The commentary on the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Hurbain v. Belgium is dedicated to the issues of recognition of the right to be forgotten in Russian and European legal systems, comparative analysis of legal orders, and the search for objective and significant criteria to establish a balance of conflicting interests related to access to information and respect for private life. The case concerns electronic archives of the media and the right to be forgotten. Following the civil proceedings, the applicant, who was a publisher of a daily newspaper, was obliged to anonymise an article published in 1994 in print edition and made available in 2008 on the Internet to implement the “right to be forgotten”. The article mentioned the full name of G., a driver responsible for a fatal accident. The Court recognised the negative consequences of retaining certain information posted on the Internet, including significant impact on how the interested person was perceived by public opinion and risks associated with creating a profile of that person. It also clarified that the claim related to the right to be forgotten is not an independent right protected by the Convention.

In considering the key question of balance between publishers and individuals quoted in the press and retained in their archives, the Court emphasised the manifestation of a European consensus regarding the importance of archives remaining authentic, reliable, and integrated so that the press can fulfill its mission in modern society. At the same time, when referring to the “right to be forgotten”, the obligation to anonymise an article may fall under the “duty and responsibility” placed on the press. Anonymisation of press archives did not impose an excessive burden, while constituting the most effective means of protecting the applicant’s privacy. Among the criteria that the Court considered important, it particularly highlighted the need to consider whether the article continued to contribute to debates of public interest: whether it served any historical, scientific, or statistical interest in view of the length of time elapsing since the request for the “right to be forgotten”. Public interest cannot be reduced to a thirst for information about private life. It is mainly necessary to take into account historical and scientific purposes.