complainant’s full name is entered into the search engine. I. [Excerpt from Press Release No. 84/2019] On 21 January 2010, the NDR broadcasting corporation aired a segment of the TV show Panorama titled “Dismissal: the dirty tricks of employers”, featuring an interview with the complainant in her capacity as managing director of a company. Towards the end of the broadcast, the case of a dismissed employee is presented, and the complainant is accused of unfair treatment vis-à-vis that employee after he had tried to establish a works council in her company. Under the title “The dirty tricks of employers”, the NDR uploaded a file containing a transcript of the broadcast to its website. When the complainant’s name was typed into Google, the link to this content was displayed among the top search results. After the search engine operator refused the complainant’s request to remove the site from the search results, the complainant lodged an action that was later rejected by the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht). In its reasoning, the Higher Regional Court states that the complainant could not request the removal of the relevant links (hereinafter: dereferencing), as she could neither establish a claim under § 35(2) second sentence of the Federal Data Protection Act (former version) (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz – BDSG) nor under § 823(1), § 1004 of the Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch – BGB) in conjunction with Art. 1(1), Art. 2(1) of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz – GG). [End of excerpt] 1. […] 2-4 2. […] 5-6 3. […] 7-12 4. With her constitutional complaint, the complainant claims a violation of her general right of personality and her right to informational self-determination (Art. 2(1) in conjunction with Art. 1(1) GG). 13 She contends that the title displayed in the search results (“The dirty tricks of employers”) was already misleading as she had never used any “dirty tricks” vis-à-vis employees and the Panorama segment was based on false assertions made by the former employee. She claims that the search result and the broadcast it links to portrayed her in a very negative light given that her name was associated with the broadcast’s title. She further claims that this was capable of disparaging her in her private life. 14 […] 15-17 5. Providing the backdrop to these proceedings are provisions of EU law. At the time 4/36 18