Belgian DPA rejects delisting request for US government URL showing criminal conviction
The data subject requested from a search engine (controller) the removal of a URL that appears when the data subject’s name is entered into the search engine.
Status Not cited by any decision here yet
Original title: APD/GBA (Belgium) - DOS-2025-04652
Holding
The DPA rejected the complaint. According to the DPA, the request of de-listing the URL is to be assessed under the deletion request provided for by Article 17 GDPR. Article 17(3)(a) GDPR requires the DPA to balance the interest of internet users to information with the data subject’s rights when assessing whether the personal data is to be deleted upon the data subject’s request or not. When balancing the interest, regard must be made of the special protection of personal data concerning criminal convictions as provided for by Article 10 GDPR. The DPA held that the interest of the internet users to the information prevailed over the data subject’s rights. Firstly, there was no doubt that the personal data concerned was accurate, the criminal convictions could not be classified as mere allegations but proven facts. Moreover, the information was still relevant since the convictions date back to 2020, its affirmation on appeal to 2021 and the referenced court decision to 2022. Thus, they reflect the current situation and not old facts. The DPA also considered that the convictions did not concern the data subject’s private or intimate life but his professional and economic activities. Thus, the information is more likely to be relevant because, as is the case, they might concern third parties. Finally, the fact that the data subject’s convictions concern a particularly serious case of economic crime as well as cross-border enforcement add to the public relevance of the information. Therefore, the indexing of the URL is strictly necessary for the exercise of the right of freedom of expression and information within the meaning of Article 17(3)(a) GDPR.
From GDPRhub’s case note — a summary of the decision, not its own words. Read it in the text ↓
The URL points to the official website of the United States federal government for access to official publications. It refers to a judicial decision concerning the enforcement of Belgian orders within the United States and mentions the data subject’s name and states that he was convicted in Belgium in 2020 of forgery, fraud, breach of trust and embezzlement as well as forfeiture of assets in 2021. The data subject requested the de-listing of the URL from the controller but the controller refused to grant the request. Consequently, the data subject lodged a complaint with the DPA, claiming damages to his reputation and negative consequences for his professional situation.
Full text 16 findings
Machine translation of the decision, via GDPRhub — not the official text. Read the original
1/7 Litigation Division Decision 217/2026 dated August 6, 2026 Case Number: DOS-2025-04652 Subject: Complaint regarding a search engine’s failure to remove a link The Litigation Chamber of the Data Protection Authority; Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 27, 2016, on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), hereinafter “GDPR”; Having regard to the Act of December 3, 2017, establishing the Data Protection Authority, hereinafter 1 “LCA”; Having regard to the internal rules of procedure of the Data Protection Authority, as approved by the 2 Executive Committee on April 25, 2024, and published in the Belgian Official Gazette on May 31, 2024; Having reviewed the case file; Has issued the following decision concerning: The complainant: X, hereinafter “the complainant” The Respondent: Y, whose principal place of business is located at […], hereinafter “the Respondent”
The LCA is the organic law governing the organization and operation of the DPA. It is available here: link. 2The ROI supplements the LCA by specifying internal operating rules. It is available here: link. Decision 217/2026 — 2/7 I. Facts and Proceedings 1 The subject matter of the complaint concerns the defendant’s refusal to remove a URL from its search engine results.
In November 2025, the complainant submitted a request to the defendant for de-indexing a URL that appears when the complainant’s name is entered into search engine W (hereinafter “the URL,” “the link,” or “the disputed content”).
This link points to the official website of the United States federal government for access to official publications. It refers to a judicial decision Q. This decision was rendered in proceedings concerning the enforcement, within the United States, of Belgian orders aimed at preserving assets subject to forfeiture in Belgium. The document mentions the complainant’s name and states that he was convicted in Belgium on (date) 2020 for forgery, fraud, breach of trust, and embezzlement, and that the Court of Appeal affirmed, on (date) 2021, these convictions as well as the confiscation of the assets in question.
On November 4, 2025, the defendant informs the complainant that it refuses to grant his request for delisting and invites him to direct his request for removal to the webmaster of the website in question.
On November 20, 2025, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the APD. He requested that the APD intervene with the defendant to obtain the removal of the URL in question. The complainant alleges harm that he describes as serious and disproportionate, namely damage to his reputation and negative consequences on his professional situation, including termination of employment.
On January 15, 2026, the complaint was declared admissible by the First-Line Service (SPL) pursuant to articles 58 and 60 of the LCA. The complainant was notified of this in accordance with Article 61 of the LCA.
On the same day, the Litigation Chamber was seized of the matter pursuant to article 92(1) of the LCA. II. Rationale
Based on the facts of the case before it and the powers conferred upon it by the legislature pursuant to Article 95, § 1 of the LCA, the Litigation Chamber rules on how to proceed with the case. In this instance, the Litigation Chamber dismisses the complaint without further action, in accordance with article 95, er § 1, 3° of the LCA, based on the following reasoning. Decision 217/2026 — 3/7
In the present case, the Litigation Chamber dismisses the complaint on the grounds set forth in A.2 of its Policy on Dismissal of Complaints. This ground forms the basis for its decision that it is not advisable to proceed with the case, and consequently consequently not to proceed, among other things, with the processing of the case. A.2 The complaint is manifestly unfounded
It is incumbent upon the Litigation Chamber to examine whether the facts alleged by the complainant are likely to reveal a violation of the GDPR; otherwise, it may dismiss the complaint 4 without further action when this is clearly not the case, pursuant to article 57(4) of the GDPR. 5
Requests for de-indexing are assessed in light of Article 17 of the GDPR, the 6 criteria and rules established by the CJEU in its Google Spain ruling, the guidelines of the Art 29 Working Party relating to that judgment (hereinafter “the Art 29 Working Party Guidelines ”), the findings of the GC judgment et al. v. CNIL of September 24, 2019 8 and the EDPS Guidelines 5/2019 on the criteria for the right to be forgotten under the GDPR in the context of search engines (hereinafter “the EDPS Guidelines”), in order to ensure a fair balance between, on the one hand, the fundamental rights to privacy and to data protection, enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the CFR (hereinafter “the CFR”), and, on the other hand, the fundamental right to freedom of information for internet users, guaranteed by Article 11 of the CFR. This right to erasure is intended to protect the data subject against processing that is not, or is no longer, lawful.
It follows from the aforementioned case law that, while the data subject rights generally prevail as a general rule, over the interest of internet users in accessing the information, this balance may nevertheless depend, in specific cases, on the nature of the information in question and its sensitivity with respect to the data subject’s privacy, as well as on the public’s interest in have access to this information—which may vary, in particular, depending on the role played by 3 See the policy on dismissal of cases by the Litigation Chamber, available at: https://www.autoriteprotectiondonnees.be/publications/politique-de-classement-sans-suite-de-la-chambre- contentieuse.pdf 4See criterion A.2 of the Litigation Chamber’s policy on dismissing cases without further action. 5 Requests for delisting submitted by the complainant must be examined exclusively in light of Article 17 of the GDPR, which constitutes the relevant legal basis in this case.The Litigation Chamber’s interpretation of this article is based on an autonomous reading of the text, informed by interpretive elements drawn in particular from the guidelines of the Article 29 Working Party and the guidelines of the EDPS. These sources do not in themselves constitute the legal basis for this decision; they are used as interpretive tools to ensure a coherent and compliant application of Union law. 6CJEU, May 13, 2014, Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v. AEPD and Mario Costeja González, C‑131/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:317. 7Article 29 Working Party, Guidelines on the implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v. AEPD and Mario Costeja González, C-131/12, adopted on November 26, 2014, available here: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/667236/en 8CJEU, September 24, 2019, GC et al. v. CNIL, C‑136/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:773. 9EDPS, Guidelines 05/2019 on the criteria for the right to be forgotten under the GDPR in the case of search engines, version 2.0, dated July 7, 2020. https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/guidelines/guidelines-52019-criteria- right-to-be-forgotten-search-engines fr Decision 217/2026 — 4/7 this person in public life. Furthermore, article 17(3)(a) of the GDPR excludes the right to erasure to the extent that the processing is necessary for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and information.
In this case, the disputed URL links to a court decision indicating that the complainant was convicted in Belgium of forgery, fraud, breach breach of trust, and embezzlement, which were upheld on appeal. Such information, relating to legal proceedings and the resulting convictions, constitutes data concerning criminal convictions and offenses within the meaning of Article 10 10 of the GDPR. The Litigation Chamber is therefore required, as part of the balancing test, to exercise particular caution. However, this circumstance does not preclude maintaining the listing when it remains strictly necessary for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and information.
In this case, several factors lead the Litigation Chamber to conclude that the indexing of the disputed URL remains strictly necessary for the freedom of information: - The disputed content originates from an official and reliable source, and the accuracy of the facts it reports is not disputed: it is a court decision published on govinfo.gov, the official website of the United States federal government dedicated to providing access to official publications. This U.S. decision itself merely confirms, for the purposes of their cross-border enforcement on U.S. territory, final criminal convictions handed down in Belgium as well as protective measures aimed at preserving assets subject to forfeiture (point 3). The reliability of the source is thus established, and the content cannot be equated with a mere allegation or unsubstantiated content. Added to this is the fact that the complainant does not contest either the final nature of the convictions against him or any of the other facts reported, nor does he, for that matter, provide any evidence capable of establishing any inaccuracy. However, when the inaccuracy is not clearly apparent based on the information provided by the data subject, the search engine operator is not required, in the absence of a court decision to that effect, to grant the request for delisting; 11 - The facts remain recent: the conviction dates from (date) 2020, its confirmation on appeal on (date) 2021, and the referenced court decision on (date) 2022. The information thus corresponds to a current situation and does not relate to particularly old facts or to an outdated stage of the proceedings, 10See, in this regard, CJEU, September 24, 2019, GC et al. v. CNIL, C‑136/17, para. 67. 1CJEU (Grand Chamber), judgment of December 8, 2022, TU, RE v. Google LLC, C-460/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:962, para. 73 Decision 217/2026 — 5/7 a scenario in which de-indexing might be necessary. Indeed, only a few years have passed in this case—between three and five years, depending on whether one the conviction on (date) 2020, its affirmation on appeal on (date) 2021, or the issuance of the Memorandum Opinion on (date) 2022. In this regard, the Litigation Chamber has already issued a judgement stating that publications dating back seven to eight years were not—given the information’s continued relevance—a period long enough to warrant delisting; 12 - The disputed content relates to the complainant’s professional and economic activities in Sector Z and not to his privacy and intimate life: Information regarding the current professional life of the data subject is more likely to be of public interest, particularly when it pertains, as in this case, to economic activities and the management of financial interests that may affect third parties; - The content at issue also relates to particularly serious cases of economic crime as well as the cross-border enforcement of forfeiture orders, which are of significant public interest: The in question is in fact part of proceedings concerning the enforcement, within the territory of the United States, of Belgian orders aimed at preserving assets subject to forfeiture in Belgium. These proceedings follow final criminal convictions handed down in Belgium for acts of forgery, fraud, breach of trust, and embezzlement. The fight against economic and financial crime, as well as the traceability of assets of illicit origin, are matters of significant public interest, in which the right to information of internet users carries particular weight in the balancing test conducted pursuant to article 17(3)(a) of the GDPR.
It follows from the balancing of all these factors—namely, the seriousness of the facts, their recent nature, the reliability of the source from which they originate, and the public interest attached thereto attached to it, that the indexing of the disputed URL is strictly necessary for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and information within the meaning of Article 17.3.a) of the GDPR. It is therefore that the defendant was justified in refusing to remove this URL from search results. The complaint is, on this point, unfounded, and therefore the case should be dismissed without further action for this technical reason. 12See, in particular, Litigation Chamber, Decision on the Merits 38/2022, dated March 17, 2022, paragraph 106; Litigation Litigation Chamber, Decision on the Merits 170/2024, dated December 19, 2024, paragraph 81. 13 Anonymized information 14Article 29 Working Party Guidelines and EDPB Guidelines, op. cit. Decision 217/2026 — 7/7 In order to allow the complainant to consider any other possible remedies, the Litigation Chamber refers the complainant to the explanations provided in its case dismissal policy without 17 further action. (s) Koen Gorissen Acting Director of the Litigation Chamber 17See Title 4—What can I do if my complaint is dismissed?—of the Litigation Chamber’s dismissal policy.