The European court’s first challenge was to characterize the activities of search engines. Google’s thesis is that it does not specifically process data that appears on the internet on third-party pages. And even if it is admit that Google carry out data process. This cannot make it legally responsible as it do not know the content. Of this data and does not exercise any control over it derecho al olvido.
Contrary to Google’s thesis the claimant Mario Cotija González the Spanish Italian Austrian and Polish Government. In addition to the European Commission argue that the action of the search engine. Must be consider data processing in the sense give to it. by Directive 95/46. It is from this point that Google’s responsibility arises. Insofar as it gives purpose to the access to data and defines the means for its treatment.
The European court’s conclusion on this point was that ” it is not disputed that among the data found, indexed and stored by search engines and made available to their users, there is also information on identified or identifiable natural persons and , therefore, ‘personal data’ within the meaning of Article 2(a) of that directive ”.
In such order of ideas “when exploring the Internet in an automated. Constant and systematic way in the search for the information published on it. The operator of a search engine ‘collects’ this data which it ‘recovers’. ‘registers’ and ‘organizes’ later within the scope of its programs of indexing ‘keep’ on it server and, where appropriate.
Google’s Responsibility for Data Processing
Communicate’ and ‘make available’ to its user, in the form of list of the result of their search”. According to Article 2( b ) of Directive 95/46, Google’s action is a form of data process, “ regardless of whether the search engine operator also carry out the same operation with other type of information and not distinguish them from personal data mario costeja.
As a result of facing the thesis of the nature of the activity develop by Google. The question of its responsibility arise. On this point, the Court of Justice of the European Union conclude that “it is the search engine operator that determine the purpose and mean of that activity and, therefore, of the process of personal data that it carry out in the context of that activity and that must , therefore, be consider ‘responsible’ for that processing under the aforemention Article 2(d) ”.
The organization of data by search engine imply the “ organization and aggregation of information publish on the Internet ”, with the “ objective of facilitating access to the same for its user” , which “ lead, when the search of these user is carry out to from the name of a natural person, so that they obtain, with the list of result, a more structure overview of the information about that person, which can be found on the Internet, which allow them to establish a more or less detail profile of the person in question. cause ”.
The action of search engine, in this sense, can significantly affect “ the fundamental right to privacy and the protection of personal data ”. In such a way that “ the operator of that engine, as the person who determine the purpose and mean of that activity, must ensure, within the scope of its responsibility, its competence and its possibility, that this activity satisfy the requirement of Directive 95/46 , so that the guarantee provide for herein can take full effect and effective and complete protection can be effectively carry out for the persons concern, namely their right to respect for their private life sharenting significado.