Case C-131/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional — Spain) — Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), Mario Costeja González (Personal data — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of such data — Directive 95/46/EC — Articles 2, 4, 12 and 14 — Material and territorial scope — Internet search engines — 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 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 7 and 8)
Date: 2014-05-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet site, data protection, data recording, data transmission, personal data, protection of privacy








C_2014212EN.01000401.xml










7.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/4





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional — Spain) — Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), Mario Costeja González
(Case C-131/12) (1)

((Personal data - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of such data - Directive 95/46/EC - Articles 2, 4, 12 and 14 - Material and territorial scope - Internet search engines - 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 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 7 and 8))
2014/C 212/04
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Google Spain SL, Google Inc.

Defendants: Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), Mario Costeja González

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Nacional (Spain) — Interpretation of Article 2(b) and (d), Article 4(1)(a) and (c), Article 12(b) and subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) and Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1) — Concept of establishment on the territory of a Member State — Relevant criteria — Concept of ‘use of equipment situated on the territory of a Member State’ — Temporary storage of the information indexed by search engines — Rights to removal and blocking of data

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 2(b) and (d) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data are to be interpreted as meaning that, first, the activity of a search engine consisting in finding information published or placed on the internet by third parties, indexing it automatically, storing it temporarily and, finally, making it available to internet users according to a particular order of preference must be classified as ‘processing of personal data’ within the meaning of Article 2(b) when that information contains personal data and, second, the operator of the search engine must be regarded as the ‘controller’ in respect of that processing, within the meaning of Article 2(d).










2.


Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 95/46 is to be interpreted as meaning that processing of personal data is carried out in the context of the activities of an establishment of the controller on the territory of a Member State, within the meaning of that provision, when the operator of a search engine sets up in a Member State a branch or subsidiary which is intended to promote and sell advertising space offered by that engine and which orientates its activity towards the inhabitants of that Member State.










3.


Article 12(b) and subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46 are to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to comply with the rights laid down in those provisions and in so far as the conditions laid down by those provisions are in fact satisfied, the operator of a search engine is obliged to remove from the list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of a person’s name links to web pages, published by third parties and containing information relating to that person, also in a case where that name or information is not erased beforehand or simultaneously from those web pages, and even, as the case may be, when its publication in itself on those pages is lawful.










4.


Article 12(b) and subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46 are to be interpreted as meaning that, when appraising the conditions for the application of those provisions, it should inter alia be examined whether the data subject has a right that the information in question relating to him personally should, at this point in time, no longer be linked to his name by a list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of his name, without it being necessary in order to find such a right that the inclusion of the information in question in that list causes prejudice to the data subject. As the data subject may, in the light of his fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, request that the information in question no longer be made available to the general public on account of its inclusion in such a list of results, those rights 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 having access to that information upon a search relating to the data subject’s name. However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of its inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question.






(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.