- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Belgium · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case 2020/AR/1111 – Court Ruling (Belgium, 2021)
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.
The Belgian Data Protection Authority ordered Google Belgium to remove certain search results but faced challenges regarding its jurisdiction. This case is significant because it clarifies how local authorities can enforce data protection rules against large tech companies.
What happened
Google Belgium was ordered to de-reference specific URLs as part of a data protection complaint.
Who was affected
An executive from a large company who requested the removal of URLs linked to their personal information.
What the authority found
The authority determined it had jurisdiction over Google Belgium, despite Google's arguments about which entity was responsible.
Why this matters
This ruling sets a precedent for how local authorities can exercise jurisdiction over international tech companies, impacting how they manage personal data requests.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Review needed — 21 March 2026.
Processing notes: articles corrected, amount discrepancy, 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
The complainant, an executive at an unnamed large company, had requested the removal of 12 URLs. As Google had refused to remove several of the concerned links, the complainant referred the case to the Belgian DPA. Building on the principles developed by the CJEU in the Google Spain and Google/CNIL cases, the Belgian DPA decided that Google Belgium is an establishment of Google LLC , triggering the applicability of the GDPR under article 3.1. Moreover, the DPA referred to a latter sent on 23 June 2020 by Google LLC to the Irish DPC stating it would no longer object to local (non-lead) supervisory authorities exercising local data protection jurisdiction when it comes to the scope of Google LLC's responsibilities. As a result, despite the designation of the Irish DPC as lead supervisory authority, the Belgian DPA considered it had jurisdiction because the case did not relate to Google Ireland Ltd's processing activities, but to Google LLC. Therefore, the one-stop-shop procedure did not apply. On these grounds, the Belgian DPA: * ordered Google Belgium to de-reference the concerned search results; * imposed an administrative fines of EUR600,000, based on Alphabet's (Google's mother company) annual turnover in the three previous years; and * ordered Google to clarify the ambiguity concerning the roles of the different entities involved, and in particular to clearly and precisely clarify which entity is the data controller for Belgium and for which processing activity. Google Belgium appealed the decisions before the Court of appeal on the grounds that - the order was addressed to Google Belgium which is not the controller in this case * the APD did not sufficiently motivate how it could be established that Google Belgium was linked to the activities of Google LCC as the controller; * Article 58 GDPR does not provide the possibility to impose a corrective measure on another entity than the controller (ie Google LLC); * the APD published the decision without removin
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 2020/AR/1111 in BE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Ruling Date
30 June 2021
Authority
Autorité de Protection des Données
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 2020/AR/1111 - Belgium (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: