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

Court case 2021-17 – Court Ruling (Norway, 2021)

Court Ruling
Datatilsynet (Norway)7 December 2021Norway
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 Norwegian court ruled that Google must delete certain search results related to a person who had committed serious crimes against children. This decision is important because it highlights the balance between public interest and individual privacy rights. Website operators should be aware that they may need to remove information if there are no strong reasons to keep it.

What happened

Google was ordered to delete specific search results after a person convicted of child-related crimes requested their removal.

Who was affected

The individual who was convicted and their family were affected by the search results that Google displayed.

What the authority found

The court found that Google had to delete the search results because there were no overriding legitimate grounds to keep them public.

Why this matters

This case shows that even large companies like Google can be required to respect individual privacy rights. It serves as a reminder for website operators to consider the implications of displaying sensitive information.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 10 GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 17(1)(c) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 10(GDPR)
Art. 17(1)(c) GDPR

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

Decision AuthorityPVN
Reviewed AuthorityDatatilsynet (Norway)

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 18 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

The data subject had been convicted of accessing, possessing and publishing images and videos containing sexual assaults on children. The criminal offences had taken place over a period of 20 years. During this time, the data subject worked as a psychiatrist and as an expert witness in cases relating to family and children welfare. After having served their prison sentence, the data subject contacted Google and asked to have five search results removed from the search engine. The data subject argued that the search results had a severe negative impact on them and their children. Google denied the request, stating that the search results were a matter of public interest. The data subject brought the case before Datatilsynet (The Norwegian Data Protection Office). Datatilsynet concluded that Google had to delete the search results. Google filed an appeal, and the case was brought before the Privacy Appeals Board (PVN). The PVN had to consider only two of the five search results, as the rest had been deleted before the start of the proceedings. The PVN first remarked that Google as a controller had a legal basis for their processing in article 6(1)(f) GDPR. However, according to article 17(1)(c) and article 21(1) GDPR, upon receiving an erasure request from the data subject, the search engine company would have had to delete the search results unless there were overriding legitimate grounds for not doing so. The PVN highlighted that the controller had the burden of proof when it came to such legitimate grounds. The PVN then noted that when a person working closely with children as a public figure is convicted for sexual offences relating to children, there is an obvious legitimate interest in making this information accessible to a wider audience. Although the legitimate interest is reduced over time, the PVN considered the time passed in this case (almost 4 years) to be rather short. On the other hand, the PVN argued that the search results contained information on

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 2021-17 in NO

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

Details

Ruling Date

7 December 2021

Authority

Datatilsynet (Norway)

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 2021-17 - Norway (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: