HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT an article, the Court found that a new set of criteria needed to be taken into consideration in weighing up the rights at stake, namely the length of time for which the article was kept online, the sensitiveness of the data and the gravity of the sanction imposed. 205. For its part, the Grand Chamber considers that its assessment should take account of the different context of the present case compared with cases concerning initial publication. Regard being had to the general principles referred to above and in particular to the need to preserve the integrity of press archives, and also, to some extent, to the practice of the courts in the Council of Europe member States (see paragraphs 88-132 above), the Court considers that the balancing of these various rights of equal value to be carried out in the context of a request to alter journalistic content that is archived online should take into account the following criteria: (i) the nature of the archived information; (ii) the time that has elapsed since the events and since the initial and online publication; (iii) the contemporary interest of the information; (iv) whether the person claiming entitlement to be forgotten is well known and his or her conduct since the events; (v) the negative repercussions of the continued availability of the information online; (vi) the degree of accessibility of the information in the digital archives; and (vii) the impact of the measure on freedom of expression and more specifically on freedom of the press. 206. In most instances several criteria will need to be taken into account simultaneously in order to determine the protection to be afforded to private life when set against the other interests at stake and against the means employed to give effect to that protection in a particular case (as regards those means, see paragraph 241 below). Thus, the protection of private life in the context of an assertion of entitlement to be forgotten cannot be considered in isolation from the means by which it was implemented in practice. Seen from this perspective, it is a matter of carrying out a balancing exercise with a view to establishing whether or not, regard being had to the respective weight of the competing interests and the extent of the means employed in the specific case, the weight attributed either to the “right to be forgotten”, through the right to respect for private life, or to freedom of expression was excessive. 207. In this context the Court observes that it previously found, in M.L. and W.W. v. Germany (cited above, § 97) – in line with the CJEU’s Google Spain judgment (C-131/12; see paragraphs 71 et seq. above) and subsequent judgments concerning delisting by search engines – as follows: “... it is primarily because of search engines that the information on the applicants held by the media outlets concerned can easily be found by Internet users. Nevertheless, the initial interference with the applicants’ enjoyment of their right to respect for their private life resulted from the decision of the media outlets to publish that information and, especially, to keep it available on their websites, even without the intention of attracting the public’s attention; the existence of search engines merely amplified the scope of the interference. However, because of this amplifying effect on the dissemination of information and the nature of the activity underlying the publication 71