[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$fS5spCf9zVexXXmJrb1rrHBIPlbKtrZSMk-aRterHlEc":3},{"article":4,"iocs":47},{"id":5,"title":6,"slug":7,"summary":8,"ai_summary":9,"brief":10,"full_text":11,"url":12,"image_url":13,"published_at":14,"ingested_at":15,"relevance_score":16,"entities":17,"category_id":24,"category":25,"article_tags":29},"3e8b71a7-5bb8-4224-8090-e4d33a0435a9","CE - N° 399922","ce-n-399922-368392","← Older revision Revision as of 08:10, 24 June 2026 (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) Line 10: Line 10: |ECLI= |ECLI= |Original_Source_Name_1= |Original_Source_Name_1=Legifrance.gouv.fr |Original_Source_Link_1=https:\u002F\u002Fwww.cnil.fr\u002Fsites\u002Fdefault\u002Ffiles\u002Fatoms\u002Ffiles\u002Fdecision_du_conseil_detat_-_dereferencement_-_27_mars_2020.pdf |Original_Source_Link_1=https:\u002F\u002Fwww.cnil.fr\u002Fsites\u002Fdefault\u002Ffiles\u002Fatoms\u002Ffiles\u002Fdecision_du_conseil_detat_-_dereferencement_-_27_mars_2020.pdf |Original_Source_Language_1=French |Original_Source_Language_1=French","The French Council of State annulled a EUR 100,000 fine imposed by CNIL on Google Inc. The fine was for failing to comply with de-referencing requests on all national versions of its search engine. The court ruled that the de-referencing obligation, as per Article 17 of GDPR, only applies within the European Union, not worldwide, and that Google's measures to block access within member states were sufficient.","French Council of State annulled CNIL fine on Google for de-referencing scope.","Help CE - N° 399922: Difference between revisions From GDPRhub Jump to:navigation, search ← Older editVisualWikitext Revision as of 16:05, 22 March 2022 view sourceKc (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators491 editsTag: submission test [1.0]← Older edit Latest revision as of 08:10, 24 June 2026 view source Bms (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators118 edits (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)Line 10: Line 10: |ECLI=|ECLI= |Original_Source_Name_1=|Original_Source_Name_1=Legifrance.gouv.fr |Original_Source_Link_1=https:\u002F\u002Fwww.cnil.fr\u002Fsites\u002Fdefault\u002Ffiles\u002Fatoms\u002Ffiles\u002Fdecision_du_conseil_detat_-_dereferencement_-_27_mars_2020.pdf|Original_Source_Link_1=https:\u002F\u002Fwww.cnil.fr\u002Fsites\u002Fdefault\u002Ffiles\u002Fatoms\u002Ffiles\u002Fdecision_du_conseil_detat_-_dereferencement_-_27_mars_2020.pdf |Original_Source_Language_1=French|Original_Source_Language_1=French Latest revision as of 08:10, 24 June 2026 CE - N° 399922 Court: CE (France) Jurisdiction: France Relevant Law: Article 17 GDPR Decided: 27.03.2020 Published: Parties: Google Inc. CNIL National Case Number\u002FName: N° 399922 European Case Law Identifier: Appeal from: CNIL (France) Appeal to: Original Language(s): French Original Source: Legifrance.gouv.fr (in French) Initial Contributor: n\u002Fa The French Council of State annulled the fine of EUR 100,00 that CNIL imposed on Google Inc. The Court issued that the scope of the de-referencing obligation ('right to be forgotten') concerns only the EU. The Court hold that the deletion measures taken by Google Inc. regardless of the extensions concerned, and the user's geographical origin meet the requirements set by the Court of Justice in the case C-507\u002F17. Contents 1 English Summary 1.1 Facts 1.2 Holding 2 Comment 3 Further Resources 4 English Machine Translation of the Decision English Summary Facts In 2016, the CNIL fined Google Inc. 100,000 € for failing to comply with de-referencing request on all national versions of its search engine Google Search. Google challenged the decision before the Council of State. The CNIL claimed that the deletion of personal data has to be performed worldwide to provide effective protection of the rights of individuals. Google Inc. claimed that their measures adopted in March 2016 were sufficient. They implemented a mechanism which automatically redirects to the national version used by the data subject and which blocks the access, to delete the content for any Internet user identified as being located in the same territory. Holding First, the Council of State recalled that the alleged breach of Google Inc. must be judged in accordance with the applicable law, back in 2016. Then, in the lights of the preliminary ruling, C-507\u002F17, the Council of Stated issued that Google Inc. took sufficient and appropriate measures, and that the de-referencing obligation has to be implemented at the European level. C-507\u002F17 ruling : \"where a search engine operator grants a request for de-referencing pursuant to those provisions, that operator is not required to carry out that de-referencing on all versions of its search engine, but on the versions of that search engine corresponding to all the Member States, using, where necessary, measures which, while meeting the legal requirements, effectively prevent or, at the very least, seriously discourage an internet user conducting a search from one of the Member States on the basis of a data subject’s name from gaining access, via the list of results displayed following that search, to the links which are the subject of that request\", Finally, the Court pointed out that the French government did not adopted any special provisions allowing the CNIL in France to order a de-referencing beyond the scope of EU law. Therefore, the Court issued that the CNIL's decision was vitiated by an error of law because it ordered a worldwide de-referencing. As a consequence, the Council of State annulled the CNIL's sanction imposing 100,000 € fine on Google Inc. Comment Share your comment on the decision here! Further Resources Share other blogs or news articles here! See the CNIL summary and comment here. English Machine Translation of the Decision No. 399922- 1 - COUNCIL OF STATUTORY STATUTORY AUDITORS No. 399922 GOOGLE INC. Mrs. Christelle Thomas Rapporteur Mr. Alexandre Lalle tPublic Reporter Session of March 13, 2020 Reading of March 27, 2020 FRENCH REPUBLIC ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE The Council of State adjudicating in contentious cases (Administrative Jurisdiction Division, Tenth and Ninth Chambers, meeting) On the report of the Tenth Chamber Having regard to the following procedure: By a decision of 19 July 2017, the Council of State, ruling on the application by Google Inc. for the annulment of Deliberation No. 2016-054 of 10 March 2016 by which the restricted formation of the Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) imposed on it a penalty, made public, of EUR 100,000, stayed the proceedings until the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled on the following questions: 1°) whether the \"right to dereferencing\" as enshrined by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 13 May 2014 on the basis of the provisions of Articles 12(b) and 14(a) of the Directive of 24 October 1995 must be interpreted as meaning that the operator of a search engine is bound where it grants a request for dereferencing, to dereferencing all the domain names in its engine in such a way that the disputed links no longer appear irrespective of the place from which the search for the applicant's name is carried out, including outside the territorial scope of the Directive of 24 October 1995 ; 2°) in the event of an affirmative answer to that first question, whether the 'right to dereferencing' as enshrined by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its abovementioned judgment must be interpreted as meaning that the operator of a search engine is only bound, when it grants a request for dereferencing, to remove the disputed links from the results displayed following a search carried out using the applicant's name on the domain name corresponding to the State where the application is deemed to have been made or, more generally, on the domain names of the search engine that correspond to the national extensions of that engine for all the Member States of the European Union ; 3°) furthermore, if, in addition to the obligation referred to in 2°, the \"right to dereferencing\" as enshrined by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its aforementioned judgment must be interpreted as meaning that the operator of a search engine that grants a request for dereferencing is required to remove the domain name by means of the technique known as \"geo-blocking\", from an IP address deemed to be located in the State of residence of the beneficiary of the \"right to dereferencing\", the disputed results of searches carried out using his name, or even, more generally, from an IP address deemed to be located in one of the Member States subject to the Directive of 24 October 1995, irrespective of the domain name used by the internet user carrying out the search. By judgment C-507\u002F17 of 24 September 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on these issues. By a new statement of case and a reply statement, filed on 26 November 2019 and 21 January 2020, Google LLC maintains its conclusions. It submits that the restricted composition of the CNIL vitiated its deliberations by an error of law by retaining the principle of worldwide dereferencing and that the technical solution implemented to ensure dereferencing satisfies the requirements laid down by European Union law as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union. By two new statements of defence, registered on 29 November 2019 and 6 February 2020, the CNIL concluded that the application was dismissed. It submits that the judgme","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Findex.php?title=CE_-_N%C2%B0_399922&diff=51970&oldid=24860","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Fimages\u002F4\u002F4c\u002FCourts_logo1.png","2026-06-24T08:10:27+00:00","2026-06-24T10:00:13.856115+00:00",7,[18,21],{"name":19,"type":20},"Google","vendor",{"name":22,"type":23},"Google Search","product","c5c77cdb-f7d7-4990-9436-c81dcbff1163",{"id":24,"icon":26,"name":27,"slug":28},null,"Policy","policy",[30,35,40,42],{"category":31},{"id":32,"icon":26,"name":33,"slug":34},"3f0f8451-91df-4b6c-9a73-ef3b2509b7f1","GDPR","gdpr",{"category":36},{"id":37,"icon":26,"name":38,"slug":39},"53f9c4b6-8bc6-4964-9169-d09e5cd41d72","Compliance","compliance",{"category":41},{"id":24,"icon":26,"name":27,"slug":28},{"category":43},{"id":44,"icon":26,"name":45,"slug":46},"d95477d7-eb04-4fad-a2dc-be1428040ce7","Privacy Fines","privacy-fines",[]]