Previous 16 / 18 Next

BULGAKOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 June 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Milan Blaško Registrar Paul Lemmens President In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the separate opinion of Judges Lemmens, Dedov and Poláčková, is annexed to this judgment. P.L. M.B. 14

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Bulgakov v. Russia

Case Law

Country

Russia

Country Location

Latitude: 55.84775990443999

Longitude: 37.50146462023251

Country Location (linked Case Law): Russia

Decision Date: Jun 23, 2020

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Admissible

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Violation of a Rule of International Law

Keywords

Content Regulation / Censorship
Filtering and Blocking

Judicial Body: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Court Name: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Case Number: Application no. 20159/15

Case Summary: The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that the Russian domestic court decision which directed the dragnet blocking of the applicant’s website amounted to a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression (Article 10), and right to an effective remedy (Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 10) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The applicant’s website was blocked on account of hosting a piece of prohibited material (an e-book that had previously categorised as extremist content) on the website. The blocking order was delivered at the request of a regional prosecutor who had requested the court to direct the local internet service provider to block access by using a formulation that would, in effect, block access to the applicant’s website as a whole, and not just the specific webpage(s) that contained the prohibited material. Upon finding out about the order, the applicant appealed against it, however, the domestic courts upheld the original decision of wholesale blocking. The ECtHR held that the interference from the application of the procedural law had arbitrary and excessive effects as it did not afford the applicant the requisite degree of protection and opportunity to be heard. Additionally, the ECtHR found that the domestic law remedy was not effective; the appellate court did not consider the substance of the applicant’s grievances.

Case Significance: The decision expands expression.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Related Caselaw (self)

Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: Jul 10, 2024

Primary Documents

Third Section Judgment
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Bulgakov v. Russia

Primary Documents

Notifications