Google Spain
| Author | Paul de Hert,Vagelis Papakonstantinou |
| Date | 01 August 2015 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1023263X1502200409 |
| Published date | 01 August 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Comment |
624 22 MJ 4 (2015)
COMMENT
GOOGLE SPAIN
Addressing Critiques and Misunderstandings
One Year Later
P H* and V P**
§1. IN TRODUCT ION
Since the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed its ruling in Google
Spain1 down last year, it has triggered an ongoing debate. is Journal made a kind
invitation to continue a discussion that started in 3 MJECL (2014) with contr ibutions
by Christopher Wolf,2 Hielke Hijmans3 and Giovanni Sartor,4 and in 1 MJECL (2015),
by Christopher Ku ner.5 It is not only welcome but also timely.6 In the year that passed
since the judgment was rendered, the debate was kept alive not only at a theoretical
level, with sig ni cant contributions by a number of authors on both sides of the Atlant ic,
but also at a practical level. Google’s own interpretation and application of the Cour t’s
judgment was assessed by, and responded to, by indiv iduals as well as Member State Data
Protection Authorities (DPAs).
* Professor at VUB , LSTS; Tilburg, TI LT.
** VUB, LSTS.
1 Case C-131/12 Google Spain SL an d Google Inc. v. Age ncia Españ ola de Protec ción de Datos (A EPD) and
Mario Costeja G onzález, EU:C:2014:317.
2 C. Wolf, ‘Impact of the CJE U’s right to be forgotten: Decis ion on search engines and ot her service
providers in Europ e’, 21 MJECL (2014).
3 H. Hijmans, ‘Ri ght to have links removed: Ev idence of e ective data protection’, 21 MJECL (2014).
4 G. Sartor, ‘Searc h engines as controllers: I nconvenient implications of a quest ionable classi cation’, 21
MJECL (2014).
5 C. Kuner, ‘Google Spai n in the EU and internat ional context’, 22 MJECL (2015).
6 By way of summar y of the other contri butors’ views, Wolf expres ses concern about th e decision’s impact
on the internet a nd on the freedom of expression onli ne; Hijmans focuses on the dec ision’s potential
to e ectively protect hu man rights in t he EU; Sartor questions t he Court’s classi cation of search
engin es in par ticu lar wit h regard to the e- Commerc e Direct ive (Dir ective 2000/31/E C of the Eu ropean
Parliament and of t he Council of 8June 2000 on c ertain legal aspe cts of information societ y services,
in partic ular electronic commerce, i n the Internal Market, [2000] OJ L 178/1); and Kuner places t he
Court’s decision i n the international context, e xamining it withi n the globalization of cons titutional
clashes framework.
To continue reading
Request your trial