VLADIMIR KHARITONOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT owner and administrator of the website Electronic Publishing News (http://www.digital-books.ru), which features a compilation of news, articles and reviews about electronic publishing. 5. The website was set up 2008 and was hosted by DreamHost, a provider of a shared web-hosting service based in the United States. The service hosts multiple websites which have the same numerical network address (“Internet protocol or IP address”) but different domain names. When a user’s browser requests a website from the server, it includes the requested domain name as part of the request. The server uses this information to determine which website it would show the user. 6. In late December 2012, users from various Russian regions reported to the applicant that access to his website was blocked by their Internet service providers by reference to “a decision by the competent Russian authority”. He checked the register of websites black-listed by the Russian telecoms regulator (Roskomnadzor) and discovered that the IP address of his website had been put on the blocking list pursuant to a decision of the Federal Drug Control Service dated 19 December 2012. The decision was intended to block access to another website, rastaman.tales.ru – a collection of cannabis-themed folk stories “The Rastaman Tales”1 – which was also hosted by DreamHost and had the same IP address as the applicant’s website. According to the Government, on 22 March 2013 the blocking of the IP address ceased; copies of the blocking and unblocking decisions have not been made available to the applicant or the Court. 7. The applicant complained to the Taganskiy District Court in Moscow that the decision to block the entire IP address had had the effect of blocking access to his website which did not contain any illegal information. 8. On 19 June 2013 the District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint, holding that Roskomnadzor had acted within its competence, in accordance with the applicable laws and for the purpose of protecting children from harmful information relating to the use of drugs. It did not assess the impact of the contested measure on the applicant’s website. 9. The applicant appealed, relying in particular on the Court’s findings in the case of Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey (no. 3111/10, ECHR 2012), which concerned the indiscriminate blocking of a hosting service. 10. On 12 September 2013 the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeal in a summary fashion, finding that the principle of proportionality had been respected because Roskomnadzor had lawfully blocked access to illegal information. It did not address the effect of the blocking decision on the applicant’s website. Currently available, in Russian and English, at www.rastamantales.com Access to the website was not restricted in Russia as on the date of the judgment. 1 2