HURBAIN v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT Instance (Civil), 17 November 1997, JLMB [Revue de jurisprudence de Liege, Mons et Bruxelles], 1998, p. 781). Thus, for recognition of a right to be forgotten, the facts must have been disclosed lawfully in the first place and must be of a judicial nature; there can be no contemporary interest in their disclosure; the facts cannot be of historical interest; a certain time must have elapsed between the two disclosures [or, more precisely, with regard to the online archived version of an article published at the time of the events, a certain time must have elapsed between the original dissemination of the article, irrespective of its format, and the request for anonymisation]; and the person concerned must not be a public figure, must have an interest in being reintegrated into society and must have discharged his or her debt.” 29. In the Court of Appeal’s view, its task was “to ascertain whether, in the instant case and in the light of these criteria, the restriction on press freedom stemming from [G.]’s request pursue[d] a legitimate aim and satisfie[d] the proportionality test, in conformity with Article 10 § 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights”. In that connection the Court of Appeal found as follows: “It is not disputed that the original publication of the article in question in the edition of the daily newspaper Le Soir of 10 November 1994 was lawful and that the facts reported on were of a judicial nature. The fresh disclosure, within the meaning specified above, of the facts does not have any value in terms of newsworthiness. [G.] does not hold any public office, and the mere fact that he is a doctor in no way justifies his continued identification in the online article some twenty years after the events. This is illegitimate and disproportionate, since it does not add anything to the value of the article and is liable to cause indefinite and serious harm to [G.]’s reputation by giving him a virtual criminal record, despite the fact that he has not only served his sentence after a final conviction for the offence but has also been rehabilitated. Twenty years after the events, the identity of a person who is not a public figure does not add to the article’s public interest, as the article merely makes a statistical contribution to a public debate on road safety. Contrary to [the applicant]’s submissions, removing [G.]’s first name and surname does not render the information devoid of interest since it will have no impact on the actual substance of the information conveyed, which concerns a tragic road-traffic accident caused in particular by the harmful effects of alcohol. [The applicant]’s arguments concerning the duty to remember and the need to preserve a full and faithful record in the archives are irrelevant. No request was made for the impugned article to be removed from the archives, but simply for the electronic version to be rendered anonymous; the paper archives remain intact and [the applicant] can still ensure the integrity of the original digital version. The events reported on in the article are clearly not of historical significance, as the article relates to an unexceptional – albeit tragic – short news story which is not alleged, still less demonstrated, to have been a source of particular public concern. Lastly, a significant length of time (sixteen years) elapsed between the initial publication of the article in Le Soir in November 1994 and the first formal request for anonymisation, made in a letter dated 15 June 2010; in all, some twenty years have now passed since the article was first published ... 10