89. As a result, Google Spain and Google Inc. brought actions before the Spanish National High Court and claimed that the AEPD,s decision should be annulled. The Spanish National High Court then referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court of Justice of the European Union, inter alia, laid down a general principle that if，following a search made on the basis of a person,s name, the list of results displays a link to a web page which contains information on the person in question, that data subject may approach the operator directly and, where the operator does not grant his request, bring the matter before the competent authorities in order to obtain, under certain conditions, the removal of that link from the list of results. 90. In NT1 & NT2 v Goosle LLC [2019] QB 344, the two claimants sought, inter alia orders for the removal of details of their offending, , convictions and sentences from Google search results, on the basis that the information, in particular concerning their spent convictions, was old, out of date, irrelevant, of no public interest and/or otherwise an illegitimate interference with their data protection and/or privacy rights. The Queen's Bench Division of the English High Court of Justice applied part II (titled “list " of common criteria ( the Criteria")ybr the handling of complaints by European data protection authorities") of the Guidelines on the Implementation of \Goosle Spain], adopted on 26 November 2014 by a working party established under the EU Directive. The Criteria are as follows (see also “comments" in part II，which provide guidance on the application of the Criteria): 60