Google's battle with Spanish Data Protection

In the context of Google's legal battle against Spanish Data Proctection Authority, the Audiencia Nacional has referred several questions to the European Court of Justice.  

The background of the case is the following: A person whose name was related to a newspaper advertisement (the auction of his property stemming from an old and subsequently resolved debt) by the searching results of Google. The individual requested Google to remove the search result, and when the company did not do so, complained to the Spanish Data Protection Agency. The Spanish Authority upheld required Google to amend the search results. As the advertisement had been published in a newspaper, Google felt that the search result should not be taken down, and appealed.

The main questions referred to the European Court search the answer if individuals have the right to demand the removal and blocking of information contained within Internet search results (the information was lawfully collected and accurate at the time of collection). The searching results provided by Google can have a negative or harmful effect on the individual since the information could be available “over the lifetime of an individual and that of his descendants.”

As regards the activity of search engines as providers of content in relation to Directive 95/46/EC on data protection:

2.1. in relation to the activity of the search engine of the 'Google' undertaking on the internet, as a provider of content, consisting in locating information published or included on the net by third parties, indexing it automatically, storing it temporarily and finally making it available to internet users according to a particular order of preference, when that information contains personal data of third parties, must an activity like the one described be interpreted as falling within the concept of 'processing of ... data' used in Article 2(b) of Directive 95/46/EC?

2.2. If the answer to the foregoing question is affirmative, and once again in relation to an activity like the one described: must Article 2(d) of Directive 95/46/EC be interpreted as meaning that the undertaking managing the 'Google' search engine is to be regarded as the 'controller' of the personal data contained in the web pages that it indexes?

2.3. In the event that the answer to the foregoing question is affirmative, may the national data-control authority (in this case the Agencia Española de Protección de Datos - Spanish Data Protection Agency), protecting the rights embodied in Articles 12(b) and 14(a) of Directive 95/46/EC, directly impose on the search engine of the 'Google' undertaking a requirement that it withdraw from its indexes an item of information published by third parties, without addressing itself in advance or simultaneously to the owner of the web page on which that information is located?

2.4. In the event that the answer to the foregoing question is affirmative, would the obligation of search engines to protect those rights be excluded when the information that contains the personal data has been lawfully published by third parties and is kept on the web page from which it originates?

Regarding the scope of the right of erasure and/or the right to object, in relation to the 'derecho al olvido' (the 'right to be forgotten'), the following question is asked:

3.1 must it be considered that the rights to erasure and blocking of data, provided for in Article 12(b), and the right to object, provided for by Article 14(a), of Directive 95/46/EC, extend to enabling the data subject to address himself to search engines in order to prevent indexing of the information relating to him personally, published on third parties' web pages, invoking his wish that such information should not be known to internet users when he considers that it might be prejudicial to him or he wishes it to be consigned to oblivion, even though the information in question has been lawfully published by third parties?

ECJ advocate-general is anticipated to publish an opinion on the matter June 25, and the judges are expected to rule on the matter by the end of the year.