Previous 42 / 104 Next

HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT having access to the information was inherently of lesser value than the individual’s privacy rights. The High Court also found that Google could not claim an exemption for activities carried out for journalistic purposes. 103. In the light of the circumstances of the case, the High Court found that NT1 was a public figure with a limited role in public life. The information concerning his criminal conviction was not of a private nature since it did not relate to his personal life, but was of public interest in that it concerned a business crime for which he had been prosecuted and convicted. Although the information was sensitive, the harm allegedly suffered by NT1 was linked to his business and related to periods predating the time when he could complain of the processing of the information by Google. Furthermore, NT1 could not lay claim to any protection of his right to privacy since the information had been made public in the context of crime and court reporting in the media, which was a natural and foreseeable result of his own criminal behaviour. 104. The High Court also examined in detail the effect of rehabilitation in the context of claiming a “right to be forgotten”. In its view, rehabilitation represented the point in time from which the convicted offender’s privacy rights were engaged by any use or disclosure of information about the crime, conviction or sentence. The court further found that a person’s rehabilitation carried some weight in the examination of a request for delisting, but still needed to be weighed against free speech and freedom of information considerations. In the case at hand the High Court took into consideration the exceptional circumstances in which NT1 had been rehabilitated following a recent change in the law, his misleading conduct after leaving prison, and the fact that he did not accept his guilt and had shown no remorse for his actions. Noting also that NT1 remained in business, the High Court found that the information concerning his past remained relevant to the assessment of his honesty by members of the public. It therefore dismissed his delisting claim. 105. Although it followed the same line of reasoning in relation to NT2, the High Court upheld the delisting claim in his case. It found, in particular, that the information in question had become out of date, irrelevant and of no sufficient legitimate interest to users of Google Search to justify its continued availability. Moreover, NT2 had been rehabilitated in accordance with the usual rules. Lastly, his current business activities were in a field quite different from that in which he had been operating at the time. His past offending was therefore of little if any relevance to persons with whom he might have business dealings. D. Spanish Constitutional Court judgment of 4 June 2018 (no. 58/2018) 106. The judgment concerned a news report published in 1985 by the newspaper El País, and subsequently made available online in the 40

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