 Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I certainly want also to thank David for this fantastic opportunity, the setting here, this auditorium, and we come back to that because for me it's a sort of an ideal place to exchange ideas on this issue and I think that it is very important to talk about this landmark decision who had an enormous influence on data protection and on the work of the European data protection authorities. I only have 20 minutes so it will be difficult to really go into all the details of this six-point presentation so I will skip a lot of them. I will skip certainly some ideas from the cornerstone document that is the guidelines. In November of last year the Working Party 29 has adopted guidelines, how they understand how they are reading, how they are interpreting the case, the Google Spain ruling, and also giving 13 guidelines how to work with the specific cases that will be asked. Excuse me? Yes, that's better. It will be witness of an improbable ivory tower mindset to only invest in the protection of privacy or in pure judicial approach. The issue imagine from the Google case is not only about the right to be forgotten about applicable law, very important, about jurisdiction, but also on decision making power, power in general. Law is always a reflection of the balance of power since Machiavelli, Hobbes, we are very aware of this, but in the 20th century we have accepted by trial and error that a broad general human rights approach is possible. I know, I know it's the economy, stupid, but if we want to resolve the issue of a democratic, in a democratic perspective, we have to realize that human rights have brought an important a key. That's why in this great building of the rule of law, there has been provided an additional flaw, a solid roof, a shield that once and had to protect the citizen from attacks against their freedom and integrity. So dear listeners, you will immediately understand that I want limit myself to judicial analysis. I think that if we are looking through the looking glass of Google Spain, we have also been impressed by the importance of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 12 December 2007. The judgment makes a clear distinction between fundamental rights on the one hand, human rights, and interests in economic interest of interest of the public. It's in the section nine or nine or nine, the four last section, that it is really very clearly stated by the court. And it's amazingly remarkable that no much attention is paid to this issue in the comments that recently have been written on the judgment just after the pronunciation. You could almost become cynical about it. I read and heard different arguments as you Europeans have missed the point. The internet doesn't work on that way. The ICT world has and imposed its own rules. It's the technology. And as a final quote, this is not how our business model works. Why is it so difficult to accept the ruling of the court? Maybe because privacy or data protection has not been considered as a human right, but only as an interest. Should interest, rights in general, help not be treated on the same level? There's one, one major exception, freedom of speech, free collection of information. I would be unfair to countless commentators if I wouldn't take this into consideration in my analysis. But even here I strongly would like to point out the clear and detailed assessment made by the court of justice in the ruling. There were lots of checks and balances that were carefully expressed. The task of a data protection commissioner is embedded in the protection of the whole human rights, fundamental rights. You need to find the correct and safe balance between the different basic rights, such as personality rights, privacy, protection of personal data, as freedom of speech, free gathering of information, the right to the integrity of a person, security, freedom of trade, right of property, education. The house of the rule of law provides a lot of rules, countless flaws. And if it can be sometimes difficult to find your way, this is one of the reasons why we today are gathering here in this conference. This auditorium should be a perfect power-free space. In Germany they are talking about Herzschraft Freie of Jurgen Habermas, where we can practice the art of the wheel of ignorance. So that was an introduction, now back to business. We tried, as working party 29, to find already in 2008 solutions for the questions arise by the upcoming search engines. And we have this first document of 2008, and Artemis has already mentioned it. I don't think that today it is useful to read it, so I skip to the next one. What was the reception of the court ruling? First thing, we were relieved. Because can you imagine that the court should say, well, European law is not applicable. On that moment I think that a lot of data protection authorities can close their doors. There was also a surprise. The surprise was that the court clearly stated that the right to be forgotten is a fundamental right, is something that should be applied on the level of a human right. And it was a surprise because the advocate general had not accepted this point of view. There was also a lot of uncomfortable feelings, how will we manage it? Because we thought that thousands, ten thousands of applications would come to us. And also, will this sentence not have an inverse effect? Will the reaction, because it was certainly in the first weeks, there was a very hostile reaction of a lot of comments, should it not have the effect that, yes, that legislatures that lawmaking will try to avoid the principles of this ruling? And last of it, I think that there was also a very important boost into the world of the data protection authorities. We considered this as unpowered, because not only data protection can be empowered by the maintenance of law and order, but also the court has given us real practical tools to do our job protecting the citizen. We tried to implement this ruling, there were exchange between different data protection authorities. We have also a lot of meetings with people from Google. Peter Fleischer was practically every week in another capital in Europe. It was good to talk about it. And we tried to seek a common position from all the 28 countries. We have now made these guidelines, working out all the experiences that in the different countries we were confronted with. And then we adopted on the 26th of November these guidelines on the implementation. The structure of this document is one interpretation of the judgment, very interesting to read how we were also struggling with a lot of concepts in