Chances of success in the European Court of Complaints about blocking resources
Most likely, complaints to the European Court about the blocking of resources in connection with attempts by Roskomnadzor to block Telegrams may have a greater chance that the Court may recognize a violation.
The blocking of sites was considered by the European Court in several cases . Most of the cases relate to locks in Turkey, although complaints against Russia have recently begun to appear.
In general, the Court’s approach is as follows. Blocking resources that constitute a source of important and unique information may violate Article 10 of the European Convention (the right to freedom of dissemination of information).
')
Closest to the current situation with blocking due to attempts to block Telegrams was the situation with blocking Google.Sites, which were blocked by a Turkish court due to the fact that several sites were hosted on one IP, one of which contained prohibited information. But not a separate website with prohibited information was blocked, but completely Google.Sites.
The European Court, having considered the complaint of the owner of the site, which was hosted on Google.Sites, along with the banned and because of this was blocked, found a violation. The court noted that the blocking was carried out on the basis of a law that allowed blocking only certain sites or pages, but not the entire resource. In the decision, the European Court also noted that the Google.Sites service was not warned about the illegality of the content posted on one of the sites that hosted it. In addition, the Turkish court did not weigh the interests of stakeholders in this case: on the one hand, the interests of society to restrict illegal content, and on the other hand, the interests of the site owner, who did not violate the law, but simply hosted on the same host as the "violators" . Accordingly, the law, which does not imply the need to balance the interests of the parties, did not meet the requirement of the rule of law, and therefore was “defective”, and on the basis of the “defective” law, the state is not allowed to interfere with the rights guaranteed by the Convention.
Russian law, on the basis of which the blocking is carried out, provides for the possibility of blocking both individual pages and the entire resource entirely. But this law can also potentially be recognized as “defective” due to the fact that it does not envisage the need to weigh the interests of those who did not allow violations, but at the same time turned out to be blocked. In continuation of this logic, it can be assumed that the European Court may recognize a violation of the Convention in connection with the blocking of various resources by the Roskomnadzor. But it must be recalled that in order for the complaint to the ECHR to be recognized as admissible and considered on the merits, the exhaustion of national remedies is necessary. This means that you need to bring all these arguments in the trials in the Russian courts.
The blocking of sites was considered by the European Court in several cases . Most of the cases relate to locks in Turkey, although complaints against Russia have recently begun to appear.
In general, the Court’s approach is as follows. Blocking resources that constitute a source of important and unique information may violate Article 10 of the European Convention (the right to freedom of dissemination of information).
')
Closest to the current situation with blocking due to attempts to block Telegrams was the situation with blocking Google.Sites, which were blocked by a Turkish court due to the fact that several sites were hosted on one IP, one of which contained prohibited information. But not a separate website with prohibited information was blocked, but completely Google.Sites.
The European Court, having considered the complaint of the owner of the site, which was hosted on Google.Sites, along with the banned and because of this was blocked, found a violation. The court noted that the blocking was carried out on the basis of a law that allowed blocking only certain sites or pages, but not the entire resource. In the decision, the European Court also noted that the Google.Sites service was not warned about the illegality of the content posted on one of the sites that hosted it. In addition, the Turkish court did not weigh the interests of stakeholders in this case: on the one hand, the interests of society to restrict illegal content, and on the other hand, the interests of the site owner, who did not violate the law, but simply hosted on the same host as the "violators" . Accordingly, the law, which does not imply the need to balance the interests of the parties, did not meet the requirement of the rule of law, and therefore was “defective”, and on the basis of the “defective” law, the state is not allowed to interfere with the rights guaranteed by the Convention.
Russian law, on the basis of which the blocking is carried out, provides for the possibility of blocking both individual pages and the entire resource entirely. But this law can also potentially be recognized as “defective” due to the fact that it does not envisage the need to weigh the interests of those who did not allow violations, but at the same time turned out to be blocked. In continuation of this logic, it can be assumed that the European Court may recognize a violation of the Convention in connection with the blocking of various resources by the Roskomnadzor. But it must be recalled that in order for the complaint to the ECHR to be recognized as admissible and considered on the merits, the exhaustion of national remedies is necessary. This means that you need to bring all these arguments in the trials in the Russian courts.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/354162/
All Articles