HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT purposes and subsequently archived for the same purposes (the applicant also cited, at European Union level, recital 153 and Articles 17 and 85 of the GDRP – see paragraph 69 above). The applicant stressed that, by contrast, the listing of content by search engines, which was primarily an economic activity, did not come within the scope of the exception “for journalistic purposes”. 143. Referring to the Guidelines adopted by the “Article 29” Working Party in 2014 (see paragraphs 77 and 78 above) – which, in his view, could be applied to publishers also, albeit with a degree of flexibility – the applicant added that the status of the data subject had to be taken into account. In the present case, although G. was not a public figure, the fact that he was a doctor meant that he was a prominent individual who played a role in local public life. Accordingly, there were grounds for allowing the public to search for information concerning his role and activities in public life. 144. As to the severity of the measure in issue, the applicant argued that when the rights at stake were being weighed up the possible existence of measures less restrictive of freedom of expression was a major factor to be considered, while bearing in mind the aim pursued by the person claiming a “right to be forgotten”. In the applicant’s view, alongside the “right to be forgotten”, there was a duty for search engines and news outlets to “organise memory”, which entailed a sliding scale of measures to be implemented when dealing with requests to be forgotten concerning accurate journalistic content. On the lower end of the scale was delisting by search engines and de-indexing by publishers, while on the upper end was the outright removal of the content. In the applicant’s submission, the approach to be taken in applying the “right to be forgotten” was the real issue raised by the present case. 145. In the present case, although G. had cited the resurfacing of the archived article on Google as the reason for his request for anonymisation, he had not at any stage submitted a delisting request to the search engines (the applicant also referred to M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, cited above, § 114). In the applicant’s view, the domestic courts enjoyed some discretion in that regard and – subject to respect for the disposition principle which prohibited them from ruling ultra petita or extra petita – had to take into consideration the actual effectiveness of the available solutions and whether they could reasonably be imposed on the news outlet concerned. In the present case, in the applicant’s submission, the Belgian courts had failed to comply with that obligation. In the instant case the subsidiarity principle should have entailed rendering the archived material inaccessible rather than immediately interfering with the integrity of its content; as a general rule, and as confirmed by the majority of European court rulings (the applicant referred to M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, cited above; the CJEU judgment in Google Spain (C-131/12) – see paragraphs 71 et seq. above; the CJEU judgment in GC and Others (C-136/17) – see paragraphs 81 et seq. above; and the European Data Protection Board Guidelines of 7 July 2020 – see paragraph 52