HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS of their judgment to the facts of the present case by referring to the continued existence of the paper archives, overlook the reality described above (see paragraphs 7-8) and refrain from addressing the systemic issue. 27. Lastly, the chilling effect on freedom of the press stemming from a requirement for a publisher to anonymise a lawful article cannot be ignored (see paragraph 5 above; see also, in this context, the position of the sixteen third-party interveners, summarised in paragraph 165 of the judgment). Indeed, an obligation to review at a later stage the lawfulness of keeping an article online following a request from a person claiming to be a victim of the situation entails the risk, inter alia, that the press may refrain in future from keeping reports in its online archives or that it will omit individualised elements in articles that are likely to be the subject of such a request at a later stage (see M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, cited above, § 104). This would be detrimental to press freedom as a whole and thus to the “right to remember”. 28. Although the majority refer to the risk of a chilling effect in the principles of the judgment (see paragraph 209), this vital element does not appear to have played a meaningful role in the application of the principles to the case at hand (see paragraph 254 of the judgment). By opting merely to assess the impact on the newspaper Le Soir, the majority omit to draw the necessary and coherent inferences and take no account whatsoever of the potential impact on other press articles and on the functioning of the media in general. 29. In my view, in the light of the foregoing considerations, the anonymisation order made by the domestic courts in the present case likewise did not satisfy the proportionality requirement under Article 10 of the Convention. III. Conclusion 30. In view of the factors analysed above – the absence of a pressing social need justifying the interference with freedom of expression and the non-fulfilment of the proportionality requirement – I conclude that the order to anonymise the electronic version of the impugned article on the newspaper’s website was not “necessary in a democratic society” and that, accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. 102