Question

1. What is CJEU and what for?
2. why Google refuse to comply with CJEU?
3. If CJEU be applied all over how it affects online business?

Answer 1

1.Ans : CJEU is the court of justice of european union for interprets EU law to make sure it is applied in the same way in all EU countries, and settles legal disputes between national governments and EU institutions.

2.Ans : Google argued that they were not required by EU law to do this, and refused to comply with the notice. When Google was fined for its non-compliance, the matter was escalated to the CJEU. ... Not many noticed, but the CJEU went further to state that EU law does not actually prohibit worldwide de-referencing.

The right to be forgotten: the CJEU sides with Google in two landmark cases

On 24 September 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) gave two judgments (Cases C-507/17 and C-136/17) ruling that: (i) de-referencing by Google should be limited to EU Member States’ versions of its search engine with some important qualifications; and (ii) when Google receives a request for de-referencing relating to a link to a web page on which sensitive data are published, a balance must be sought between the fundamental rights of the person requesting such de-referencing and those of internet users potentially interested in that information.

1.      The right to be forgotten ends at the borders of the EU

In its decision of 10 March 2016 the CNIL had imposed a fine of €100,000 on Google Inc. because of the latter’s refusal, when granting a de-referencing request, to apply it to all its search engine’s worldwide domain name extensions.

Consequently, in its first judgment[2], the CJEU was asked to clarify the territorial scope of the right to be forgotten to determine whether a search engine operator is required to carry out that de-referencing on all its search engine’s worldwide domain name extensions or whether, on the contrary, it is required to do so only at a European or national level.

However, the Court qualifies this statement by stating that:

• many non-EU countries may take a different approach to the right to de-referencing or may not even grant such a right; and
• the right to the protection of personal data, not being an absolute right, must be balanced against other fundamental rights in line with the principle of proportionality.

2.      Prohibition on processing certain categories of sensitive data: fundamental rights vs. freedom of information

In its second judgment,[3] four individuals had requested that Google de-reference various links, appearing in the lists of results displayed by the search engine following searches of their names, resolving to web pages published by third parties. The web pages included a satirical photo-montage of a politician, articles mentioning an individual as a public relations officer of the Church of Scientology, the judicial investigation of a politician and the sentencing of another person for sexual assaults on minors respectively.

Following Google’s refusal to de-reference, the four individuals brought complaints before the CNIL, seeking an order for Google to de-reference links. The CNIL did not take their complaints up. The parties then brought their case before the French Council of State (“Conseil d’Etat”) which referred a number of questions to the CJEU, including whether the prohibition imposed on other controllers on processing special category personal data – such as political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs and sex life – without falling within one of a restrictive set of grounds also applies to the operator of a search engine.

3.Ans

If they applied on online business or company – have suffered damage as a result of action or inaction by an EU institution or its staff, you can take action against them in the Court, in one of 2 ways:

• indirectly through national courts (which may decide to refer the case to the Court of Justice)
• directly before the General Court – if a decision by an EU institution has affected you directly and individually.