CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

Ondrej Hamuľák – Lusine Vardanyan – Hovsep Kocharyan CYIL 12 (2021) geo-blocking meaning that “internet users would be prevented from accessing the results at issue from an IP (Internet Protocol) address deemed to be located in the State of residence of a data subject (…), no matter which version of the search engine they used”. 33 As K. Walker points out: “That means that if we detect you’re in France, and you search for someone who had a link delisted under the right to be forgotten, you won’t see that link anywhere on Google Search—regardless of which domain you use. Anyone outside the EU will continue to see the link appear on non-European domains in response to the same search query”. 34 The CNIL found the suggested measure to be insufficient for the solution of the situation. The Commission’s order rejected Google’s compromise position and mentioned that “only delisting on all of the search engine’s extensions, regardless of the extension used or the geographic origin of the person performing the search, can effectively uphold this right. The solution that consists in varying the respect for human rights on the basis of the geographic origin of those viewing the search results does not give people effective, full protection of their right to be delisted.” 35 Google turned to the French Conseil d’État for the fine, which was imposed by CNIL. 36 The latter observed that a user located in a Member State is able to use the international version of the search engine instead of the one tailored for its specific country, that common databases and a common indexing process connects the international version with all the nation-specific versions of the search engine, and that cookies created by a user while visiting a specific version of the search engine would be automatically shared with all other versions of the search engine. 37 The Conseil d’État stated that all processing of personal data done by the Google should be seen as a single combined process and that therefore no distinction should apply between the nation-specific versions of the search engine and the international one, for the matter of enforcing data protection rights. 38 Google argued that the Court in the Google Spain case did not define the territorial scope of the right to be forgotten. 39 The Conseil d’État referred questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on the scope of articles 12 (b) and 14 (a) of the DPD and asked the CJEU for guidance on the territorial scope of de-referencing. Three options were identified: 1) de-referencing on all language versions of the search engine; 2) EU-wide de-referencing; and 3) de-referencing of links only in such a member State and from such a language version of the search engine for which the removal request was submitted, which is mainly due to the geo-blocking of search results in other language versions of the search engine. 4. Tackling the “regional” option of the right to be forgotten In CNIL case the CJEU has been faced with the dilemma of choosing between recognizing the global application of the right to be forgotten, which would ensure full protection of this right, and between recognizing the non-universal application of the right to be forgotten, thereby reducing the level of protection of this right, but taking into account the “digital 33 Ibid, p. 32. 34 WALKER, K.: A Principle That Should Not Be Forgotten. Google Blog. May 19, 2016. Available at: https://blog. google/topics/google-europe/a-principle-that-shouldnot-be-forgotten/[https://perma.cc/8ZCH-JCG3. 35 Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés [CNIL] Google, Inc., No. 2016-054, Mar. 10, 2016, 3 (Fr.): 53. 36 Case C507/17 Google LLC v CNIL . para. 32–34. 37 Ibid, para. 36-38.

38 Ibid, para. 37. 39 Ibid, para. 38.

202