In a ruling from the contentious-administrative chamber of the National Court, Jose Diego Yllanes Vizcay, now 43, who was convicted for the homicide of Nagore Laffage during Pamplona’s Sanfermines in 2008, failed in his bid to have Google remove news coverage about the case under the right to be forgotten. The court held that the right to information and freedom of expression takes precedence over the right to privacy in this instance.
Twelve and a half years of imprisonment followed the conviction for homicide. After serving his sentence in full, the petitioner first contacted Google and later the Spanish Data Protection Agency to block several news links that described the events for which he was convicted and his subsequent conditional release. He argued that, although he had not committed any sexual crime, various media outlets repeatedly linked him to such offenses and that the disindexing of these reports was necessary to protect personal data and privacy, given the alleged incorrect data involved.
Google and the AEPD denied the request
Both Google and the Data Protection Agency rejected the request, deeming that the questioned reports held public interest because they concerned a high-profile homicide and documented facts with no justification for exclusion. They added that if any details were inaccurate, the claimant could exercise the right to rectification.
In its ruling, the First Section of the Contentious Chamber weighed the competing rights and concluded that the public’s right to receive information and to express opinions should prevail over personal data protection in this case.
The court explained that the petitioner was convicted for a homicide that drew intense media attention due to the circumstances and timing. The case continues to attract press coverage, and at times has been linked to other crimes against female victims in the same city during local celebrations. These associations evoke strong public sentiment and are considered to be of general interest.
No proof of incorrect data
The court found that the information in question was not evidently false. Rather, it concerned the fact of the conviction and its relation to other cases involving female victims. The tribunal determined that the right to information should prevail because the claimant offered no evidence of any manifest inaccuracy in the linked content.
The ruling reflects established doctrine from the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, and the Court of Justice of Luxembourg. It concludes that the public interest remains in play and that Google’s handling of the data was initially lawful given the information’s nature, the existence of a criminal process, and the facts and context involved. The links blocked at the claimant’s request fall under the fundamental right to freedom of expression, which includes criticism of others’ conduct even when harsh or unsettling, as this is essential for a pluralist and open democratic society.
Terms like Nagore Laffage’s killer are not personal data
Regarding the suppression of links obtained through searches using terms other than the claimant’s name and surname, which are the most telling identifiers, the court argued that such searches do not fall within the scope of the data protection regulation. Expressions such as “the Nagore Laffage killer” or “the man who killed Nagore Laffage” are not personal data of the claimant, even though they might lead to information about the case. The court noted that these results could be obtained through many other search terms as well.
Similarly, the tribunal referenced Article 93.1 of Organic Law 3/2018 on Personal Data Protection and Digital Rights, which requires searches to be conducted by the person’s name. Searches that do not include the name or surname are not covered by that provision, and thus do not automatically merit suppression of related results.