The Supreme Court upholds an appeal brought by Honoralia against Google and establishes a precedent on effective knowledge concerning the right to be forgotten.
A landmark ruling that consolidates the criterion that search engines have effective knowledge when they have already assessed the request, even if there is no prior administrative or judicial resolution.
Online reputation lawyers
Supreme Court
Organ
Google LLC
Counterpart
Right to be forgotten
Material
Estimated resource and established precedent
Result
Case summary
A private individual requested that Google de-index several links that affected their privacy. Following the search engine's refusal, a lawsuit was filed and, ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal lodged by Honoralia, establishing a relevant criterion regarding search engines' actual knowledge.
What were the parties discussing?
The key question was whether Google had actual knowledge of the illegality of the links without a prior administrative or judicial ruling declaring them to be so. Google argued that it could not be required to remove them in the absence of such a ruling.
What did the Supreme Court say
The High Court concludes that effective knowledge can be derived from the applicant's own assessment when analysing the affected person's request. A prior resolution is not necessary for the obligation to act to arise.
It is enough that the search engine has had the opportunity to assess the request and be aware of the circumstances that allow for the appreciation of the potential illegality for the duty to act to arise.
Supreme Court
What does effective knowledge mean
It is assumed that, once the searcher has analysed the request and its grounds, they cannot rely on the lack of a prior resolution to evade their responsibility. The key element is internal evaluation and access to relevant information.
Why is this statement relevant?
Establish a clear jurisprudential criterion that reinforces the protection of the fundamental right to data protection in the digital environment and limits restrictive practices by search engines that hampered its effective exercise.
Honoralia's work
This procedure has been led by Honoralia's legal team under the legal direction of Javier Franch Fleta. The ruling represents the acknowledgement of a legal thesis maintained by Honoralia for years in data protection proceedings., online reputation y right to be forgotten.
Case file
Customer
Particular
Area
Online reputation / Right to be forgotten
Service
Legal representation and procedural strategy
Responsible
Javier Franch Fleta
Phase / Type
Appeal on points of law
Impact
Jurisprudence reference criterion
Case process
1
Claimant's request
The individual is requesting Google to de-index links that affect their privacy.
2
Google review
The search engine analyses the request and the information provided, denying the withdrawal.
3
Appeal on points of law
Honoralia lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court on grounds of special legal interest.
4
Supreme Court ruling
The Supreme Court upholds the appeal and establishes doctrine on effective knowledge.
5
Benchmark
A standard is consolidated that strengthens the protection of the right to be forgotten.
Legal and practical impact
Clarify the scope of Article 17 of the LSSICE.
Define when effective knowledge exists on the part of the seekers.
Improve the effectiveness of the right to be forgotten
Make it easier for citizens to obtain real and timely legal protection on the internet.
Limit search engine barriers
Prevents the requirement of prior resolutions to exercise a fundamental right.
It serves as a reference for future procedures
Establishes a criterion that will guide courts and operators in the future.
We continue to establish jurisprudence in defence of online reputation
Over 10 years leading complex cases in data protection, the right to be forgotten, and digital reputation. Your case, our priority.