KABLIS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 27 cited above, § 449). No other aim was advanced either by the Government or by the domestic courts in the present case. 89. The Court takes note, however, of the Constitutional Court’s explanation that the purpose of the rules governing public events, and in particular the notification and approval procedure, is to allow the authorities to take all necessary measures to ensure the safety of both those attending the public event and others (see, for a summary of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 273). In its turn, the prohibition on campaigning for participation before the public event has been approved by the competent authorities aims at ensuring that citizens are not misled by calls to participate in a public event the location and time of which have not yet been finally determined (see, for a summary of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 267). Given that both the notification procedure for public events and the prohibition on campaigning for participation before that procedure has been successfully completed apparently aim at protecting the rights of others, the Court will assume that the blocking of publications which call for participation in a public event in breach of those procedures and rules also pursues the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others. 90. The Court further notes that in the present case the blocking measure was taken before a judicial decision was issued on the illegality of the published content. It therefore amounted to a prior restraint (see, for a similar reasoning, Ahmet Yıldırım, cited above, § 46). 91. The Court reiterates in this connection that Article 10 does not prohibit prior restraints on publication as such. However, the dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court and are justified only in exceptional circumstances (see Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 56, ECHR 2001-VIII; Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 118, ECHR 2004-XI; and Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 93, ECHR 2009). This is especially so as far as the press is concerned, for news is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication, even for a short period, may well deprive it of all its value and interest. This danger however also applies to publications other than periodicals that deal with a topical issue (see Association Ekin, ibid., and Ahmet Yıldırım, cited above, § 47). 92. In cases of prior restraint, a legal framework is required, ensuring both tight control over the scope of bans and effective judicial review to prevent any abuse of power. In that regard, the judicial review of such a measure, based on a weighing-up of the competing interests at stake and designed to strike a balance between them, is inconceivable without a framework establishing precise and specific rules regarding the application of preventive restrictions on freedom of expression (see, inter alia, Ahmet Yıldırım, cited above, § 64, with further references).