Global Freedom of Expression

Español

Don Domingo v. Google Spain

On Appeal Mixed Outcome

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Electronic / Internet-based Communication
  • Date of Decision
    July 17, 2014
  • Outcome
    Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, Monetary Damages / Fines
  • Case Number
    364/2014
  • Region & Country
    Spain, Europe and Central Asia
  • Judicial Body
    Appellate Court
  • Type of Law
    Civil Law
  • Themes
    Privacy, Data Protection and Retention
  • Tags
    Google, Right to be forgotten, Search Engines, Defamation

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

Following the ECJ and its doctrine on the right to be forgotten, the Barcelona Court of Appeals partially granted don Domingo’s claim in regards to holding Google Spain responsible for the lack of compliance when processing his personal information.


Facts

Don Domingo presented a case against three companies for their involvement in the processing of his personal information through their search engines: Telefonica, Yahoo, and Google Spain. He claimed that the results provided by their respective search engines linked to information regarding a 1999 pardon of his 1981 conviction regarding drug trafficking.

Don Domingo claimed his rights to honor, intimacy, and to his personal image were affected, and that his business has been ruined by the results, basing his plea on Spanish Law 1/1982 on Civil Protection of the Right to Honor, Personal and Family Intimacy and to Own Image, and Law 15/1999 on Protection of Personal Data.

The plaintiff filed a complaint before the Spanish Data Protection Authority which in turn, requested the search engines to take down the information.


Decision Overview

The Court considered that the right to honor and intimacy (although the fact that a crime was committed made it a matter of public interest) were affected, but highlighted that the nucleus of the controversy lays on the responsibility of search engines in regards to the protection of personal data.

Following the decision of the ECJ on the right to be forgotten (C-131/12), the Court sustained that search engines process personal data and thus must be considered responsible for such processing; and that to comply with the EU’s Data Protection Directive, search engines are obliged to promptly remove the results when certain requirements are met,  which according to Spain’s law on Information and Electronic Commerce Services, are: a) that the search engines have knowledge that the information is illicit or affects the assets or rights of third parties with possibility of compensation; or b) that they have knowledge of a decision by a competent  authority that the information meets the previous criteria.

The Court dismissed the claim against Telefonica, since their search engine, Terra, did not present any results regarding don Domingo; and against Yahoo as well, since they responded promptly to the decision of the Spanish Data Protection Authority and timely removed the results.

In regards to Google’s defense, and also in line with the ECJ (C-131/12), the Court dismissed the fact that Google Spain has no intervention in the company’s search engine activities, since it is dedicated to advertising and commercial areas of the business. Thus, this releases Google Spain from its responsibility.

That being said, the Court proceeded to analyze whether there had been an infraction by the one responsible of the processing of the data at hand and if that lack of compliance generates a right to compensation. In regards to the first checkpoint, and once again, the Court cited the ECJ (C-131/12) in determining that even truthful information regarding an individual can, under date circumstances, turn inadequate or irrelevant, and its removal can be requested by the one affected; triumphing the rights of the individual over the economic rights of the responsible search engine and over the right of the public to this information, with the exception of the individual being a public figure. However, the Court reasoned that this was not the case of don Domingo. Even though the information concerned a crime, and thus could be considered of public interest, the Court considered, in accordance with EU Directive 95/46/EC and the Spanish Law on Protection of Personal Data, that because he had been pardoned and this was published on the Official State Bulletin in 1999, the information was no longer pertinent and should not appear on searches conducted in 2010.

Although the Court granted don Domingo’s claim, it limited the amount he can receive as compensation, understanding that his business was not affected by the information publicly available, and while granting moral damages, it constricts the time frame for which Google must respond to the 10 months between the date the company had effective knowledge of the illicitness or damaging nature of the information, and the date in which Google took down the results as requested.


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Mixed Outcome

Although it could be understood that search engines are being forced to take down results and deny the public of information, especially if data regarding crimes is viewed to be of public interest; this decision can also be interpreted as an advance from a local Court, which follows the ECJ, and rules on a subject that was not treated before and could provide a new way on how to balance individuals’ rights and data processing companies’ in the news era.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Related International and/or regional laws

  • E.U., Directive on Electronic Commerce, 2000/31/EC
  • EU, Directive 95/46/EC (1995)

    Data Protection Directive

    Articles cited 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 14, 22, 23.1

  • ECJ, Google Spain v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), C-131/12 (2014)
  • ECJ, SABAM, C‑360/10 (2012)
  • ECJ, Google France v. Louis Vuitton Malletier, C-236/08 (2009)

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • Spain, Law 15/1999, Protection of Personal Data

    Articles 4, 18, 19

  • Spain, Law 1/1982, Civil Protection of the Right to Honor, Personal and Family Intimacy and to Own Image
  • Spain, Law 34/2002, Services of the Information and Electronic Commerce Society
  • Spain, Const. art. 18
  • Spain, Superior Tribunal 12/2014
  • Spain, Superior Tribunal 144/2013
  • Spain, Superior Tribunal 172/2012
  • Spain, Superior Tribunal 28/2014
  • Spain, Superior Tribunal 72/2011
  • Spain, Superior Tribunal 773/2009
  • Spain, Superior Tribunal 899/2011
  • Spain, STC 19/2014
  • Spain, STC 23/2010
  • Spain, STC 208/2013
  • Spain, STC 51/2008
  • Spain, STC 292/2000

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.

Official Case Documents

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback