The Supreme Court (TS) has confirmed the rejection of the right to be forgotten by the judicial secretary of the Court that investigated the case in which the poet Miguel Hernández was sentenced to death. The official’s son specifically sought to have his father’s name disappear from Google searches.
The magistrates have thus dismissed the appeal presented by the son of the judicial secretary, who died in 1998, against the ruling of the National Court that endorsed the refusal of Google and the Spanish Data Protection Agency to suppress information in which the name of the judicial secretary was linked to the process that culminated in the conviction of the poet Miguel Hernández in 1940.
In the specific case, the Contentious-Administrative Chamber has weighed the rights in conflict and has concluded that the right to freedom of information, expression and historical research must prevail over the right to be forgotten.
In a ruling, the high court establishes the possibility of extending the data protection regulation also to deceased people and recognising the right to be forgotten that is contemplated for living people, the same limits being applicable and the weighing of interests in conflict with the inevitable adaptations of this type of protection.
The court indicates that the appealed ruling analyses the news whose link is intended to be suppressed from different perspectives such as its veracity, the fact that it is a historical and scientific investigation and the public interest of the information.
In his brief, the appellant alleged, among other reasons, that the questioned references contained inaccurate data. The ruling includes the doctrine of the Supreme Court that makes it possible to request the removal of information from the search engine when the person requesting it proves that it is inaccurate, although it adds that other relevant elements must be taken into consideration.
Firstly, if the information contributes to a debate of general interest, taking into account the circumstances of the case; and, secondly, if the inaccuracy affects all the information or a part that can be considered substantial or, on the contrary, it only affects accessory and minor aspects of the information as a whole.
The court, specifically, considers that the inaccuracies alleged by the appellants did not affect the essence of what was reported or the accuracy of all the information processed.
For the Chamber, the ruling of the National Court is correct in considering as relevant elements to deny the right to be forgotten, “that the information had an unquestionable public interest as it dealt with the intervention of the appellant’s father, as judicial secretary of the Special Press Court who initiated the criminal case against the poet Miguel Hernández”.
It also highlights the fact that the ruling stated “that the information that appeared was part of a historical and scientific investigation, contained in University publications; and that the passage of time had not caused the interest aroused by everything surrounding the death of the famous poet”.
The court concludes that the National Court correctly applied both the legislation and the existing jurisprudence when, in view of the exercise of the right of deletion exercised by the relatives of the deceased, other concurrent rights and interests were weighed and the extent of the inaccuracy in relation to it was correctly assessed. with the set and context of the information processed.
As a matter of cassational interest, the Court establishes that “the right to deletion – the right to be forgotten – of the data of a deceased person is recognised” in Spanish law. “But the uniqueness that implies that the right of deletion is exercised with respect to personal data corresponding to a deceased person does not eliminate the need to weigh the protection of the deceased’s data with other rights and freedoms in conflict in light of our regulations and existing jurisprudence,” adds the Supreme Court.
Regarding the partial inaccuracy of information that affects a deceased person, and that appears incorporated into a historical and scientific investigation, the ruling explains that its significance must be weighed in the set of all the information that has appeared.
