 Thank you very much, Professor David Erdos, for organizing this conference, for inviting me to participate here. It's a great pleasure. And I'm not if you're aware, all of you, but Professor Erdos is a visionary. He has one of the best qualities for academics, because three years ago he organized a very successful conference in the University of Cambridge, focused on the right to be forgotten too. And three years ago, it was not so clear that this will be a so famous or successful topic, the right to be forgotten, and how the European Corp would resolve the topic. Then I had to declare that he's really a visionary. He has asked me to talk about the origin of the case, and I will try to do the best. Before 2007, there were not so many cases in the Spanish Agency related to the Internet, no significant cases. The story of the right to be forgotten started in 2007, with a first case, related, because this is the beginning of our history, related especially on personal information in the official gassets. A man in the 80s, a young man, was fined by a local police for urinating in public street. The police was not able to notify this administrative sanction in the postal address, and the Spanish law established that it's possible to notify in these cases, publishing this resolution in an official gasset. The notification was published in an official gasset 35 years ago, but you know, all these papers at this time, who no one read at this time, were digitized. And currently, in 2007, this man, a professor, director of a high school, could check like all his students every first September, go to the Internet to know he was his new professor. And he found that 30 years ago, when he was young, he was urinating in the public street. This is a funny case, maybe for, it's possible, some of you have smiled for this case, but I'm sure that for this data subject, it was not a so funny case. He complained, and he reached a positive resolution of the Spanish agency, ordered Google to erase links and avoid future access. Official gassets were at the beginning the problem because many laws obliged to publish many personal information. For example, pardon, the pardon law in Spain obliged to publish the government resolution pardon somewhere. In this case, like many others, the man was pardoned, the pardon decree was published in the official gasset. At the beginning, 30 years ago or 20 years ago, no one read this kind of information. The news, this official gasset, right then, no one was interested, but all of them were digitized. And as in this case, in many others, they found that everyone accessing to the Internet could read about this information. The Spanish agency ordered to Google to take the necessary measures to remove the results of the index and to avoid future access. And to the official gassets, the Spanish agency obliged to take the necessary measures, not to delete, because there is a law who obliged to publish this information, to take the necessary measures to avoid future indexing. That means to use tools like robots txtxt. We could talk very much about official gassets. For example, other laws established that civil servants sanctions, disciplinary sanctions must be published in official gassets. In this case, a prison civil servant was sanctioned, the resolution, the administrative resolution was published in the official gasset, but happened at this time in the 90s. The prison civil servant was a target of terrorist attacks by ETA, the terrorist bond, and in this case, the Spanish agency accepted this complaint. Later came cases related to newspaper, but not current online newspaper, especially news related to old Britain newspaper that were digitized and that paper from 30, 40 years ago. Now everyone can read them. In this case, or many others, that happened. For example, this one, La Vanguardia, a main Spanish-Cathalan newspaper published in 1989, news related to a man who killed his son pressing a pillow against his face, sleeping in October 1987. He was acquitted for this crime in the trial because the court is considered a paranoid schizophrenia, but the newspaper never published anything about that. 30 years later, every time he access to internet, he can find this information and that affect his illness. In this case, like all the others related to the newspaper, once more the Spanish agency urged Google to take these measures to remove data from the index, avoid future access. But related to the newspaper, these digitized news, the Spanish agency considered that not only was there is a law, even there is a constitutional right, the right of freedom of speech that prevailed. And that means that the Spanish agency never obliged to remove or to erase archives from the newspaper. What the Spanish agency said to the newspaper in these cases is a recommendation to consider individual circumstances to avoid the indexing by the search engines. That means using tools like robots TXT. We could talk about very much cases related to newspaper, not only old news, like this one, 91, a crime. There is news about a crime of a plastic surgeon who finally was acquitted, but never the newspaper informed about this acquittal. There are many cases of this one, maybe we could talk later about. I will finish this landscape about these cases with the one that was lodged into the European Court of Justice with this preliminary ruling, the case of the European Court judgment. It's a strange case if you want. The National Spanish Court could have chosen any other. It has 150 cases to choose. It chooses just this one. Once more, Laban Guardia published an information, not a news, just a public information, a public body from the social security, obliged or ordered the newspaper to publish. An administrative resolution related to an auction of real estate caused by a freezing order derived from debts to the social security. That means that this was not a news of public interest more than after this first dissemination, but not for the future. I'm sure you are questioning yourself about the grounds of the Spanish Agency to adopt this position. For me, I think it's