it. And secondly, trying to be effective, making a list of common criteria for the handling of complaints. Important to say to you, these are guidelines. In the letter that the document was sent to Google, it was also clearly stated by Isabelle Falca-Pierrotin, the chairwoman of the working party, that these are guidelines that can be reviewed, can be made better in the course of time. What is very interesting also is the first two pages of these guidelines, because, yeah, you have an executive summary, an executive summary who gives you a very short but very sharp introduction to the concepts that we find as working party 29 into the ruling Google Spain. Thirteen, nine of these are mentioned, and if you look to them, you will see that a lot of these questions will arise also on the second, the third, and the third panel today. The criteria are of course the most important of these guidelines, criteria, and then we have thirteen, I will not say that it are really on a scientific way, criteria that you can use, but it also sometimes are more questions, questions that should help to resolve very practical situations where not only Google, because it's Google in the first time who has to look to the applications, but then after appeal to the data protection authority, they have to consider, will we remove the URL, will we delink, will we make this de-indexation. Sometimes a question is divided because there are a lot of sub-sections, for example five, is the data relevant and not excessive? Of course that is not an easy question to answer. Sometimes you have questions who are not really completely in line with the ruling, for example the question of the presages. It's clear that the court has said you don't need to prove a presages, you don't have to demonstrate that for having the right to remove your data. After that we had issued these guidelines, we have tried in the working party to find also more substantial solutions for questions that were answered, but not on a way that everybody was happy with it, and I think that there are still a lot of questions, but the most important I think is the question of the territorial validity and the enforcement. You can say it's only for the country involved, but that's not true, it's a European law, so it should be implemented in the whole of Europe, what Google accepted, but maybe it is worldwide, why it is worldwide? Well, it is a personal right and once a decision, a judicial decision has been taken about a personal right, it should be worldwide accepted. There's another question, but what do you do with a country without establishment, but that's more really for the specialists. Another problem of more political way is Barbara Streisand's effect, the more you are crying to be delisted, the more you are exposing yourself. And a little bit of critics on Google, in the first weeks and months, they were only speaking, not of the Google Spain case, but of the Costeja ruling. I tried to change that and to say let's talk about Super Mario, because Mario is Costeja, so I think that we have to use the normal, the general denomination who is Google Spain and the rest. But there you see that it is also a question of power, who had the power to give a name to a certain sentence. There is also a problem with inaccurate data. I will not go into the details, but that is sometimes a very difficult thing to do. But what is the reality? The reality, and I take now this example for Belgium, we started with one case and we ended today, yesterday, with 34 complaints. 34 complaints, that's practically nothing if you take into consideration that according to the numbers that Google has given, 45% were not accepted from this 7,058 requests. So that means that only one on 210 cases are coming to the data protection authority. We handled already 21 of them, 16 have been accepted by Google, 6 were accepted by our data protection authority, and only one is a question where we could not reach an agreement. The biggest problem for us was in the beginning the censorship. We didn't want to have this censorship, but in all the cases, the 34 cases that we have, we never have had a problem on censorship. And I will give you one little example. This is an extract of a letter of Google where they're denied to delete an index. Well, the only thing that they are saying is that the person in question was somebody who is a dangerous person, and then on that moment they say, well, you must be very aware of the fact that he can in future relations also be dangerous. But I think that we have also a solution for that. Google has accepted that if there is a court ruling to find a solution, that he gets a clear criminal record that they should remove also this URL. So I will come to my conclusion. I think that the question of this example is once again given an example that the right to be forgotten and also the questions that are arising by the Google case will, after all, end here in judicial debate, but also in courtrooms. And once again, today we are in a courtroom because I understand that also today on the High Court in Great Britain, there is a sentence according to a problem arised by the use of the Google search engines. And I think that I will again invoke the power free space as requested by, yes, John Stuart Mill as Rose Hannah Arendt, especially by Jurgen Habermas, because I think that is important to take that into account also in this auditorium. And such a sphere has happened also yesterday in the premises of the Clil in Paris, where several data protection officials from Europe meet a delegation of Google to discuss the terms and conditions that were put in place two years ago, and who are subject of several rulings of several data protection authorities, and that now Google is accepting to review them and to give a new terms and conditions I think in the month of June that it will be this year. That's a very positive evolution I think that Google accepted the Google Spain sentence, that they comply fully and to set up a system to implement this sentence. And what we should learn, we all should learn from these cases one, that the data protection authorities must be brave and courageous like the Spanish did, that we should be brave and courageous to impose instructions and decisions. Secondly, that human rights really exist not because they have been proclamated, but by the fact that we are using them in litigation in courts, and third, that at least it is a question of power. And that in a democratic and a decent society, this power is laid down in the law, executed by those who are bound by the law and enforced by courts of justice. So thank you for your attention.