As internet search engines, like Google and Bing, become more accurate and more sophisticated, individuals are becoming increasingly concerned about how much of their personal data can be found and accessed online.
A precedent was set in the Google Spain case
In the case of (Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González, commonly known as the “Google Spain case”) the European Court of Justice (ECJ) considered whether the “right to be forgotten” should be extended to apply to information in a Company Register.
Mr Gonzalez lodged a complaint against Google with the Spanish Data Protection Agency on the basis that searching his name brought up results of an auction notice relating to the repossession of his home. Mr Gonzalez argued that this infringed his privacy rights because the proceedings were settled a number of years ago and the information was now irrelevant.
The case was referred to the ECJ which decided that individuals have the right to ask search engines to remove links with personal information about them if the information is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive.
The precedent created by the Google Spain case is known as the “right to be forgotten”.
What about personal data in public records?
The limits of the “right to be forgotten” were tested in the recent case of Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato e Agricoltura de Lecce v Salvatore Manni. The ECJ was asked to consider whether or not the “right to be forgotten” should apply to personal data contained within public records, specifically the Companies Register.
Mr Manni was the sole director of a company which was awarded a contract for the construction of a tourist complex in Italy. However, he believed that properties within the complex were not selling because the Companies Register showed that he had been the director of another property company which went into administration. Mr Manni sought to rely on the Google Spain case to remove the search results relating to his former directorship.
Deleting personal data is not always justified
The ECJ accepted in principle that there may be certain situations where deleting personal data from public records is justifiable because the individual can demonstrate legitimate reasons as to why the data should be restricted.
However, the ECJ decided that Mr Manni’s concerns about negative inferences bring drawn from his former directorship did not take precedence over the public interest in accessing the records held on the Companies Register.
It is clear from the Manni case that the “right to be forgotten” is not an absolute right. Whilst there is a drive to increase the control that individuals have over their personal data, the ECJ has re-affirmed that this must always be balanced against the public interest.
