Sure thing. The “Right to be Forgotten” actually sprang from a 2014 case in Spain. Google Spain v. AEPD and Mario Costeja González was about a man who wanted search results that linked to old newspaper articles about a fine he’d received. The European Court of Justice ruled that search engines could remove links if the information was no longer relevant, and that the right to privacy overrides commercial interests. That decision was a key influence when the EU drafted the General Data Protection Regulation in 2016, embedding the right into the GDPR so individuals can ask for personal data to be erased under certain conditions. It was a big shift from earlier directives, putting a stronger emphasis on personal control over data.

Start with the Spanish case itself. The Court of Justice of the European Union has a searchable database – case law on eur-lex.europa.eu. Look up “Google Spain v. AEPD and Mario Costeja González” (C-131/12). The judgment is public, so you can read the full text there, but a quick summary is that the Court said individuals have a right to ask search engines to remove links that are no longer relevant, and that this right can override commercial interests. From there you can trace how the idea fed into the GDPR drafting. The European Parliament’s debates and committee reports are on the European Parliament’s website. Search the “Right to be forgotten” keyword in the “Questions and answers” and “Committee on Legal Affairs” sections between 2013 and 2015. Those PDFs and transcripts are public and show the debates that shaped the “Article 17” text. For the UK angle, the “Google v. Ormiston” case was decided by the UK Court of Appeal in 2018, and the judgment is posted on the UK Supreme Court’s website. The court’s decision cites the Spanish case and the GDPR provisions. The full judgment is there; you can also read the “Key Points” summary on the Supreme Court’s website for a shorter version. If you want the original drafts of the GDPR, the European Commission’s “Draft Regulation (2014/1049)” is available on eur-lex.europa.eu. You’ll see the “Right to be forgotten” wording in the draft and how it changed before the final regulation was adopted in 2016. Finally, for behind‑the‑scenes memos, the European Commission’s internal documents are usually not public, but the “Commission’s working papers” from the “Commission of the European Union – Data Protection and Privacy” are available on the Commission’s website. Look for the “Data protection policy” documents from 2014–2015 – they sometimes include draft memos that explain the policy reasoning. So, in short: use eur‑lex for court judgments and legislative drafts, the European Parliament’s website for debate transcripts, and the UK Supreme Court site for the UK case. Those are all public, so you can pull the full texts yourself and then map how the concept evolved.

Sounds good—let’s hit the books. Dive into C‑131/12 first and jot down how they balance relevance against privacy. Then compare that to the 2014/1049 draft and see how the wording morphs into Article 17. After that, we’ll pull in the UK case to close the loop. I’ve got the links ready whenever you need them. Let's get started!

Sure thing. Grab the C‑131/12 judgment from eur‑lex, look for the sections where they talk about “relevance” and the part that says privacy can override commercial interest. Then open the 2014/1049 draft—compare those phrases to see if they tighten up or loosen up. After that, pull the UK case (Google v. Ormiston or the 2018 Court of Appeal decision) and note where it cites the Spanish case and Article 17. Once you have those snippets, lay them side by side and we can see the evolution. Let me know when you’ve got them, and I’ll help you stitch the narrative.