Court of Spain). Their appeal was based on:
308:– Articles 2, 4, 12 and 14 – Material and territorial scope
856:"What we can salvage from 'right to be forgotten' ruling"
783:"EU court backs 'right to be forgotten' in Google case"
27:
Decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union
806:"Press release No 70/14 (Judgment in Case C-131/12)"
1823:
1750:
1685:
1636:
1580:
1503:
Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law
1260:"Google to Remove Revenge Porn from Search Results"
557:
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
364:
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
318:
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
291:
278:
164:
142:
130:
122:
114:
106:
96:
86:
78:
60:
53:
34:
631:considers reform of the Directive in its upcoming
562:Regarding the question relating to the so-called
828:"European Court Lets Users Erase Records on Web"
800:
798:
1897:Court of Justice of the European Union case law
659:
643:
428:Google Inc. was not within the scope of the EU
1805:Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González
1324:"Can a Search Engine be "Private by Default"?"
470:whether the Directive establishes a so-called
35:Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González
1545:
733:Bodil Lindqvist v Åklagarkammaren i Jönköping
389:Spanish Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs
8:
1047:
1045:
976:
974:
972:
970:
903:
901:
899:
897:
1703:Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.
1552:
1538:
1530:
1134:
1132:
1130:
1128:
895:
893:
891:
889:
887:
885:
883:
881:
879:
877:
358:(respect for private and family life) and
1176:"Judgment of the Court in Case C-101/01 (
1064:. Human Rights Law Review. Archived from
909:"Judgment of the Court in Case C‑131/12 (
684:Article 29 Data Protection Working Party
348:The decision was claimed as a so-called
774:
413:Agencia Española de Protección de Datos
72:Agencia Española de Protección de Datos
1002:
1000:
998:
460:the territorial scope of the Directive
335:Court of Justice of the European Union
31:
1473:Brooklyn Journal of International Law
1447:"Respect European law, Google warned"
1202:, 30 May 2014. Retrieved 30 May 2014.
1030:Toobin, Jeffrey (22 September 2014).
362:(protection of personal data) of the
7:
1694:Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
1759:Rocky Mountain Bank v. Google, Inc.
1719:Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
1100:from the original on 11 April 2015.
1735:Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.
1613:Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc.
1258:Golbeck, Jennifer (19 June 2015).
651:Guy Vassall-Adams, Matrix Chambers
633:General Data Protection Regulation
514:General Data Protection Regulation
371:General Data Protection Regulation
110:Reference for a preliminary ruling
25:
1871:
1870:
826:David Streitfeld (13 May 2014).
40:
1696:and A9.com Inc. and Google Inc.
947:The announcements in question:
933:; Hyams, Oliver (15 May 2014).
1597:Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.
1493:Wolf, Brittany (Winter 2014).
1088:Jay, Rosemary (16 July 2013).
958:. 19 January 1998. p. 23.
409:Spanish Data Protection Agency
381:In 1998 the Spanish newspaper
1:
1711:Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.
1322:Härting, Niko (14 May 2014).
1301:Powles, Julia (21 May 2014).
858:. Wired.co.uk. Archived from
1775:United States v. Google Inc.
1230:Powell, Rose (31 May 2014).
854:Julia Powles (15 May 2014).
333:(2014) is a decision by the
1675:United States v. Google LLC
1667:United States v. Google LLC
935:"The Right to Be Forgotten"
1933:
1907:2014 in the European Union
1397:London School of Economics
1281:Eng, James (7 July 2015).
500:Advocate general's opinion
54:Submitted 27 February 2012
1866:
1567:
1217:Hunton & Williams LLP
1162:Hunton & Williams LLP
1094:Hunton & Williams LLP
720:Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin
601:nonconsensual pornography
539:Data Protection Directive
509:Data Protection Directive
483:was sought by the court.
454:Data Protection Directive
434:Data Protection Directive
296:
283:
274:
261:
195:
184:
171:
147:
47:European Court of Justice
39:
1032:"The Solace of Oblivion"
749:Florida Star v. B. J. F.
