VLADIMIR KHARITONOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT interference resulted from the application of the procedure under section 15.1 of the Information Act which did not satisfy the foreseeability requirement under the Convention and did not afford the applicant the degree of protection from abuse to which he was entitled by the rule of law in a democratic society (see Ahmet Yıldırım, cited above, § 67). Accordingly, the interference was not “prescribed by law” and it is not necessary to examine whether the other requirements of paragraph 2 of Article 10 have been met. 47. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 10 48. The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 10, that the Russian courts had not considered the substance of his grievance relating to the blocking of access to his website. Article 13 reads as follows: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” A. Admissibility 49. The Court considers that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 50. The Government submitted that the applicant could have brought a claim against the ISP or the hosting service provider whose failure to react to Roskomnadzor’s warning had led to a restriction on his rights. 51. The applicant pointed out that Russia had over 3,500 ISPs in eighty-three regions. Lodging a claim against each of them was not an effective remedy. The law also granted ISPs a choice between blocking access to a website by its domain name or by its IP address. Their conduct would not be contrary to any legal provision irrespective of the blocking mode they might choose. In addition, the Russian courts had refused to carry out a proportionality assessment of the blocking order. 52. The third-party interveners, ARTICLE 19 and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, submitted that most European jurisdictions allowed ISPs to challenge blocking orders addressed to them, and few States explicitly provided victims of collateral blocking with a remedy. France and 15