HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT of information on the person concerned, the obligations of search engines towards the individual who is the subject of the information may differ from those of the entity which originally published the information. Consequently, the balancing of the interests at stake may result in different outcomes depending on whether a request for deletion concerns the original publisher of the information, whose activity is generally at the heart of what freedom of expression is intended to protect, or a search engine whose main interest is not in publishing the initial information about the person concerned, but in particular in facilitating identification of any available information on that person and establishing a profile of him or her ...” 208. Furthermore, data subjects are not obliged to contact the original website, either beforehand or simultaneously, in order to exercise their rights vis-à-vis search engines, as these are two different forms of processing, each with its own grounds of legitimacy and with different impacts on the individual’s rights and interests (see also, in this regard, the Guidelines on the implementation of the Google Spain judgment adopted on 26 November by the “Article 29” Working Party – paragraph 76 above). Likewise, the examination of an action against the publisher of a news website cannot be made contingent on a prior request for delisting. In the Court’s view, this distinction between the activities of search engine operators and those of news publishers retains its significance when the Court is examining any interference with freedom of expression, including the public’s right to receive information, based on a claim of entitlement to be forgotten. 209. Lastly, the Court considers that the chilling effect on freedom of the press stemming from the obligation for a publisher to anonymise an article that was initially published in a lawful manner cannot be ignored (see also the position of the third-party interveners – paragraph 165 in fine above). The obligation to review at a later stage the lawfulness of the continued online availability of an article following a request from a person claiming to be a victim of the situation – an obligation which implies weighing up all the interests at stake – entails a risk that the press may refrain in future from keeping reports in its online archives, or that it will omit individualised elements in articles that are likely to be the subject of such a request (see M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, cited above, § 104). Nevertheless, content providers are required to assess and weigh up the interests in terms of freedom of expression and respect for private life only where the person concerned makes an express request to that effect. 210. In that connection the Court reiterates that, in order for Article 8 of the Convention to come into play, an attack on a person’s reputation must attain a certain level of seriousness (see paragraph 189 above). Accordingly, where the person concerned makes a request of this kind, he or she must duly substantiate the seriousness of the attack stemming from the continued online availability of the archived article (see, mutatis mutandis, the judgment of the Spanish Constitutional Court – paragraph 111 above; the “Right to be forgotten I” judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court – paragraph 121 above; and the judgment of 26 June 2021 of the German 72