Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Right to be Forgotten – High Courts Disagree

By Kristof Van Quathem & Inside Privacy on June 2, 2016
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On May 12, 2016, The French High Court (“Cour de Cassation”) rendered a short decision stating that the right to be forgotten does not supersede the freedom of press.  In this case, two brothers took legal action against a famous French daily newspaper.

The two individuals requested that their respective names be removed from search results displayed by the newspaper’s website search engine (not a third party search engine such as Google Search or Bing).  The newspaper’s search engine indexed a link to an article published in 2006 which reported on a sanction imposed by the Council of State on the two brothers.

The High Court ruled that requiring a media organisation to remove information contained in its articles (the names and surnames of individuals) from its archive or to limit access to such articles by de-indexing links from its search engine exceeds the restrictions that may be imposed on the freedom of press.

Two weeks earlier, however, the Belgian High Court (“Cour de Cassation”) came to exactly the opposite conclusion.  In this case, an individual made a claim against the editor of a newspaper, seeking to obtain the removal of his name from the digital version of an article archived on the editor’s website.  The print version of the article had been published in the 1990s and reported on a fatal accident in which the claimant (a physician under influence) had been involved.

The High Court ruled that the freedom of expression laid down in Article 10 of the European Convention Human Rights is not an absolute right and may, in specific circumstances, be subject to interferences by other rights, such as the right to privacy, which includes the right to be forgotten.  According to the court, maintaining a non-anonymised article many years after the event in an online archive, causes disproportionate damage to the individual concerned and outweighs the benefits of a strict application of the freedom of speech and press.

Photo of Kristof Van Quathem Kristof Van Quathem

Kristof Van Quathem advises clients on information technology matters and policy, with a focus on data protection, cybercrime and various EU data-related initiatives, such as the Data Act, the AI Act and EHDS.

Kristof has been specializing in this area for over twenty…

Kristof Van Quathem advises clients on information technology matters and policy, with a focus on data protection, cybercrime and various EU data-related initiatives, such as the Data Act, the AI Act and EHDS.

Kristof has been specializing in this area for over twenty years and developed particular experience in the life science and information technology sectors. He counsels clients on government affairs strategies concerning EU lawmaking and their compliance with applicable regulatory frameworks, and has represented clients in non-contentious and contentious matters before data protection authorities, national courts and the Court of the Justice of the EU.

Kristof is admitted to practice in Belgium.

Read more about Kristof Van QuathemEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Blog:
    Inside Privacy
  • Organization:
    Covington & Burling LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo