Google LLC – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2022)

Court Ruling
DPA GHAMS25 February 2022Netherlands
final
Court Ruling

General GDPR enforcement action

This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

A Dutch court ruled in favor of a plastic surgeon who wanted Google to remove search results linking to their past suspension. The court decided that the surgeon's right to privacy was outweighed by the public's right to information. This case is important because it shows how courts balance privacy rights with freedom of expression.

What happened

The court upheld a plastic surgeon's claim to remove search results about their conditional suspension but later annulled the ruling.

Who was affected

The plastic surgeon who was linked to negative search results about their professional conduct.

What the authority found

The court ruled that Google's right to freedom of expression outweighed the surgeon's privacy rights, allowing the search results to remain.

Why this matters

This ruling sets a precedent for how privacy and freedom of information are balanced in legal cases. Businesses should be aware that their online presence can be influenced by such rulings.

GDPR Articles Cited

AI-verified

Art. 10(GDPR)
Art. 17(GDPR)
Art. 21(GDPR)
Art. 79(GDPR)
Art. 17(3) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 10(GDPR)
Art. 17(GDPR)
Art. 17(3) GDPR
Art. 21(GDPR)
Art. 79(GDPR)

Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.

Decision AuthorityHoge Raad
Reviewed AuthorityGHAMS (Netherlands)
Source verified 21 March 2026
articles corrected
national law identified
authority corrected
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

Controller Google and data subject is a plastic surgeon who had been conditionally suspended in 2016 for a lack of aftercare after an operation. Because Google then displayed search results that linked to articles about the data subject and their conditional suspension, the data subject requested Google to delete the search results pursuant to Article 17 GDPR. After Google rejected this request, the data subject brought the issue before Court, which upheld data subject’s claim. After Google appealed to this judgement, however, the Court of Appeal annulled the Court of First Instance’s judgement. According to the Court of Appeal, the right to freedom of expression and freedom of information of Google and of third parties, namely information providers and the general public, outweighed the right to privacy and personal data protection of the data subject. The data subject, however, argued that their request must be assessed on the basis of Article 10 GDPR. Moreover, the data subject also stated that they were wrongly ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings in both instances. According to the data subject, it follows from Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 79 GDPR, that they should not be ordered to pay those costs if their challenge is unsuccessful. Hence, the data subject then appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal. First, it considered the data subject’s argument that their request should have been assessed on the basis of Article 10 GDPR. The Supreme Court found that it was irrelevant to discuss whether the Court of Appeal should have done this. According to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal already assessed whether it was strictly necessary to process the sensitive data pursuant to Article 10 GDPR. Now, the Court of Appeal decided that this was the case, to protect the right to information and freedom of expression. Hence, the Supreme Court considered that the Court o

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Details

Ruling Date

25 February 2022

Authority

DPA GHAMS

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
AI-verified and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Google LLC - Netherlands (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: