Google LLC, venant aux droits de Google Inc. v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL)
Google - Global De-linking
National data protection authorities: Although EU law does not currently require that the de-referencing granted concern all versions of the search engine in question, but “it also does not prohibit such a practice”. The CNIL and the french courts are competent to weigh up, “in the light of national standards of protection of fundamental rights whether a data subject’s right to privacy and the protection of personal data concerning him or her, on the one hand, and the right to freedom of informa
How it connects
References
- Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 19 November 2025.#Amazon EU Sàrl, venant aux droits de Amazon Services Europe Sàrl v European Commission.#Digital services – Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 – Designation as a very large online platform – Plea of illegality – Admissibility – Article 33(1) and (4) of Regulation 2022/2065 – Right to respect for private and family life – Freedom to conduct a business – Right to property – Equal treatment – Freedom of expression – Da
- Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 April 2015.#W. P. Willems and Others v Burgemeester van Nuth and Others.#Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Biometric passport — Biometric data — Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 — Article 1(3) — Article 4(3) — Use of data collected for purposes other than the issue of passports and travel documents — Establishment and use of databases containing biometric
- Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2020.#État luxembourgeois v B and Others.#Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg).#References for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2011/16/EU – Administrative cooperation in the field of taxation – Articles 1 and 5 – Decision ordering that information be provided to the competent authority of a Member State, acting in response to a request for exchange of information from the competent authority of another Mem
- Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 November 2025.#Inteligo Media SA v Autoritatea Naţională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal (ANSPDCP).#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector – Directive 2002/58/EC – Article 13(1) and (2) – Unsolicited communications – Concept of communication ‘for the purposes of di
Cited by
- Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 April 2015.#W. P. Willems and Others v Burgemeester van Nuth and Others.#Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Biometric passport — Biometric data — Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 — Article 1(3) — Article 4(3) — Use of data collected for purposes other than the issue of passports and travel documents — Establishment and use of databases containing biometric
- Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016.#Tele2 Sverige AB v Post- och telestyrelsen and Secretary of State for the Home Department v Tom Watson and Others.#Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm and the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications — Processing of personal data — Confidentiality of electronic communications — Protection — Directive 2002/58/EC — Articles 5, 6 and 9
- Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 November 2025.#Inteligo Media SA v Autoritatea Naţională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal (ANSPDCP).#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector – Directive 2002/58/EC – Article 13(1) and (2) – Unsolicited communications – Concept of communication ‘for the purposes of di
- Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 November 2025.#Inteligo Media SA v Autoritatea Naţională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal (ANSPDCP).#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector – Directive 2002/58/EC – Article 13(1) and (2) – Unsolicited communications – Concept of communication ‘for the purposes of di
- Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016.#Tele2 Sverige AB v Post- och telestyrelsen and Secretary of State for the Home Department v Tom Watson and Others.#Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm and the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications — Processing of personal data — Confidentiality of electronic communications — Protection — Directive 2002/58/EC — Articles 5, 6 and 9
- Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 April 2015.#W. P. Willems and Others v Burgemeester van Nuth and Others.#Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Biometric passport — Biometric data — Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 — Article 1(3) — Article 4(3) — Use of data collected for purposes other than the issue of passports and travel documents — Establishment and use of databases containing biometric
- Inteligo Media SA v Autoritatea Naţională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal (ANSPDCP)
- Inteligo Media SA v Autoritatea Naţională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal (ANSPDCP)
Related across sources
Full text 6 paragraphs
In addition, it is for the search engine operator to take, if necessary, sufficiently effective measures to ensure the effective protection of the data subject’s fundamental rights. Those measures must themselves meet all the legal requirements and have the effect of preventing or, at the very least, seriously discouraging internet users in the Member States from gaining access to the links in question using a search conducted on the basis of that data subject’s name (see, by analogy, judgments of
It is for the referring court to ascertain whether, also having regard to the recent changes made to its search engine as set out in paragraph 42 above, the measures adopted or proposed by Google meet those requirements.
Lastly, it should be emphasised that, while, as noted in paragraph 64 above, EU law does not currently require that the de-referencing granted concern all versions of the search engine in question, it also does not prohibit such a practice. Accordingly, a supervisory or judicial authority of a Member State remains competent to weigh up, in the light of national standards of protection of fundamental rights (see, to that effect, judgments of
Article 4(23) of that regulation defines the concept of ‘cross-border processing’ as follows: ‘(a) processing of personal data which takes place in the context of the activities of establishments in more than one Member State of a controller or processor in the Union where the controller or processor is established in more than one Member State; or (b) processing of personal data which takes place in the context of the activities of a single establishment of a controller or processor in the Union but which substantially affects or is likely to substantially affect data subjects in more than one Member State’.
Article 66 of that regulation, entitled ‘Urgency procedure’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof: ‘In exceptional circumstances, where a supervisory authority concerned considers that there is an urgent need to act in order to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects, it may, by way of derogation from the consistency mechanism referred to in Articles 63, 64 and 65 or the procedure referred to in Article 60, immediately adopt provisional measures intended to produce legal effects on its own territory with a specified period of validity which shall not exceed three months. The supervisory authority shall, without delay, communicate those measures and the reasons for adopting them to the other supervisory authorities concerned, to the Board and to the Commission.’
Article 85 of Regulation 2016/679, entitled ‘Processing and freedom of expression and information’, states: ‘1. Member States shall by law reconcile the right to the protection of personal data pursuant to this Regulation with the right to freedom of expression and information, including processing for journalistic purposes and the purposes of academic, artistic or literary expression.