HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT the “right to be forgotten”, the matter concerned information that was true and of a public nature, only substantial harm could justify altering the archive. Secondly, the Court should bear in mind the very nature of archives, which were designed to preserve media reports, including personal data, despite the passage of time. Directly related to this was the significance of published information over time, as the individual in question could become a public figure or an article could acquire significance for academic, scientific or historical research. Furthermore, old news reports could provide meaningful comparison with recent events or acquire new meanings. Information about court proceedings should also remain available. Thirdly, according to the third-party interveners, the Court should consider the public’s right to access information published by third parties, except when that information had an essentially private or defamatory character or when publication was not justified for other reasons. D. The Court’s assessment 1. Existence of an interference “prescribed by law” and pursuing a “legitimate aim” 167. The Court notes that it is not in dispute between the parties that the order for the applicant to anonymise the archived version of the impugned article on the website of the newspaper Le Soir amounted to interference with the exercise of his right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press, as protected by Article 10 of the Convention. 168. Furthermore, in the Grand Chamber proceedings the applicant did not reiterate the arguments submitted before the Chamber concerning the alleged lack of a foreseeable legal basis for the interference. Accordingly, the Grand Chamber sees no reason to depart from the Chamber’s findings in this regard. 169. Likewise, the existence of a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the reputation or rights of others (in this instance G.’s right to respect for his private life), is not disputed by the parties. The Court agrees with this assessment. 170. Consequently, it remains for the Grand Chamber to examine whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society”. 2. Whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society” (a) Preliminary considerations regarding the scope of the case and the terminology used (i) Scope of the case 171. It is important at the outset to highlight the distinguishing features of this case, which will have a decisive influence on the Court’s assessment. 59