BIANCARDI v. ITALY JUDGMENT THE FACTS 2. The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Pescara. He was represented by Mr M. Franceschelli, a lawyer practising in Pescara. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Lorenzo D’Ascia. 4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5. The applicant was the editor-in-chief of an online newspaper. On 29 March 2008 he published an article concerning a fight, followed by a stabbing, which had taken place in a restaurant. 6. The article was headlined “Fight in the restaurant – the head of the police authority closes the W and Z restaurants [which belonged to the persons involved in the fight]”. The “standfirst paragraph” under the headline read as follows: “Pescara – Reputational damage and financial repercussions sustained by the W and Z restaurants belonging to the X family”. 7. The article noted the head of the police authority’s decision to close the restaurants for twenty days. It mentioned the names of the persons involved (two brothers, V.X. and U.X., and their respective sons, A.X and B.X.), as well as the possible motive for the fight, which probably related to a financial quarrel about the ownership of a building. The article reported on the line taken during part of the police questioning of V.X., U.X., A.X and B.X., and noted that U.X. and A.X. had been placed under house arrest, that B.X. had been taken to a detention facility and that a house arrest order issued in respect of V.X. had been lifted. 8. On 6 September 2010, V.X. and the W restaurant sent a formal notice (diffida stragiudiziale) to the applicant asking that the article be removed from the Internet, but to no avail. 9. On 26 October 2010, V.X. and W lodged two claims with the District Court of Chieti against, respectively, Google Italy S.r.l. and the applicant, pursuant to Article 152 of Legislative Decree no. 196 of 30 June 2003 (hereinafter “the Personal Data Protection Code” – see paragraphs 15 et seq. below) and Article 702 bis of the Code of Civil Procedure (Formal requirements regarding the bringing of proceedings before a court and the parties thereto). 10. At the hearing of 23 May 2011, the applicant indicated that he had de-indexed the article in question, with a view to settling the case1. By a The relevant extract of the Supreme Court’s judgment reads as follows: “By a declaration reported in the minutes of the hearing of the 23 May 2011, the representative of the [defendant online newspaper, belonging to the applicant] indicated that the newspaper had proceeded to the cancellation of the indexing [l’avvenuta cancellazione dell’indicizzazione] of the article, for the sole purpose of settling the case.” 1 2