HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT
theories, homeopathy, esoterism, spiritual healing and electromagnetism. In
his view, the court had not identified any specific topic of public interest
raised by the defendant in her remarks that would justify publishing
information concerning his private life.
96. The Court of Cassation allowed the appeal and set aside the lower
court’s decision as lacking a legal basis. Referring to this Court’s case-law
(Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC] (no. 40454/07,
§§ 99, 100 and 102, ECHR 2015 (extracts)), and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC]
(no. 56925/08, § 64, 29 March 2016)), the Court of Cassation took the view
that the court hearing the case was required to weigh up the competing
fundamental rights in the light of the interests at stake and to opt for the
solution that best protected the more legitimate interest. The Court of
Cassation held that when dealing with requests for the removal of information
concerning judicial proceedings the courts should seek to ascertain whether
the information that had been published formed part of a debate on a matter
of general interest, justifying fresh disclosure of individuals’ criminal
convictions. The fact that the information was already in the public domain
did not necessarily remove the protection of Article 8 of the Convention, as
the interest in publishing the information had to be weighed against
considerations relating to private life. These came into play in situations
where information had been gathered about a specific individual, where
personal data had been processed or used, or where the information in
question had been made public in a way or to an extent that went beyond what
the persons concerned could reasonably expect (Satakunnan Markkinapörssi
Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, §§ 134-36, 27 June 2017).
3. Thirteen judgments delivered by the French Conseil d’État on
6 December 2019
97. In thirteen judgments dated 6 December 2019 the Conseil d’État
defined the conditions governing respect for the right to delisting on the
Internet as provided for by the GDPR, thus providing a guide on how to apply
the “right to be forgotten”. The judgments were adopted in the light of the
judgment delivered by the CJEU on 24 September 2019 in response to a
request from the Conseil d’État (see paragraphs 81 et seq. above).
98. According to the Conseil d’État, the main principles comprising the
framework within which search engine operators were required to respect the
right to delisting were as follows:
(i) the courts had to decide taking into account the circumstances and the
law applicable on the date of their decision;
(ii) the delisting of search results that linked an individual’s name to a
web page containing personal data concerning him or her was a right;
(iii) the “right to be forgotten” was not absolute, and a balance had to be
struck between the right to privacy of the person making the request and the
public’s right to receive information;
38