KABLIS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 29 challenge the blocking measure on judicial review (see, for similar reasoning, Gillan and Quinton v. the United Kingdom, no. 4158/05, §§ 80 and 86, ECHR 2010 (extracts); Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 428; and Ivashchenko v. Russia, no. 61064/10, § 88, 13 February 2018). Moreover, as a result of the one-month time-limit for the examination of the judicial review complaints (see paragraph 37 above) – combined with the statutory prohibition on campaigning for participation in a public event before it is approved by the regional or municipal authorities (see Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 249) and the tight time-frame of the notification and approval procedure (ibid., § 348) – there is no guarantee that the complaint against the blocking measure would be decided before the planned date of the event. The Court is of the opinion that in cases concerning prior restraints on publications calling for participation in a public event, there must be a possibility to obtain a judicial review of the blocking measure before the date of the public event in question. Indeed, the information contained in the post is deprived of any value and interest after that date, and the annulment of the blocking measure on judicial review at that stage will therefore be meaningless (see paragraph 91 above, and, mutatis mutandis, Bączkowski and Others v. Poland, no. 1543/06, §§ 81 and 82, 3 May 2007). 97. It follows from the above that the blocking procedure provided for by section 15.3 of the Information Act lacks the necessary guarantees against abuse required by the Court’s case-law for prior restraint measures (see paragraph 92 above), in particular tight control over the scope of bans and effective judicial review to prevent any abuse of power. 98. Turning now to the content of the Internet posts at issue, the Court notes that only two of the four posts contained calls to participate in the public event planned by him. The Court is unable to discern any such calls in the first and second posts. The domestic authorities did not explain why they were included in the blocking measure together with the other posts which contained such calls. 99. In the first entry on his blog the applicant commented on the recent arrest of the regional government, criticised the appointment of regional governors by the President and expressed the wish that governors be elected by the people. He also informed his readers that he had lodged a notification for a “picket” during which a debate on those issues would be held (see paragraph 8 above). The issues raised in that entry were of paramount importance for the regional community. That was a matter of public concern and the applicant’s comments contributed to an ongoing political debate. 100. In the second entry on his blog the applicant informed his readers that the local authorities had refused to approve the location of the “picket” planned by him and that a “people’s assembly” would be held instead at the same location and time (see paragraph 10 above). The Court considers that by informing prospective participants that the public event had not been