HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT connection, see also Recommendation Rec(2012)3 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the protection of human rights with regard to search engines – paragraph 66 above, and the CJEU judgment in Google Spain (C-131/12) – paragraph 74 above); and secondly, if the information is not placed in context, this may mean that an individual consulting an online article about another individual receives a fragmented and distorted picture of the reality. What is more, irrespective of the actual frequency of searches linked to a particular name, another possible consequence of the online publication of information concerning a person is the constant threat and the resulting fear for that person of being unexpectedly confronted with his or her past again at any time. 193. Against this background, the question to be addressed by the Court is whether Article 8 affords protection against these negative effects and, if so, to what extent. 194. In that regard it should be noted at the outset that the concept of a “right to be forgotten” has many facets, that it is still under construction and that its application in practice has already acquired a number of distinctive features. First of all, the “right to be forgotten”, defined as an aspect of the right to respect for private life, first emerged in national judicial practice in the context of republication by the press of previously disclosed information of a judicial nature, with the person claiming a “right to be forgotten” effectively seeking to obtain a judgment against the person who republished the information. It appears that in the present case the Liège Court of Appeal applied the criteria previously established in the domestic case-law regarding this aspect of the “right to be forgotten” (see paragraph 28 above). For its part the Court, without making express reference to this concept of a “right”, previously held that after a certain time had elapsed, and in particular when a convicted person was approaching the end of his or her sentence or, still more so, when he or she had been finally released, that person had an interest in no longer being confronted with his or her past acts, with a view to being reintegrated into society. The lapse of time between conviction, release and republication was a decisive factor in the Court’s examination (see Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria, no. 35841/02, §§ 68-69, 7 December 2006, and, recently, Mediengruppe Österreich GmbH v. Austria, no. 37713/18, §§ 68-70, 26 April 2022). 195. Subsequently, a new aspect of this “right to be forgotten” emerged in national judicial practice in the context of the digitisation of news articles, resulting in their widespread dissemination on the websites of the newspapers concerned. The effect of this dissemination was simultaneously magnified by the listing of websites by search engines. In judicial practice this aspect, known as the “right to be forgotten online”, has concerned requests for the removal or alteration of data available on the Internet or for limitations on access to those data, directed against news publishers or search engine operators. In such cases, the issue is not the resurfacing of the information but 66