BIANCARDI v. ITALY JUDGMENT referred to in paragraph 1 is likely to render impossible or seriously impair the achievement of the objectives of that processing ...” E. The European Data Protection Board’s Guidelines on the criteria of the Right to be Forgotten in search engines cases under the GDPR 29. The Guidelines (5/2019) on the criteria of the Right to be Forgotten in the search engines cases under the GDPR (adopted by the European Data Protection Board on 7 July 2020) read as follows in their relevant parts: 4. ... this document aims to interpret the Right to be forgotten in the search engines cases in light of the provisions of Article 17 GDPR (the ‘Right to request de-listing’). Indeed, the Right to be forgotten has been especially enacted under Article 17 GDPR to take into account the Right to request de-listing established in the Costeja judgement [judgment of the CJEU of 13 May 2014 in Google Spain and Google, C-131/12, EU:C:2014:317]. ... 18. According to Article 17.1.a GDPR, a data subject may request a search engine provider, following a search carried out as a general rule on the basis of his or her name, to delist content from its search results, where the data subject’s personal data returned in those search results are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes of the processing by the search engine. 19. This provision enables a data subject to request the de-listing of personal information concerning him or her that have been made accessible for longer than it is necessary for the search engine provider’s processing. Yet, this processing is notably carried out for the purposes of making information more easily accessible for internet users. Within the context of the Right to request de-listing, the balance between the protection of privacy and the interests of Internet users in accessing the information must be undertaken. In particular, it must be assessed whether or not, over the course of time, the personal data have become out-of-date or have not been updated. ...” THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION 30. Under Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant alleged that the interference in his freedom of expression – namely, his right to inform the public – had been unjustified. He also complained that the penalty imposed on him had been excessive. Article 10 of the Convention reads as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. ... 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or 13