📰 Right to be forgotten : how should the fundamental rights to respect for private life and the protection of personal data be balanced against the fundamental right to freedom of information ?

This was the question before the First Civil Chamber of the French Court of Cassation in a judgment delivered on June 3, 2026, which further clarifies the Court’s case law on the subject.

A former executive of a football club had been criminally convicted in 2009 for misappropriating public funds intended to promote grassroots sports. In 2011, the Court of Appeal reduced his sentence and, among other measures, ordered that the conviction not be entered in Bulletin No. 2 of his criminal record.

These judicial proceedings were reported in an online newspaper article that remained accessible more than ten years after the events. In 2020, the former executive brought proceedings against the newspaper, asking the court primarily to order the removal of the article, alternatively to anonymize it, and, as a further alternative, to de-index it from search engines.

In its judgment, published in the official Bulletin, the Court of Cassation gave a detailed response to the arguments raised by the claimant. It relied on Articles 10 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 9 of the French Civil Code, Articles 11 and 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and applied Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in particular Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

In light of these provisions, the Court reaffirmed that the right to respect for private life and the right to freedom of expression enjoy equal status.

The Court held that any request to alter archived online journalistic content requires judges to balance these competing rights of equal value by reference to the seven criteria established by the European Court of Human Rights in Hurbain v. Belgium (July 4, 2023, No. 57292/16, §205). It also confirmed that the burden of proving the seriousness of the alleged interference rests with the claimant.

Regarding the request for removal of the article, the Court found that the Court of Appeal had properly carried out the required balancing exercise, “without reversing the burden of proof or misconstruing the legal effect of exempting a conviction from inclusion in Bulletin No. 2 of the criminal record.”

As to the request for anonymization, the Court of Appeal had observed, among other things, that the information retained a legitimate public interest because it contributed to the public debate on the relationship between money and sport. It further held that identifying the former executive by name was an essential component of the information

and that mentioning his identity and criminal convictions fell within the scope of the public’s right to information and freedom of expression.

The Court of Cassation therefore concluded that the Court of Appeal had correctly found that, in the circumstances of the case, the public’s right to information outweighed the former executive’s right to the protection of his private life, and had accordingly conducted the required balancing of the competing interests.