Previous 32 / 104 Next

HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT 86. Finally, it must be stated that not only does the ground, under Article 7 of Directive 95/46, justifying the publication of a piece of personal data on a website not necessarily coincide with that which is applicable to the activity of search engines, but also, even where that is the case, the outcome of the weighing of the interests at issue to be carried out under Article 7(f) and subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of the directive may differ according to whether the processing carried out by the operator of a search engine or that carried out by the publisher of the web page is at issue, given that, first, the legitimate interests justifying the processing may be different and, second, the consequences of the processing for the data subject, and in particular for his private life, are not necessarily the same. 87. Indeed, since the inclusion in the list of results, displayed following a search made on the basis of a person’s name, of a web page and of the information contained on it relating to that person makes access to that information appreciably easier for any internet user making a search in respect of the person concerned and may play a decisive role in the dissemination of that information, it is liable to constitute a more significant interference with the data subject’s fundamental right to privacy than the publication on the web page.” 2. Guidelines on the implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union judgment in the case of Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González (C-131/12) 76. In the Guidelines on the implementation of the CJEU’s judgment in the case of Google Spain (C-131/12), adopted on 26 November 2014, the “Article 29” Data Protection Working Party stated as follows: “11. Individuals are not obliged to contact the original site, either previously or simultaneously, in order to exercise their rights towards the search engines. There are two different processing operations, with differentiated legitimacy grounds and also with different impacts on the individual’s rights and interests. The individual may consider that it is better, given the circumstances of the case, to first contact the original webmaster to request the deletion of information or the application of ‘no index’ protocols to it, but the judgment does not require this. ... 18. Search engines included in web pages do not produce the same effects as ‘external’ search engines. On the one hand, they only recover the information contained on specific web pages. On the other, and even if a user looks for the same person in a number of web pages, internal search engines will not establish a complete profile of the affected individual and the results will not have a serious impact on him, Therefore, as a rule the right to de-listing should not apply to search engines with a restricted field of action, particularly in the case of search tools of websites of newspapers. ... 21. From the material point of view, and as it’s been already mentioned, the ruling expressly states that the right only affects the results obtained on searches made by the name of the individual and never suggests that the complete deletion of the page from the indexes of the search engine is needed. The page should still be accessible using any other terms of search. It is worth mentioning that the ruling uses the term ‘name’, 30

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Hurbain v. Belgium

Case Law

Country

Belgium

Country Location

Latitude: 50.855421148205785

Longitude: 4.557127118111282

Country Location (linked Case Law): Belgium

Decision Date: Jul 4, 2023

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Inadmissible
Motion Denied

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Injunction, Order, or Motion Denied/Vacated

Keywords

Access to Information
Digital Rights
Freedom of Press
Media/Press
Privacy, Data Protection and Retention
Right to be Forgotten

Judicial Body: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Court Name: The Grand Chamber, European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Case Number: Application no. 57292/16

Case Summary: The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in a majority judgment, held that an order to anonymise an article in a newspaper’s electronic archive (which referred to a person’s involvement in a fatal road traffic accident for which they were subsequently convicted) did not breach the applicant publisher’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicant, Patrick Hurbain’s newspaper Le Soir published an article reporting on a series of fatal car accidents which had occurred in a short period of time. It mentioned the full name of one of the drivers involved, “G” who successfully sued the applicant and received an order in their favour. The ECtHR upheld the decision of the domestic courts and emphasized that a person who is not a public figure may acquire notoriety in the context of a criminal process/trial but that may decline with the passage of time, with the effect that they may be able to rely on the right to be forgotten in order to go back to being someone who is unknown to the public. In reaching such conclusion, the court tailored a seven-criteria test which is to be applied in right to be forgotten cases.

Case Significance: Decision (including concurring or dissenting opinions) establishes influential or persuasive precedent outside its jurisdiction.

In this judgment the Grand Chamber has provided important clarification as to the approach to be taken to “right to be forgotten” requests directed towards content providers and, in particular, towards media archives. The judgment provides clear criteria for deciding whether or not a right to be forgotten request should be accepted by the operators of a media archive. Those criteria have been specifically tailored to cases in which “right to be forgotten” requests are made against content providers rather than search engines.

Attention is drawn to the following points in relation to “right to be forgotten” clams:

The right is not likely to be available in respect of reports of the most serious criminal offences, or ones of historical or statistical significance.

The longer the time that has passed the stronger the claim will be.

Current contribution to a debate of public interest is not decisive – historical and scientific value is also important.

There must be a properly duly substantiated claim of serious harm to private life – rehabilitation is important but not enough on its own.

The measure which is least restrictive of press freedom must be used.

The majority were not persuaded that by the dissenters view that the Court should recognise an Article 10 “right to remember” (see in particular the concurring opinion of Judge Krenc, at [23]).

The Grand Chamber’s approach is very similar to that which is undertaken in a right to erasure case brought under Article 17 of the UK GDPR. Article 17(3) provides for erasure requests to be refused where the processing is necessary for exercising the right to freedom of expression and information and for archiving; that demands a balancing exercise. The European Data Protection Board’s Guidelines 5/2019 on the criteria of the Right to be Forgotten in the search engines cases under the GDPR (part 1) [pdf] and the CJEU have laid down criteria for this balancing exercise (e.g., C-136/17 GC v CNIL [77]). The Strasbourg Court and the CJEU have embraced each other’s jurisprudence in this context and it is likely that the outcome of the balancing exercise would be the same under both regimes.

Decisions of the Court of Human Rights are persuasive but not binding in domestic law but Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention are the “very content” of the tort of misuse of private information and a definitive decision on the balancing of these rights is one which the English courts are likely to follow.

Although the decision has attracted criticism from free speech campaigners such as Media Defence and Article 19 the Grand Chamber struck a careful balance between free speech and privacy rights. As noted above, the Grand Chamber considered that the obligation for a publisher to anonymise an article that had been published initially in a lawful manner fell within the “duties and responsibilities” of the press which are expressly referred to in Article 10(2). The decision confirms that media organisations need not proactively monitor their archives on an ongoing basis or go back and remove names from historical articles. As is the case under data protection law, they need only assess the competing rights and interests in response to a right to be forgotten request.

The judgment suggests that right to be forgotten requests/claims may be more likely to be regarded as proportionate (and thus succeed) where they are narrowly targeted to focus on getting an article anonymised rather than removed entirely. The case makes it clear that a person seeking to invoke the “right to be forgotten” in respect of media archives faces a substantial hurdle. This is likely to be difficult to overcome in the case of a public figure or someone involved in an event of historical significance.

Related Caselaw (self)

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

CIPIT
Columbia

Date Updated: Jan 30, 2024

Primary Documents

CASE-OF-HURBAIN-v.-BELGIUM-1.pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Hurbain v. Belgium

Primary Documents

Notifications