8 role in public life and thus the crime and its punishment could not be considered of a private nature. In contrast, the Court upheld NT2’s delisting claim with the reasoning that his crime did not involve dishonesty. His punishment had been based on a plea of guilt, and information about the crime and its punishment had become out of date, irrelevant and of no sufficient legitimate interest to users of Google to justify its continued availability.3 8.In the case of Google Spain SL & another v. Agencia Espanola de Protection de Datos (AEPD) and another4 the European Court of Justice ruled that the European citizens have a right to request that commercial search engines, such as Google, that gather personal information for profit should remove links to private information when asked, provided the information is no longer relevant. The Court in that case ruled that the fundamental right to privacy is greater than the economic interest of the commercial firm and, in some circumstances; the same would even override the public interest in access to information. The European Court in the aforesaid case had affirmed the judgment of the Spanish Data 3Para 223 of Judgment QB 1022 4C-131/12[2014]