HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT dependency) had caused to their personal and professional reputation. The court therefore judged that damage to be disproportionate to the limited current interest in the news report. Accordingly, de-indexing the article in question on the newspaper’s internal search engine so as to exclude it from a search using the names of the persons concerned had been an appropriate, necessary and proportionate measure. 112. The Constitutional Court added that, in any event, the information could be located by means of a thematic, time-based or geographical search or any other kind of search for journalistic purposes. Furthermore, following de-indexing the information continued to be available in print and in digital form, as the court-imposed restriction related solely to a specific means of accessing it. The proportionality of the measure was therefore ensured. In those circumstances, altering the content of the information by removing the names or rendering it anonymous, which would entail more serious interference with freedom of the press than simply limiting the dissemination of the information, was no longer necessary. E. Case-law of the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) and the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) 1. Federal Constitutional Court judgment 1 BvR 16/13 of 6 November 2019 (“Right to be forgotten I”) 113. In this first judgment, the Federal Constitutional Court examined the scope and content of the “right to be forgotten” in the context of a dispute between the complainant and a media outlet. The case originated in an action seeking to prohibit the defendant from mentioning the complainant’s name in reports on the offence (murder) which the latter had committed and of which he had been convicted in 1982. The three articles dealing with the case, which were published in the print edition of the magazine Der Spiegel in 1982 and 1983 and which referred to the complainant by name, had been available in the defendant’s online archives free of charge and without access restrictions since 1999. When the complainant’s name was entered into one of the most commonly used Internet search engines, the articles in question were listed among the top search results. The complainant had first become aware of this in 2009, seven years after his release. The Federal Court of Justice had rejected the action, taking the view that the general public had a legitimate interest in obtaining information on significant events of contemporary history – such as the complainant’s murder trial, which was inextricably linked to his name and person – by accessing the unaltered original news reports. 114. The Federal Constitutional Court held that the standard of review under constitutional law in respect of protection against possible breaches of fundamental rights stemming from the dissemination of articles and 43