European Court Limits Right-to-Be-Forgotten Delisting to EU Domains. For Now…
This week, the Court of Justice of the EU issued an eagerly awaited and crucially important ruling involving competing fundamental rights of privacy and free expression. Asked whether search engines were required to implement right-to-be-forgotten (RTBF) delisting of search results globally, the Court said no. That is the short version of the ruling, and the answer CDT and other human rights advocates had urged the Court to give.
The case originated in a dispute between Google and the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL). In this case, CNIL ordered Google to implement global delisting of certain online content following complaints by French citizens. CNIL did not accept Google’s proposed delisting limited to French and European domains and issued a fine for failure to comply. Google appealed the case, which was ultimately referred to the CJEU for interpretation. CDT joined a coalition of free expression organisations from around the world, led by Article 19, in filing an intervention in the case in November 2016, before the French State Council.
The gist of our argument was that forcing search engines to implement RTBF on a global basis would cause disproportionate infringement of rights to free expression and access to information, including in countries where the RTBF concept does not exist. The broader policy argument is that it would be detrimental to free expression rights if states were able to impose restrictions on permissible speech outside their own territory.
CDT and the organisations we filed our intervention with were pleased with the outcome of the case, in that the ruling confirmed that compliance with EU legislation does not require global delisting. However, the ruling also stated that while global delisting is not mandated by law, it is also not excluded, and national authorities may apply national standards for the protection of fundamental rights to case-by-case considerations of whether a global de-listing order is appropriate. This means that a different case, with a different weighing of rights, could lead a European court to a different conclusion. In addition, the ruling remarks that EU law makers might in the future pass legislation that would require global application. Still, while the last word has not been spoken on this important matter, the CJEU’s ruling shows a welcome recognition of the free expression issues at stake.
Op-Ed: France’s Constitutional Council Ruling Tests the Limits of Social Media Bans
Read our analysis the legal and policy significance of the Constitutional Council’s decision on ongoing social media age restriction and age assurance debates ahead of the most-anticipated EU-wide approach on child online safety due by December 2026.
As Brussels starts emptying for the summer, the risks of frontier AI models continue to capture the attention of policymakers as a key chapter of the AI Act becomes enforceable, and disclosure rules around the use of AI systems and AI-generated content are further clarified.
CDT Europe’s Feedback on the Draft Guidelines for the Classification of High-Risk AI Systems under the AI Act
CDT Europe responded to the European Commission’s consultation on the draft guidelines for the classification of high-risk artificial intelligence systems.
Open Joint Letter on a Public Reassessment of the EU-US Adequacy Decision
On 29 June, the US Supreme Court ruled that US President Trump can remove the leaders of independent agencies and commissions, overturning nearly 90 years of precedent limiting executive power. This decision raises serious questions about one of the key safeguards underpinning the EU-US Data Privacy Framework adopted in 2023: independent supervision.
