It will address the matter from the perspective of the relatives of deceased persons, and their right to request the deletion or rectification of the deceased’s data.
MADRID, 16 Feb. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The Supreme Court has admitted for processing the appeal presented by the son of a court clerk who participated in the process for which the poet Miguel Hernández was sentenced to death, who wants his father’s name to disappear from Google searches. The High Court understands that this resource can help to enrich the jurisprudence on the right to be forgotten.
In an order, to which Europa Press has had access, the Contentious-Administrative Chamber explains that although the right to be forgotten has already been addressed in previous sentences, the novelty in this case is that it is analyzed from the perspective of the people related to that deceased court clerk.
Thus, it points out that the matter does not deal only with “the discrepancy in the application of the jurisprudence already established in relation to the right to be forgotten and its eventual conflict with the right to information”.
“It is appropriate to admit the present appeal for cassation because it considers necessary a pronouncement of this court that addresses the issue from the perspective of the people related to the deceased for family reasons or in fact, as well as his heirs in order to request access to the personal data of that and, where appropriate, its rectification or deletion”, they point out.
It should be remembered that it was in June 2022 when the National Court dismissed the appeal filed by the son of that lieutenant, who had previously asked Google to delete 18 URLs showing the father’s personal data as court clerk of the Military Court that instructed the procedure against the playwright from Orihuela.
The son took refuge in the Law on the Protection of Personal Data and Guarantee of Digital Rights and previously took the matter before the Data Protection Agency (AEPD), but it dismissed his claim.
The man alleged that the links collected by Google contained “false data” published “from the manipulation of the textual content of historical files of a public nature registered in the General and Historical Archive of Defense”, which, according to him, were “treated to illegal and inaccurate manner” by a professor.
But from Google it was ensured in the process that the right to be forgotten cannot be applied to the personal data of the deceased. Likewise, it insisted that the URLs in question referred to information of public interest and historical relevance.
Now, the Supreme Court picks up the matter because it intends to “clarify the incidence that people linked to the deceased for family reasons have (…) in the work of balancing between the right to be forgotten and the right to information.” And he points out that the case must be addressed in light of articles 18 and 24 of the Constitution, constitutional doctrine and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
And it confirms that the question does indeed have an objective appeal interest that “consists of specifying or completing the jurisprudence established in the various Supreme Court rulings on the right to be forgotten.
In the order, the rapporteur refers specifically to two previous sentences. One, 12/2019, of January 11, in which it confirmed the prevalence of the right to the protection of personal data (right of cancellation) “taking into account that the news that was disseminated through the Google search engine lacked one of the requirements that must be met to consider the exercise of freedom of information legitimate, which is its veracity, since the published data is inaccurate”.
The other judgment cited is 1176/2020, of September 17, which considered the right to information to be prevalent. It then verified that the information whose de-indexation was requested revolved exclusively “around the business activity of the appellant and certain events that took place in relation to the work of managing a mercantile company of great value in the market.”
The court noted that in this case the results of the Google search referred to newspaper articles relating to the criminal investigation of the claimant for alleged espionage activities and illegal wiretapping.
For this reason, the High Court pointed out that the appellant’s right to personal and family privacy was not understood to have been violated, since the news “focuses on business work that presents a clear public interest for society, which is that users can know the allegedly irregular business practices alleged by an executive of a company that has a large economic weight”.
