• Courses
      • Global Series of National Privacy Laws
      • Netherlands Privacy Academy (in Dutch)
      • Caribbean Privacy Academy (in Dutch)
    • Resources
    • Join GADPPRO ACADEMY
      • Join GADPPRO Academy as an Official Partner
      • Become an Official GADPPRO Training Entity
      • Join the GADPPRO Business Academy
      • Secretariat & International Training Centre
      • Contact Us
    •  
      • RegisterLog in
    Privacad GADPPRO Academy
      • Courses
        • Global Series of National Privacy Laws
        • Netherlands Privacy Academy (in Dutch)
        • Caribbean Privacy Academy (in Dutch)
      • Resources
      • Join GADPPRO ACADEMY
        • Join GADPPRO Academy as an Official Partner
        • Become an Official GADPPRO Training Entity
        • Join the GADPPRO Business Academy
        • Secretariat & International Training Centre
        • Contact Us
      •  
        • RegisterLog in

      Blog

      Criteria of the Right to be Forgotten in the search engines

      • Categories Blog, Business, Design / Branding, Free Data Protection Resources, Uncategorized
      • Date October 23, 2020

      Guidelines 05/2019 on criteria of the Right to be Forgotten in search engines

      1.2 Ground 2:  The Right to request delisting when the data subject withdraws consent where the legal basis for the processing is pursuant to Article 6.1.a or Article 9.2.a GDPR and where there is no other legal basis for the processing (Article 17.1.b)

      22. According to Article 17.1.b GDPR, a data subject may obtain the erasure of personal data concerning him or her where he or she withdraws consent for the processing.

      23. In case of delisting, it would mean that the search engine provider would have utilised the consent of the data subject as lawful basis for its processing. Article 17.1 GDPR indeed raises the question of the lawful basis for processing relied upon by  a search engine provider for the purpose of returning search engine results including personal data.

      24. For that reason, it appears unlikely that a delisting request would be submitted by a data subject on the basis that he or she wishes to withdraw consent because the controller to whom the data subject gave his or her consent is the web publisher, not the search engine operator that indexes the data. This interpretation has been endorsed by the CJEU in its judgement C-136-17 of 24 September 2019 ( the “Google 2 judgment”). The Court indicates that “(…) the consent must be ‘specific’ and must therefore relate specifically to the processing carried out in connection with the activity of the search engine (…). In practice, it is scarcely conceivable (…) that the operator of a search engine will seek the express consent of data subjects before processing personal data concerning them for the purposes of his referencing activity. In any event, (…) the mere fact that a person makes a request for de-referencing means, in principle, at least at the time of making the request, that he or she no longer consents to the processing carried out by the operator of the search engine.”

      25. Nonetheless, in the event where a data subject would have withdrawn his or her consent for the use of his or her data on a particular web page, the original publisher of that web page should inform search engine providers who have indexed that data pursuant to Article 17.2 GDPR. The data subject would thus still be entitled to obtain the delisting of personal data concerning him or her but according to Article 17.1.c in such case.

      • Share:
      author avatar
      Richard V

      Previous post

      Criteria of the Right to be Forgotten in the search engines
      October 23, 2020

      Next post

      Criteria of the Right to be Forgotten in the search engines
      October 23, 2020

      You may also like

      Children Safety Encryption www.privacad.com
      Apple’s New Step to Protect Child Abuse via Encryption Feature
      20 August, 2021
      DNA Technology and Privacy www.privacad.com
      DNA Technology Regulation Bill and Violation of Privacy for Minority Groups
      19 August, 2021
      www.privacad.com
      India accuses Twitter of not complying with new IT rules
      18 August, 2021

      Search

      Categories

      • Blog
      • Business
      • Design / Branding
      • Free Data Protection Resources
      • Nederlandse Privacy Academie
      • Uncategorized
      Facebook-f Linkedin-in

      © Privacad 2020

      For all your questions about courses

      students@privacad.com

      For all your questions about Privacad for business

      info@privacad.com

      Links

      • Courses
      • Become a GADPPRO Academy Official Training Entity
      • Resources
      • Free Data Protection Resources
      • Blog
      • Profile
      • Students Stewards Network (SSN)

      Support

      • Privacy Policy
      • Terms of Use
      • FAQs
      • Contact

      © GADPPRO Academy | Privacad 2022

      GADPPRO Academy 2022

      Login with your site account

      Lost your password?

      Not a member yet? Register now

      Register a new account

      Are you a member? Login now