609:Federal Trade Commission
337:(CJEU). It held that an
74:, Mario Costeja González
1767:Hibnick v. Google, Inc.
1605:Goddard v. Google, Inc.
1589:Feldman v. Google, Inc.
1062:hrlr.oxfordjournals.org
499:
402:Costeja then contacted
312:Internet search engines
156:to be removed from the
1856:Gonzalez v. Google LLC
1832:Garcia v. Google, Inc.
1742:Smartphone patent wars
663:
654:
339:Internet search engine
150:Internet search engine
123:Nationality of parties
1840:Google LLC v Defteros
1789:Joffe v. Google, Inc.
1727:Field v. Google, Inc.
1686:Intellectual property
1434:. huffingtonpost.com.
1237:Sydney Morning Herald
950:"Subhasta d'Immobles"
703:UN Special Rapporteur
638:Guy Vassall-Adams of
564:right to be forgotten
522:right to be forgotten
473:right to be forgotten
351:right to be forgotten
279:Legislation affecting
158:search engine's index
1848:Epic Games v. Google
1797:Mosley v SARL Google
1346:harvardlawreview.org
1068:on 21 February 2015.
1007:Vassall-Adams, Guy.
712:On 7 February 2015,
695:University of Oxford
1572:Criticism of Google
1375:European Commission
1352:. 10 December 2014.
989:European Commission
629:European Commission
568:European Commission
320:– Articles 7 and 8.
56:Decided 13 May 2014
1424:Floridi, Luciano.
1350:Harvard Law Review
1052:Frantziou, Eleni.
833:The New York Times
669:Harvard Law Review
430:Directive 95/46/EC
421:Audiencia Nacional
306:Directive 95/46/EC
286:Directive 95/46/EC
136:Audiencia Nacional
131:Procedural history
101:ECLI:EU:C:2014:317
1912:Google litigation
1884:
1883:
1561:Google litigation
605:Consumer Watchdog
326:
325:
166:Court composition
134:Reference of the
66:Google Spain SL,
18:Google v González
16:(Redirected from
1924:
1917:Privacy case law
1902:2014 in case law
1874:
1873:
1554:
1547:
1540:
1531:
1525:
1511:
1499:
1489:
1457:
1456:
1442:
1436:
1435:
1421:
1415:
1414:
1407:
1401:
1400:
1385:
1379:
1378:
1368:
1360:
1354:
1353:
1338:
1332:
1331:
1319:
1313:
1312:
1298:
1292:
1291:
1278:
1272:
1271:
1255:
1249:
1248:
1246:
1244:
1227:
1221:
1220:
1209:
1203:
1194:
1188:
1187:
1172:
1166:
1165:
1154:
1148:
1147:
1136:
1123:
1122:
1116:
1108:
1102:
1101:
1085:
1070:
1069:
1049:
1040:
1039:
1027:
1021:
1020:
1004:
993:
992:
986:
978:
965:
959:
945:
939:
938:
937:. 1 Essex Court.
927:
921:
920:
905:
872:
871:
869:
867:
851:
845:
844:
842:
840:
823:
817:
816:
810:
802:
793:
792:
779:
756:Streisand effect
701:, who served as
652:
481:advocate general
264:Advocate General
174:Judge-Rapporteur
44:
32:
21:
1932:
1931:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1880:
1862:
1819:
1746:
1681:
1632:
1576:
1563:
1558:
1528:
1521:The Independent
1514:
1497:
1492:
1469:
1465:
1463:Further reading
1460:
1444:
1443:
1439:
1423:
1422:
1418:
1409:
1408:
1404:
1393:blogs.lse.ac.uk
1387:
1386:
1382:
1366:
1362:
1361:
1357:
1340:
1339:
1335:
1321:
1320:
1316:
1300:
1299:
1295:
1280:
1279:
1275:
1257:
1256:
1252:
1242:
1240:
1229:
1228:
1224:
1211:
1210:
1206:
1195:
1191:
1174:
1173:
1169:
1156:
1155:
1151:
1138:
1137:
1126:
1114:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1087:
1086:
1073:
1051:
1050:
1043:
1029:
1028:
1024:
1017:Matrix Chambers
1006:
1005:
996:
984:
980:
979:
968:
948:
946:
942:
929:
928:
924:
907:
906:
875:
865:
863:
853:
852:
848:
838:
836:
825:
824:
820:
808:
804:
803:
796:
781:
780:
776:
772:
763:LICRA v. Yahoo!
