CNIL demands that when it orders content to be “forgotten” from search results, this decision must be given effect worldwide – the results must be made unavailable to all users internationally, regardless of where they are accessing internet search engines.

It argues that failing to remove links with global effect creates an “absurd” situation where material which cannot be shown in Europe to protect a person’s right to be forgotten remains available globally, undermining that right.

But the effect of CNIL’s decision is to enforce France’s right to be forgotten beyond its borders and in countries which do not even recognise the right, raising concerns about country-specific laws limiting what is available on the internet for everyone else.

Google is challenging the decision on the grounds that the French approach would create a precedent for governments to force worldwide removal of content which was illegal in their own countries but legal in others.

The case raises the issue of what would happen to the internet if countries with sharply diverging definitions of acceptable and lawful online speech were able to enforce their standards globally by forcing Google to remove content elsewhere in the world.

Were this to happen, the information available on the internet would have to comply with the world’s strictest legal restrictions, with serious implications for freedom of expression, particularly in the developing world.

A group of 18 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) specialising in defending human rights and online freedom of expression in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe intervened in the case at the Conseil d’Etat, with the assistance of barristers Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC, Jude Bunting, Jennifer Robinson and associate Nani Jansen Reventlow, all of whom have expertise in freedom of expression law and are members of Doughty Street International members.

The NGOs’ intervention brief raised concern about the impact of CNIL’s decision on the many people across the world whose rights they protect, and on their ability to do their work.

It was important for them to be able to rely on the free exchange of ideas and information online so as to carry out their important human rights work, they argue, pointing out that the internet is particularly important to those working in countries where restrictive laws limit the information available in the local media.