SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION about the infamous Candelária massacre, despite the fact that Jurandir had been acquitted of all charges. Globo was ordered to indemnify Jurandir for using his image and violating his “right to be forgotten”. Finally, in P.H. v. O.G., the Belgian Court of Cassation ruled that the right to respect for private life included the “right to be forgotten”, and it upheld an obligation on a newspaper to anonymize the name of a person in the digital version of a 1994 article. The case concerned a doctor who had been convicted for his involvement in a fatal car accident that year. Around the time of the accident, an article was published about him in the newspaper Le Soir. In 2008, the newspaper created a public online archive of all of its articles since 1989. This made it possible for anyone to find the 1994 article by searching the doctor’s full name on Google or the website of Le Soir. The Belgian Court of Cassation upheld lower instance The Belgian Court of decisions that ruled that anonymization of the digital version of the article struck a fair balance between the Cassation upheld lower right to freedom of expression and the right to respect instance decisions that ruled for private life. The Court of Cassation reasoned that that anonymization of the the online archiving of the article amounted to a new publication of the story, which could cause dispropordigital version of the article tionate harm to the doctor’s reputation. struck a fair balance between the right to freedom of expression and the right to respect for private life. Other courts rejected similar claims. For instance, in M. L. and W. W. v. Germany, the ECtHR rejected an application concerning violation of the right to privacy and a demand for the “right to be forgotten”, with respect to a murder conviction under Article 8 of the ECHR. The case concerned two German individuals, M.L. and W.W., who were sentenced to life imprisonment on account of the murder of a popular German actor in 1991. In 2000, they had sought to have the case reopened but had been unsuccessful, subsequent to which local media had reported, on the occasion of the anniversary of the murder, on the story and the applicant’s attempt to have the case reopened at the time. In 2007, the individuals sought an anonymization of those media reports. The German Federal Court ruled that they were not entitled to the anonymization, on the ground that doing so infringed the right of the public to be informed of matters of public interest. The individuals later approached ECtHR, which upheld the German Federal Court’s finding that there is an ongoing public interest in events that occurred in the past. The Court concluded that the public’s right to freedom of expression outweighed the right to privacy and thus, did not constitute an infringement of their right under article 8. And in the case of Plaintiff X v. Google, the Supreme Court of Japan recognized that, in certain circumstances, a person could require that a search engine operator de-index URLs and other information concerning him/her from search results, but rejected the petition. The case concerned a man who had been fined in November 2011 on charges relating to paying for child prostitution. This information was reported on several websites at the time and, in 2014, the man requested that Google de-index information concerning his fine from search results. Google did not grant the request. 17