Previous 1 / 24 Next

FIRST SECTION CASE OF BIANCARDI v. ITALY (Application no. 77419/16) JUDGMENT Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Civil judgment against newspaper editor for refusal over long period to de-index article on criminal case against private individuals, easily accessible by typing names into Internet search engine • Obligation to de-index material applicable not only to Internet search engine providers but also to administrators of newspaper or journalistic archives accessible via Internet • Information on sensitive data easily accessible online for eight months after formal request to remove it by persons concerned • Sanction not excessive • No requirement to permanently remove article from Internet or to anonymise it STRASBOURG 25 November 2021 FINAL 25/02/2022 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Biancardi v. Italy

Case Law

Country

Italy

Country Location

Latitude: 42.82063999428387

Longitude: 12.730955243111072

Country Location (linked Case Law): Italy

Decision Date: Nov 25, 2021

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Admissible

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Law or Action Upheld

Keywords

Data Protection and Retention
Defamation / Reputation
Digital Rights
Freedom of Press
Privacy
Right to be Forgotten

Judicial Body: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Court Name: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Case Number: 77419/16

Case Summary: The European Court of Human Rights unanimously decided that de-indexing requests against online publishers can be successful and in the present case, did not violate the publisher’s freedom of expression protected by Article 10. The applicant was an editor-in-chief of an online newspaper that published an article describing a fight at a restaurant and the criminal proceedings that ensued. The person described in the article requested the applicant to remove and de-index the article which was not granted. The Italian courts held that by not de-indexing the article, the publisher had made the article easily accessible online for a significant period and violated the applicant’s right to reputation protected by Article 8. The ECtHR upheld the decision. It also upheld the non-pecuniary damages granted to the applicant against the editor, in consideration of the sensitive nature of the personal data published. It found that publishing supplementary or clarificatory information would be insufficient to balance the applicant’s right’s under Article 8 against the publisher’s rights under Article 10.

Case Significance: The decision contracts freedom of expression. The Court clarified that de-indexing requests are not limited to search engines and can be brought against news publishers, including journalists, maintaining online archives. The court considered factors such as sensitivity of the data published, the private nature of the applicant, the fact that the article was not updated and that the request was for de-indexing, not removal, to conclude that the applicants right to reputation under Article 8 outweighed the applicants right to publish information under Article 10.

Jacob van de Kerkhof, writing for Strasbourg Observers, further noted that the judgment widens the scope of the right to be forgotten weighing in favor of the right to private life over the right to freedom of expression when the case concerns de-indexation. “That weight is reinforced by a seemingly shorter period in which an article can be considered ‘newsworthy’, especially when the claimant is relatively unknown to the public.”

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Related Caselaw (self)

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: Jul 3, 2024

Primary Documents

Judgment
English
Download View