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

Court case 200.254.914 – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2021)

Court Ruling
DPA RbMidden-Nederland9 November 2021Netherlands
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.

A Dutch court ruled that Google did not have to remove search results about a writer who was accused of plagiarism. The court decided that the information was relevant and accurate, meaning it could stay online. This ruling highlights the balance between personal privacy and public interest in accessing information.

What happened

The court ruled against a writer's request to remove search results linking them to plagiarism accusations.

Who was affected

The writer who requested the removal of their name from Google search results.

What the authority found

The court found that Google had a valid reason to keep the search results online, as they were correct and relevant.

Why this matters

This case shows that courts may prioritize public access to information over individual privacy requests. Website operators should be aware of how search results can impact reputations and the legal complexities involved.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 17(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 17(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 21(1) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 17(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 17(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 21(1) GDPR

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

National Law Articles
AI-identified
Article 48(10) UAVG
Decision AuthorityGHARL
Reviewed AuthorityRb. Midden-Nederland (Netherlands)

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 20 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

On 22 May 2018, complainant, who is a writer, requested Google via a to remove ten search-results that appeared when someone would type in complainant's name via Google Search. The search-results refer to webpages that display a conflict between complainant and a literary critic, since the latter accused complainant of plagiarism and (the accompanying) unjustified use of academic titles. After Google rejected the request, complainant asked the District Court Midden-Nederland to order google to remove the references to the ten internet addresses on pain of a penalty payment. This Court decided that complainant insufficiently refuted Google's argument that the contested search results are correct, relevant and not excessive, and also because it has not been established that the processing takes longer than necessary. The Court furthermore ruled that the interest of Google and of internet users who may want to gain access to the search results prevails over the interest of complainant. Complainant appealed against this judgement. Before the Court decided on the legitimacy of the deletion request, it assessed whether the applicable legislative instrument is the GDPR, or the (Dutch) Personal Data Protection Act (Wbp). It asserted that the legal proceedings started on 25 May 2018, and Article 48(10) of the General Data Protection Implementing Act (UAVG) states that the Wbp continuous to apply to proceedings that were pending before 25 May 2018 (the date the GDPR entered into force). However, it concluded that the GDPR is the applicable legislative instrument in this case, since the request concerns a request for removal, in respect of which it must be assessed ex nunc whether the processing is (currently) in accordance with the applicable rules. Then, the Court stated that the request for deletion must be regarded as an appeal to Article 21(1) GDPR, and the Court must therefore conduct the balancing test. In this regard, it acknowledged that complainant had an inte

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 200.254.914 in NL

This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Ruling Date

9 November 2021

Authority

DPA RbMidden-Nederland

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 200.254.914 - Netherlands (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: