The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has held that Google does not have to apply the right to erasure (or “right to be forgotten”) throughout the world.
The ECJ said that the right to erasure “cannot create rights beyond the boundaries of the EU”, so no obligation of global delisting could be imposed on Google.
This means that, although information may be required to be erased on Google.co.uk it may still be available on Google.com.
The right to be forgotten enables an individual to request the deletion or removal of personal data whether there is no compelling reason for its continued processing. However, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has decided that the right does not apply to personal data in a companies register.
An Italian company director believed that various properties in a tourist complex failed to sell because the companies’ register disclosed that his previous company had been declared insolvent and struck off the register. He applied to the Chamber of Commerce requiring it to anonymise or block data linking him to his previous liquidation and to pay damages. The ECJ was asked to consider whether member states may allow individuals to request that access to their personal data on the companies register is limited to a specified period of time following dissolution of a company.
The ECJ decided that the public disclosure requirements took precedence over the protection of personal data in the interests of promoting legal certainty and protecting third parties in relation to limited liability companies.
The ECJ has ruled that the concept of a programme within the Audiovisual Media Services Directive includes video under the sub-domain of a newspaper website.
The ruling of the ECJ differs from that of the Advocate General in his earlier opinion in the case, which was that neither the website of a daily newspaper containing audiovisual material nor any section of that website constitutes an audiovisual media service within the meaning of the Directive.
Newspaper and magazine website owners may want to reconsider the integration between any video sections of their site and the text-based sections in the light of this judgment.
The High Court has found that section 1 of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) is inconsistent with EU law.
The UK Parliament adopted DRIPA in July 2014 as emergency legislation to establish a replacement regime for the retention of communications data by communications service providers after the ECJ had declared the Data Retention Directive (2006/24/EC) invalid.
Posted by: Clare Nicolaou Employment lawyer, Novalex Solicitors
There has been a lot in the press in the last few weeks about the European Court of Justice’s decision in the Danish child-minder case, in which it concluded that obesity could potentially be a disability that is protected from discrimination.
This has now been considered by a UK tribunal in Northern Ireland for the first time and they have found a claimant to be disabled due to his obesity. In this case the claimant resigned following a series of comments that colleagues had made to him about his weight and he succeeded in his claim of harassment because of his disability.
Whilst this may be the way of things to come in the future it is worth noting that being obese is not currently enough to qualify as a disability. The obesity must have caused some long term impairment in order to qualify.
In the Northern Ireland case the claimant suffered from gout, sleep apnoea and had difficulty in walking without crutches and it was these impairments that enabled his obesity to be labelled as a disability.