The case, explained
Criminal Cassation and the right to be forgotten: the boundaries of de-indexing
6 min read · Updated November 2026 · Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa
The Court of Cassation has once again delineated the boundaries of the so-called digital right to be forgotten within criminal proceedings. The decision clarifies the practical application of the Cartabia Reform regarding the criminal court's authority to order the de-indexing of news concerning past judicial matters. Unlike other cases on personal data protection that focused on administrative sanctions imposed by the Data Protection Authority or standing in unfair competition matters, this article analyzes the balance between press freedom and the right to be forgotten in the criminal sphere, focusing on the technical obligation to de-index search engine results for dated court cases. We examine how protecting a defendant's reputation must now align with specific procedural tools provided by the code of criminal procedure.
In brief
This article examines a recent Supreme Court ruling on the de-indexing of judicial data in criminal matters. It analyzes the authority granted to criminal judges under the Cartabia Reform to order digital oblivion following favorable outcomes such as dismissals or acquittals. The contribution distinguishes this judicial protection from administrative sanctions imposed by the Data Protection Authority, focusing on the balance between public interest in reporting and the individual's right to digital identity protection years after the events.
The facts
The case stems from an appeal by a citizen who, following a favorable outcome in criminal proceedings, petitioned the court to order the de-indexing of online news regarding their involvement in an investigation. As reported by Diritto e Giustizia and Altalex, the Court of Appeal had initially rejected the application, leading to a challenge before the Supreme Court. The appellant cited the persistent visibility of press articles which, although referring to past events resolved without a conviction, continued to damage their personal and professional reputation through search engine indexing. The procedural stage concerns an appeal to the Supreme Court against a ruling denying measures for the protection of personality rights in criminal proceedings.
The rules at play
The central provision is Art. 154-ter disp. att. c.p.p., introduced by the Cartabia Reform, which empowers the judge to order the annotation of the right to de-indexing within dismissal or acquittal rulings. Alongside this sits Art. 17 GDPR, governing the right to erasure («right to be forgotten») at the European level, requiring data that is no longer necessary to be deleted or made untraceable. Finally, the framework is completed by Art. 21 of the Italian Constitution, protecting freedom of the press, which requires continuous balancing between the duty to inform and the individual's right not to remain permanently tied to past judicial proceedings.
What the jurisprudence says
Case law from the Supreme Court has clarified that the right to be forgotten is not automatic, but depends on the time factor and the attenuation of public interest. Consolidated precedent indicates that while the public reporting of an alleged offense initially takes precedence, the passage of time weakens the right to report in favor of personal identity rights. The recent ruling emphasizes that criminal judges now possess specific authority to facilitate this technical remedy, though they must ensure the news has not regained topical relevance due to new related events. De-indexing thus confirms itself as the primary mechanism to reconcile historical record preservation with immediate accessibility on search engines.
- Try edit.legal AI
Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal
To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.
What it teaches professionals
- Timeliness of the Cartabia Reform application: counsel should request the de-indexing annotation concurrently with the issuance of the dismissal or acquittal ruling.
- Duty of precise URL identification: the practitioner must accurately specify the web addresses continuing to index the damaging content to facilitate judicial intervention.
- Separation of jurisdictional forums: it is essential to note that criminal judges order technical de-indexing annotations, whereas claims for damages or complete content removal remain within the jurisdiction of civil courts.
References: Art. 17 GDPRArt. 154-ter disp. att. c.p.p.Art. 21 Costituzione
Related cases
Frequently asked questions
Can de-indexing be requested following a criminal conviction?
Art. 154-ter disp. att. c.p.p. applies specifically to acquittals and dismissals. For convicted individuals, protection of the right to be forgotten is typically pursued before civil courts or the Data Protection Authority, upon demonstrating that the sentence has been served and public interest in the news has lapsed.
Does de-indexing remove the article from the publisher's website?
No. De-indexing only prevents the article from appearing in search engine results when querying the individual's name. The content remains stored in the publisher's historical archive for documentation and archival purposes.
What timeframe is required to invoke the right to be forgotten?
There is no statutory timeframe. Courts generally consider a period between 2 and 5 years from the conclusion of proceedings to be reasonable, depending on the gravity of the allegations and the public prominence of the individual.
Verified legal research and drafting with edit.legal
Legal research and drafting with citations checked against official databases. edit.legal is free to try, no credit card.
Try edit.legal for free