HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT situation, either when the article first appeared in 1994 or when it was placed online in 2008 (see, conversely, M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, cited above, §§ 108-09). On the contrary, all the steps taken by him demonstrate a desire to stay out of the media spotlight (see paragraphs 15 and 21 in fine above). (v) The negative repercussions of the continued availability of the information online 231. As observed above, in cases concerning the protection of a person’s social or professional reputation under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court has held that an attack on a person’s reputation must attain a certain level of seriousness and be made in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life (see paragraph 189 above). In that connection it notes the applicant’s submission to the effect that limitations on access to information which members of the public have the right to obtain, as a matter of public interest, have to be justified by particularly compelling reasons, and his contention that any person wishing to restrict that access must demonstrate the actual existence of significant harm, especially if the information is public in nature (see paragraph 140 above and, to similar effect, the comments of the sixteen third-party interveners – paragraph 166 above). 232. In the Court’s view, these considerations are relevant in the present case, which concerns the anonymisation of content stored in a digital press archive rather than a request for delisting addressed to a search engine. Accordingly, in order to justify the alteration of an article stored in a digital press archive, the person concerned must be able to make a duly substantiated claim of serious harm to his or her private life (see paragraph 210 above). 233. In this connection, with regard to judicial information, the Court considers it important in assessing the damage to the person concerned to take into account the consequences of the continued availability of the information for that person’s reintegration into society (see paragraph 194 above, and M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, cited above, § 100; see also the judgment of the High Court of England and Wales cited at paragraph 104 above). Against this background, and in close conjunction with the length of time that has elapsed since the information was published, it should be ascertained whether the person’s conviction has been removed from the criminal records and he or she has been rehabilitated, bearing in mind that what is at stake here is not just the interest of the convicted person but also that of society itself, and that individuals who have been convicted may legitimately aspire to being fully reintegrated into society once their sentence has been served (see, as regards the domestic law, paragraph 55 above). Nevertheless, in the Court’s view, the fact that a person has been rehabilitated cannot by itself justify recognising a “right to be forgotten”. 234. In the present case the Liège Court of Appeal held that the electronic archiving of an article concerning the commission of an offence should not 78