very easy to summarize these grounds because all of them has been accepted by the European Court judgment. All of them can be found inside the European Court of Justice. That means that the Spanish Agency, like the European Court of Judgment, established that the European law is applicable to the search engines with advertising office in a member state. The search engines process data, our controller, has a direct responsibility, independent of the webmasters, and that it is possible to react against this personal information using the right to object or the right to erase. There are limits, of course, freedom of speech and information related to public persons or news of public interest. This is the limit. All of these has been established in the judgment and was in the Spanish resolutions. Especially the main ground of the Spanish Agency was very better explained, maybe, in the European Court of Justice. That means that for the European Court of Justice and for Spain, the search engines are not subject of fundamental rights. That means they have legitimation for processing information, but this legitimation just is an economic interest. They have an economic interest. They are not subject of freedom of speech. They are not media. And that means that in the conflict between data protection and the search engines activity legitimated by the economic interest, the first one prevails. This is in the core of the judgment, European Court of Justice, and it was in the core of the Spanish resolutions. The differences, just one. The European Court goes farther than the Spanish Agency, who always the Spanish Agency resolves case by case, taking into account individual personal circumstances in any case. That means more or less accepting just the right to object more than the right to erase. The European Court judgment had said no. The right to object is a tool, is a way, but the right to erase too. And why? Because he has well explained that the past of the time changed the meaning of the information, the past of the time affected to the quality principle because information becomes inaccurate, excessive, inappropriate, or obsolete. I will use my last five minutes sharing some additional thoughts. Victory, as this judgment has many owners, but I have to share with you that the Spanish resolutions and that the Spanish Agency had not allies in this struggle. Any allies. This is the truth. And that means that Internet users were not allies. When I said Internet users, I am relating to the evangelist of the web, of the Internet, activist, this organization who think that the Internet is a way for freedom of speech. Of course there were allies, maybe data subjects, the victims of this dissemination of information, who complained into the agency. DPAs, the Interprotection Authorities, and especially the Article 29 Working Party, were not allies. National DPAs, all the Revolutionary DPAs around Europe were in a different way. And in fact, Article 29, in its opinion on 2008 on search engines, last used three lines in a footnote. Not talking about special national legislations for relating to the Spanish case. There were not allies. Some national judges, it's true, that react in the same way. Not the Spanish judges, which lodged into the European Court a preliminary ruling. And mass media were not allies. I have to make a difference. Mass media, like complainers, affected by these resolutions, never accept or not accept the first years this kind of resolution. They didn't apply the Spanish agency resolutions, but it's true that they brought me to disseminate the topic. It has a big impact, like information, the right to be forgotten. That's a change. I can share with you that, for example, last year, El País, the main Spanish newspaper, adopted a new style book. In this new style book, specifically a state that recognized the right to be forgotten. And that means, accept explicitly, delisting news, old news, more than 15 years old news, never related to sexual abuse judgments, nor accepting erasure of archives, of course, and accepting not this or abating news. This is the way in which the Spanish agency has many times recommended newspaper to react. And of course Google was not an ally. It always appealed all the Spanish resolutions, in which way? With grounds. It's easy to find these grounds. You have just to go to the opinion of the Advocate General in 2030 to find all of them, and even more. The Advocate General was the best lawyer which has never been able to find. Google telling things. It's true that the Advocate General accepted that the European law was applicable to the search engines, and that them were their process data, they were controller, but he makes the difference between responsibility of the webmasters and not responsibility for the search engines. And the problem is, or the problem was, that how it considered the right to be forgotten. For the Advocate General, main difference with the European court judgment, the right to be forgotten. The intention of someone to delete personal information who never authorized to be published was just a subjective preference. This is the word, a subjective preference. No, he doesn't consider it like a really human right, a fundamental right. Even his head, a terrible expression, that the Article 28 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights just repeat what the directive 95 is saying. And make a big difference with the European court judgment, which really found all its judgment on the consideration that the right to be forgotten considered like this is inside of the right of the personal information right, considered like a fundamental right, like the Article 8 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights. And one second, or a minute, just one second to tell that I think this judgment, in this case, is in a wave, which started with other judgments of the European court. In some way, it's a new, significant, political, jurisprudence, started with the case of Snowden, and we thought of many other cases related to it, data retention cases and all this. Nothing more. Thank you.