Previous 99 / 104 Next

HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS first port of call in seeking a response to claims of entitlement to be forgotten. This is consistent with the Court’s findings in M.L. and W.W. v. Germany (cited above, §§ 89, 97 and 102), in which it stressed “the essential role played by the press in a democratic society” and drew a distinction between search engines, with their “amplifying effect”, on the one hand, and the original publisher of the information, “whose activity is generally at the heart of what freedom of expression is intended to protect”, on the other. The fact is that, prior to today’s judgment, the Court had not upheld any measure removing or altering information published lawfully for journalistic purposes and archived on the website of a news outlet (see paragraph 199 of the judgment). 8. In my view, the Grand Chamber should have adopted a judgment which reflects these realities. Likewise, it should not have ignored the increasing migration of the press towards digital technology and the proliferation of news portals. To my mind, “conventional” press archives, and especially those in print form, will gradually disappear; already, numerous newspapers are published exclusively online. This makes it vital to take account of this trend and to devise a realistic response that is tailored to the demand for access to information to be restricted or even prevented. 9. The distinguishing characteristic of the present case is the fact that it concerns the digital version in the online archives, rather than the original version, of a lawfully published article. It should be added that the article was archived on the website of a media outlet for the purposes of journalism, a matter which goes to the heart of freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 of the Convention. In my view, the method and criteria employed hitherto by the Court in order to resolve a conflict between the rights guaranteed by Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention respectively are not applicable to such cases, at least not in the same way as when the initial publication of an article is being examined. As already mentioned, a body of litigation concerning the “right to be forgotten” is emerging at European level. It is not a matter of claiming a right whose contours have already been defined and which simply requires “fine-tuning”. The Grand Chamber should have taken due account of this context, which differs from that of cases concerning initial publication. It should also have drawn inspiration from the domestic case-law instead of going against a clear trend. 10. In fact, the present case relates more to the “right to remember” under Article 10 than to the “right to be forgotten” under Article 8. In any event, an individual’s claim of entitlement to be forgotten cannot acquire the status of a right to obtain the alteration of facts that were published lawfully and are recorded in the Internet archives. 11. Taking into account the characteristic role of press archives, which is to preserve information, the effects of the passage of time should not be accorded too much weight in determining whether an article in the archives may be altered. Information published about a past event, which is initially relevant only as recent news concerning a person not in the public eye, may 97

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