The European Court of Human Rights has recognized the right to be forgotten within the framework of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Supreme Court has put forward new important positions regarding this right in its Plenary Decision "On the Protection of Personality Rights".
Information on this was provided to Modern.az by the Supreme Court.
It was stated that the "Right to be forgotten" refers to the right to demand the deletion, anonymization, concealment, archiving, or other actions related to restricting access to publicly available information (text, sound, image, etc.) previously disseminated on digital platforms that negatively affects the interests of a natural or legal person, due to the information subsequently losing any significance or relevance from the perspective of state and public interest.
Some information (description, sound, written or oral speech texts, etc.) may be disseminated from the perspective of state and public interest, and may be on the public agenda and within the scope of legitimate interest due to its relevance. The dissemination of such information is lawful; whether the person's consent exists or not, or whether it was disseminated by the person themselves or another person, is of no importance. In such a case, despite the negative information adversely affecting their interests, the person cannot demand its correction or deletion at any time.
According to the Supreme Court's position, this situation cannot continue indefinitely, and after such publicly available information is disseminated, a person's right to be forgotten may arise under certain conditions.
Thus, after a certain period has passed since the dissemination of such information, if the information becomes outdated, loses its relevance, and is no longer of interest to the state and the public, the person may put forward a demand in this regard. However, for such demands to be satisfied, the information must have been disseminated on a digital platform, and the person must prove that the information still contradicts their interests.
The loss of relevance of information means that the information, which was previously on the public agenda, no longer holds any interest or significance for society at the time the claim is filed, due to its obsolescence.
Individuals demanding the deletion of such negative information do not wish to be confronted with their past actions or public statements indefinitely in various contexts (e.g., when seeking employment or in business relations). However, if they put forward such a demand, they must substantiate and prove the negative impact on their interests.
For example, demanding the subsequent deletion from information resources of an interview given by a well-known musician in 2020 about the breakdown of her relationship with her husband due to infidelity, from the perspective of her children's interests; or demanding the subsequent deletion from information resources of lawfully published media information from 2010 about an individual entrepreneur's tax evasion, which negatively affected his business reputation, due to the information no longer being of public interest after the tax debt has been paid.
After a person's death, their next of kin also acquires the right to be forgotten. In this case, it must be determined that the information, in addition to affecting the claimant, also negatively affected the deceased person's interests during their lifetime.
The right to be forgotten is not exclusive to natural persons but is also considered a non-property right belonging to legal entities. For example, demanding the deletion of information published in the press 5 years ago regarding a defect in a product manufactured by a legal entity.
Claim demands must be raised against the operators where this information is placed, including online digital platforms and media entities.
