Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2021)
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 examined whether it could rule on a request to remove links from Bing's search results. The case involved a person from the UK asking Microsoft Ireland to delete certain URLs. The court looked at international rules to decide if it had the authority to handle the case.
What happened
The court assessed its jurisdiction over a request to remove URLs from Bing's search results involving parties from different countries.
Who was affected
The case involved a UK resident requesting Microsoft Ireland to remove links from Bing's search results.
What the authority found
The court examined international jurisdiction rules to determine if it could handle the request to remove URLs from search results.
Why this matters
This case illustrates the complexities of cross-border data protection issues and the importance of understanding jurisdiction in international disputes. Businesses should be aware of how international rules affect their operations.
GDPR Articles Cited
The claimant requested Microsoft Ireland to remove a number of URLs (links) from a list of search engine results following a search by the claimant's name in Microsoft's search engine, Bing. The claimant based his request on Articles 17(1)(a) and (c) GDPR and Articles 10 and 21 GDPR. The Court first examined its competence to rule on the request. The request is of an international nature as the applicant is domiciled in the UK and Microsoft is domiciled in Ireland. It noted that the dispute falls within the scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation in substantive, formal and temporal terms. Recital 147 GDPR states that the general rules of jurisdiction of the Brussels I bis Regulation should not prejudice the application of the specific rules of jurisdiction contained in the GDPR. This means that in a situation where both the Brussels I bis Regulation and the AVG are applicable, the Brussels I bis Regulation cannot take away the competence designated by the GDPR. The Court referred to the case law of the CJEU (see [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=111742&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2540581 CJEU 25 November 2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:685, eDate Advertising GMBH/Martinez]), from which it follows that Article 7(2) Brussels I bis Regulation, in the event of an alleged infringement of personal rights by content placed on the internet, must be interpreted as meaning that the victim may also lodge the claim with the court where he has his 'centre of interests'. The CJEU defines the centre of interests as follows: "That place is usually the victim's habitual residence, but it may also be a Member State in which the victim does not habitually reside, provided that other evidence, such as the pursuit of a professional activity, may show that there is a particularly close connection with that State." Whilst the claimant considered that he has the centre of interests in the Netherlands since he conducts his professional ac
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited - Netherlands (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: