Brussels, 10/10/2014 (Agence Europe) - What are the concrete interpretations required of the ruling of the EU Court of Justice of 13 May of this year, which upholds the principle of the right of European Internet users to be forgotten, in a case between Google and a Spanish citizen? This was the question asked in Luxembourg on Friday 10 October by the Justice Ministers of the EU member states, who are divided between adherence to the right to be forgotten and another fundamental right: the principle of freedom of expression and the right of information.
This debate showed that most of the member states do not at this stage want to feel legally bound by the effects of this ruling, the scope of which they tried to curtail. They would rather go with a “case-by-case basis” approach, with many delegations, such as Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium and the United Kingdom, arguing for the ruling not to be included in article 17 of the general regulation on the reform of data protection as regards the right to be forgotten. Luxembourg feels that this “ruling has to do with a highly specific case”, according to Minister Félix Braz, and “we feel that it is unwise to include it in our regulation as it stands”. The Minister argued in favour of a “case-by-case assessment”, which would give the search engines or other actors involved in data processing some flexibility. Belgium spoke along the same lines, stating that the Court ruling creates a “real and non-negligible risk that the search engines will be obliged to delete all of the data”. This country believes that the Court's line of reasoning “cannot necessarily be transposed to all Internet players and all data processing officers; it is important to provide guidelines to help us to manage the balance” between the right to be forgotten and the right to freedom of expression and information.
France has taken a somewhat ambiguous stance, the Minister stating that she was in favour of the principle of the right to be forgotten, but adding that she would not describe it as “absolute”. Children and young people growing up today in an entirely digital world should receive specific treatment, said Christiane Taubira, calling for a specific right to be forgotten regime for vulnerable categories.
Germany and Spain have come out more in favour of the 13 May ruling, taking the view that the right to be forgotten and the right to protection of personal data take precedence a priori over the principles of freedom of expression and freedom of information. German minister Thomas de Maizière said that this ruling could “serve as guidelines” in Article 17 of the regulation. The Council legal department was much more to the point: “This is a ruling in principle, not a specific ruling”, underlined the lawyer. In his opinion, it is the right to protection of personal data that takes precedence in principle over the interest of businesses and over the right of the public to have access to information. This does not mean, however, that a balance could not be found.
“We want to avoid having the matter settled by private operators”, said Italian minister Andrea Orlando. He would like to see efforts to “try to find instruments that will balance all these rights”. (SP)