728:
691:Luciano Floridi
680:
675:
653:
650:
640:Matrix Chambers
617:
577:
530:
502:
494:Niilo Jääskinen
489:
444:data controller
379:
269:Niilo Jääskinen
267:
257:
188:
177:
55:
49:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1930:
1928:
1920:
1919:
1914:
1909:
1904:
1899:
1889:
1888:
1882:
1881:
1879:
1878:
1867:
1864:
1863:
1861:
1860:
1852:
1844:
1836:
1827:
1825:
1821:
1820:
1818:
1817:
1809:
1801:
1793:
1785:
1779:
1771:
1763:
1754:
1752:
1748:
1747:
1745:
1744:
1739:
1731:
1723:
1715:
1707:
1699:
1689:
1687:
1683:
1682:
1680:
1679:
1671:
1663:
1655:
1647:
1646:(2010–present)
1644:European Union
1640:
1638:
1634:
1633:
1631:
1630:
1625:
1617:
1609:
1601:
1593:
1584:
1582:
1578:
1577:
1575:
1574:
1568:
1565:
1564:
1559:
1557:
1556:
1549:
1542:
1534:
1527:
1526:
1524:. 31 May 2014.
1512:
1490:
1480:(1): 487–519.
1466:
1464:
1461:
1459:
1458:
1437:
1416:
1402:
1380:
1355:
1333:
1314:
1293:
1273:
1250:
1222:
1219:. 30 May 2014.
1204:
1189:
1167:
1164:. 21 May 2014.
1149:
1124:
1103:
1071:
1041:
1036:The New Yorker
1022:
1013:eutopialaw.com
994:
966:
940:
922:
873:
862:on 16 May 2014
846:
818:
794:
791:. 13 May 2014.
773:
771:
768:
767:
766:
759:
753:
745:
741:Melvin v. Reid
737:
727:
724:
679:
678:Implementation
676:
674:
673:
664:
655:
648:
636:
618:
616:
613:
593:EFTA nationals
576:
573:
529:
526:
501:
498:
488:
485:
477:
476:
468:
465:material scope
461:
450:
449:
446:
440:
437:
378:
375:
324:
323:
322:
321:
315:
309:
303:
294:
293:
289:
288:
281:
280:
276:
275:
272:
271:
259:
258:
256:
255:
250:
245:
240:
235:
230:
225:
220:
215:
213:T. von Danwitz
210:
205:
199:
193:
192:
182:
181:
169:
168:
162:
161:
145:
144:
140:
139:
132:
128:
127:
124:
120:
119:
116:
112:
111:
108:
104:
103:
98:
94:
93:
88:
84:
83:
80:
76:
75:
64:
62:Full case name
58:
57:
51:
50:
45:
37:
36:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1929:
1918:
1915:
1913:
1910:
1908:
1905:
1903:
1900:
1898:
1895:
1894:
1892:
1877:
1869:
1868:
1865:
1858:
1857:
1853:
1850:
1849:
1845:
1842:
1841:
1837:
1834:
1833:
1829:
1828:
1826:
1822:
1815:
1814:
1813:Frank v. Gaos
1810:
1807:
1806:
1802:
1799:
1798:
1794:
1791:
1790:
1786:
1783:
1780:
1777:
1776:
1772:
1769:
1768:
1764:
1761:
1760:
1756:
1755:
1753:
1749:
1743:
1740:
1737:
1736:
1732:
1729:
1728:
1724:
1721:
1720:
1716:
1713:
1712:
1708:
1705:
1704:
1700:
1697:
1695:
1691:
1690:
1688:
1684:
1677:
1676:
1672:
1669:
1668:
1664:
1661:
1660:
1656:
1653:
1652:
1648:
1645:
1642:
1641:
1639:
1635:
1629:
1626:
1623:
1622:
1618:
1615:
1614:
1610:
1607:
1606:
1602:
1599:
1598:
1594:
1591:
1590:
1586:
1585:
1583:
1579:
1573:
1570:
1569:
1566:
1562:
1555:
1550:
1548:
1543:
1541:
1536:
1535:
1532:
1523:
1522:
1517:
1513:
1510:(1): 251–282.
1509:
1505:
1504:
1496:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1474:
1468:
1467:
1462:
1454:
1453:
1448:
1445:Dean, James.
1441:
1438:
1433:
1432:
1427:
1420:
1417:
1412:
1406:
1403:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1384:
1381:
1376:
1372:
1365:
1359:
1356:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1337:
1334:
1329:
1328:cr-online.de/
1325:
1318:
1315:
1310:
1309:
1304:
1297:
1294:
1289:
1288:
1284:
1277:
1274:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1254:
1251:
1239:
1238:
1233:
1226:
1223:
1218:
1214:
1208:
1205:
1201:
1198:
1193:
1190:
1185:
1181:
1179:
1171:
1168:
1163:
1159:
1153:
1150:
1145:
1141:
1135:
1133:
1131:
1129:
1125:
1120:
1113:
1107:
1104:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1084:
1082:
1080:
1078:
1076:
1072:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1057:
1048:
1046:
1042:
1037:
1033:
1026:
1023:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1003:
1001:
999:
995:
990:
983:
977:
975:
973:
971:
967:
963:
957:
956:
955:La Vanguardia
951:
944:
941:
936:
932:
926:
923:
918:
914:
912:
904:
902:
900:
898:
896:
894:
892:
890:
888:
886:
884:
882:
880:
878:
874:
861:
857:
850:
847:
835:
834:
829:
822:
819:
814:
807:
801:
799:
795:
790:
789:
784:
778:
775:
769:
765:
764:
760:
757:
754:
752:(US case law)
751:
750:
746:
744:(US case law)
743:
742:
738:
736:
734:
730:
729:
725:
723:
721:
717:
716:
710:
708:
704:
700:
696:
692:
687:
685:
677:
671:
670:
665:
662:
656:
647:
641:
637:
634:
630:
626:
625:
620:
619:
614:
612:
610:
606:
602:
597:
594:
590:
585:
582:
574:
572:
569:
565:
560:
558:
552:
548:
546:
545:
540:
534:
527:
525:
523:
518:
516:
515:
510:
505:
497:
495:
486:
484:
482:
475:
474:
469:
466:
462:
459:
458:
457:
455:
447:
445:
441:
438:
435:
431:
427:
426:
425:
423:
422:
416:
414:
410:
405:
400:
396:
394:
390:
386:
385:
384:La Vanguardia
376:
374:
372:
367:
365:
361:
357:
353:
352:
346:
342:
340:
336:
332:
331:
319:
316:
313:
310:
307:
304:
301:
300:Personal data
298:
297:
295:
290:
287:
282:
277:
273:
270:
266:
265:
260:
254:
253:E. Jarašiūnas
251:
249:
246:
244:
241:
239:
238:A. Arabadjiev
236:
234:
231:
229:
226:
224:
223:J. Malenovský
221:
219:
216:
214:
211:
209:
208:L. Bay Larsen
206:
204:
201:
200:
198:
194:
191:
187:
183:
180:
176:
175:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
146:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
105:
102:
99:
95:
92:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
65:
63:
59:
52:
48:
43:
38:
33:
30:
19:
1854:
1846:
1838:
1830:
1811:
1804:
1803:
1795:
1787:
1773:
1765:
1757:
1733:
1725:
1717:
1709:
1701:
1692:
1673:
1665:
1657:
1649:
1619:
1611:
1603:
1595:
1587:
1519:
1507:
1501:
1477:
1471:
1450:
1440:
1429:
1419:
1405:
1392:
1383:
1371:ec.europa.eu
1370:
1358:
1345:
1336:
1327:
1317:
1308:The Guardian
1306:
1296:
1285:
1276:
1263:
1253:
1241:. Retrieved
1235:
1225:
1207:
1199:
1192:
1177:
1170:
1152:
1106:
1066:the original
1061:
1055:
1035:
1025:
1012:
953:
943:
931:Baldry, Tony
925:
910:
864:. Retrieved
860:the original
849:
837:. Retrieved
831:
821:
786:
777:
761:
747:
739:
731:
713:
711:
699:Frank La Rue
688:
681:
667:
660:
644:
622:
598:
586:
581:European law
578:
575:Significance
563:
561:
553:
549:
542:
538:
535:
531:
521:
519:
512:
508:
506:
503:
490:
478:
471:
453:
451:
433:
419:
417:
412:
401:
397:
382:
380:
368:
349:
347:
343:
329:
328:
327:
262:
196:
185:
172:
118:Full chamber
29:
1581:Advertising
1330:. CROnline.
