HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT press articles were reasonable only if the consequences for the data subject were particularly serious and the measures therefore did not fundamentally call into question the principle that such material should be made available other than in a few isolated cases. 130. In the case before it the German Federal Court of Justice found that there was nothing to indicate that the retention in the defendant’s archives of the initially lawful press articles would have particularly serious consequences for the applicant. F. Case-law of the Italian Court of Cassation 131. The Italian Court of Cassation tends to give a degree of priority to data protection that is in direct proportion to the time that has elapsed since the original publication of the information concerned. 132. The Court of Cassation has ordered the deletion of information only in cases where there was no public interest in retaining the information or where it had in fact been published in breach of the data subject’s right to privacy (judgment no. 15160/2021). It has ruled that if there is a public interest in the accessibility of the information but the dissemination of the data subject’s personal data is not essential (for instance, because the data subject is not a public figure), the only effective remedy is delisting. Deletion of the information should be a measure of last resort (judgment no. 13524/2021). The court has held that it is preferable to update the information or place it in context in the article concerned, which should reflect changes to information that was originally truthful and published lawfully but is no longer of topical relevance. Hence, in the view of the Court of Cassation, the intrinsically historical nature of any archive prohibits its “amputation” through the deletion of information. The fact that online archives are rapidly accessible merely justifies a special remedy for the data subject that does not affect the retention of the material as originally published. This also ensures that the print and digital versions of the archive remain identical (judgments nos. 5525/2012, 7559/2020 and 9147/2020). THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION 133. The applicant alleged that the order for him to anonymise the archived version of the impugned article on the website of the newspaper Le Soir constituted a violation of freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom to impart information. He relied on Article 10 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide: 48