SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION protection ordinance did not apply to a foraging body. [Note: Not available in the database yet]. In Google LLC v. National Commission on Informatics and Liberty, the CJEU held that existing EU law did not oblige Google to carry out an order to de-index search results on all versions of its search engine. The case originated in France after the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) fined Google LLC for failing to globally de-index information concerning a data subject. The Court explained that EU law establishing and regulating the right to be de-indexed (or de-referenced, as the Court implements the “right to be forgotten”) was silent about the geographic scope of de-referencing orders. The Court held that in principle the de-indexing was supposed to be carried out in respect to all the Member States, but since privacy protections were not reconciled across the EU, it was up to courts and other relevant bodies in each Member State to decide the breadth of the de-referencing. the de-referencing. The Court did not rule that Google could never be obliged An individual who had to carry out a de-referencing order globally; it was up been subject of a criminal to each court to decide when this was appropriate. investigation which had ultimately been dismissed had asked Google to remove from its indexes the links to all pieces of information concerning the dismissed investigation. In Google Spain, S.L. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (APED), the Supreme Court of Spain decided against the decision by the AEPD that ordered Google to remove certain information related to Spanish nationals. Google Spain challenged these orders arguing that as a subsidiary of Google Inc. it lacked control over the content because its function was limited to the promotion of services and acquisitions. On appeal, the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Spain agreed, determining that Google Inc. was the only controller of data and that it therefore was solely responsible for content removal. Finally, a case in which the jurisdictional claim was dismissed was Plaintiff X v. Google Inc. or Google Perú S.R.L., where the General Directorate of Protection of Personal Data for Peru (GDPD) rejected Google’s claims regarding the illegitimacy of the transnational impact of the data protection authority commands. The authority held that Google was bound by the Peruvian Law for Personal Data Protection (LPPD) both when acting through its local corporate personality, Google Peru S.R.L, and when acting through its international corporate personality, Google Inc. An individual who had been subject of a criminal investigation which had ultimately been dismissed had asked Google to remove from its indexes the links to all pieces of information concerning the dismissed investigation. Google Peru S.R.L. and Google Inc. refused. The GDPD reasoned that Google Search both (1) tracked information containing personal data from Peruvian citizens with the purpose of facilitating access to that information for its users and; (2) had a geographical location function that offered users the option to only receive information extracted from Peruvian websites. Based on this, it concluded that, in order to provide search engine services to the Peruvian market, Google visited web pages located on Peruvian servers to register and index information 11