735:(Lindqvist)
707:Jimmy Wales
589:EU citizens
284:Interprets
233:A. Ó Caoimh
203:K. Lenaerts
91:62012CJ0131
68:Google Inc.
1891:Categories
770:References
615:Commentary
248:A. Prechal
190:V. Skouris
154:hyperlinks
1637:Antitrust
1628:Jedi Blue
1452:The Times
1431:WorldPost
1264:slate.com
1178:Lindqvist
839:14 August
715:The Times
682:The EU's
544:Lindqvist
487:Procedure
360:Article 8
356:Article 7
243:M. Berger
228:E. Levits
218:M. Safjan
186:President
179:M. Ilešič
107:Case type
1876:Category
1287:NBC News
1200:BBC News
1098:Archived
788:BBC News
726:See also
649:—
624:Guardian
528:Judgment
292:Keywords
82:C-131/12
1751:Privacy
1486:2410240
962:Catalan
911:Costeja
138:(Spain)
126:Spanish
115:Chamber
87:CelexID
1859:(2022)
1851:(2021)
1843:(2020)
1835:(2015)
1816:(2019)
1808:(2014)
1800:(2013)
1792:(2013)
1784:(2013)
1778:(2012)
1770:(2010)
1762:(2009)
1738:(2021)
1730:(2016)
1722:(2015)
1714:(2015)
1706:(2010)
1698:(2007)
1678:(2023)
1670:(2020)
1662:(2019)
1654:(2011)
1624:(2017)
1616:(2012)
1608:(2009)
1600:(2009)
1592:(2007)
1484:
1243:31 May
866:16 May
404:Google
197:Judges
143:Ruling
1824:Other
1498:(PDF)
1367:(PDF)
1268:Slate
1115:(PDF)
985:(PDF)
809:(PDF)
621:In a
377:Facts
1482:SSRN
1245:2014
1184:CJEU
1144:CJEU
1119:CJEU
960:(in
917:CJEU
868:2014
841:2014
813:CJEU
666:The
369:The
97:ECLI
79:Case
591:or
393:web
148:An
1893::
1518:.
1508:23
1506:.
1500:.
1478:39
1476:.
1449:.
1428:.
1395:.
1391:.
1373:.
1369:.
1348:.
1344:.
1326:.
1305:.
1266:.
1262:.
1234:.
1215:.
1182:.
1180:)"
1160:.
1142:.
1127:^
1117:.
1096:.
1092:.
1074:^
1060:.
1044:^
1034:.
1015:.
1011:.
997:^
987:.
969:^
952:.
915:.
913:)"
876:^
830:.
811:.
797:^
785:.
697:,
611:.
547:.
395:.
366:.
70:v
1553:e
1546:t
1539:v
1488:.
1455:.
1413:.
1399:.
1377:.
1311:.
1290:.
1270:.
1247:.
1186:.
1146:.
1121:.
1058:"
1038:.
1019:.
991:.
919:.
870:.
843:.
815:.
635:.
432:(
411:(
160:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
