Enforcing jurisdiction
Netherlands · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation
Privacy topics

Google LLC – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2022)

Court Ruling
DPA GHAMS25 February 2022Netherlands
final
Court Ruling

Privacy enforcement record

This record is classified outside cookie consent. Subject classification does not confirm an applicable law. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

Google faced a court ruling after a plastic surgeon requested the removal of search results linking to their past suspension. The court decided that the right to freedom of expression outweighed the surgeon's privacy rights. This case illustrates the complex balance between privacy and public information.

What happened

The court ruled against a plastic surgeon's request to remove search results about their conditional suspension.

Who was affected

The plastic surgeon whose professional information was linked in search results.

What the authority found

The Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld the lower court's decision that freedom of expression outweighed the surgeon's privacy rights.

Why this matters

This case highlights the ongoing tension between privacy and freedom of expression in the digital age. It serves as a reminder for individuals to consider the implications of their online presence.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
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 imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

Decision AuthorityHoge Raad
Reviewed AuthorityGHAMS (Netherlands)

Source checks

Secondary-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 21 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified, authority corrected.

Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources

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
Automatically normalized and classified

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

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: