CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 22 September 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 29356/22 Rosen Marianov MARINOV against Bulgaria lodged on 9 June 2022 communicated on 1 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the domestic courts to order a news publisher to anonymise the applicant’s name based on his “right to be forgotten” in several articles archived online, which had been lawfully published about ten years earlier. The applicant was a businessman. In June 2009 the prosecution arrested and indicted him of offering a bribe to a public official. The Supreme Court of Cassation acquitted him in a final judgment of 18 April 2013. In July 2019 he requested the news publisher D. to remove his name and photographs of him being handcuffed from about fourteen articles published on its website between 2009 and 2013. The publisher refused that request but added an editorial note to the articles indicating his final acquittal. The applicant also complained before the Commission for the Protection of Personal Data (“the Commission”) about a breach of his right to reputation. In a decision of 1 December 2020 the Commission found that the articles had been initially published in a lawful manner with a journalistic purpose and reflected the public interest in the criminal proceedings against the applicant. The Commission held that the publisher had kept the photos of the applicant’s arrest in breach of his right to private life after his final acquittal and ordered it to remove them. It further held that the publisher had lawfully refused the anonymisation, relying on the freedom of the press and the right of the public to receive information about past events of public importance. The applicant sought judicial review. In a judgment of 30 June 2021, fully upheld in a final judgment by the Supreme Administrative Court of 14 March 2022, the Sofia Administrative Court indicated that the right of personal data protection was not absolute and the publisher was entitled to refuse anonymisation under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and the Personal Data Protection Act because the applicant’s name had been processed with a journalistic purpose. The courts found that the Commission had struck a fair balance between the applicant’s right to private life, the publisher’s freedom of expression and the public’s right to access information of public importance. The courts held further that the processing of the applicant’s name had been in compliance with the legislation, it had not been excessive, the processed personal data had been adequate, relevant and limited to what was necessary considering the purposes for which it was processed. Relying on Articles 8 and 6 § 1 alone and in conjunction with 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the domestic courts failed to conduct a fair balancing exercise between his right to reputation and “to be forgotten online”, on the one hand, and the publisher’s freedom of expression as well as the public’s right to access information of public importance, on the other hand. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to reputation which attained a sufficient level of seriousness in order for Article 8 to come into play (compare   Axel Springer AG v.   Germany [GC], no.   39954/08, § 83, 7   February 2012,   Denisov v.   Ukraine [GC], no.   76639/11, § 112, 25   September 2018, and Hurbain v. Belgium [GC], no. 57292/16, § 189, 4   July 2023)? 2.     Has the refusal of the domestic courts to order the news publisher to anonymise the applicant’s name in several articles archived online amounted to a violation of his right to respect for his private life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see Biancardi v. Italy , no. 77419/16, §§ 57-71, 25 November 2021, and Hurbain v. Belgium , cited above, §§ 212-257)? In particular, have the domestic courts struck a fair balance between the applicant’s right to reputation, on the one hand, and the news publisher’s freedom of expression as well as the public’s right to access information of public importance, on the other hand?