KABLIS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 7 court for examination, having found no significant violations of substantive or procedural law which had influenced the outcome of the proceedings. C. Judicial review of the decisions to block the applicant’s VKontakte account and three entries on his Internet blog 22. On 25 December 2015 the applicant challenged before the Syktyvkar Town Court the decisions of the prosecutor’s office to block his VKontakte account and three entries on his Internet blog. He argued that they had not been necessary in a democratic society and had therefore breached his right to freedom of expression. He claimed that he had suffered non-pecuniary damage. 23. On 5 April 2016 the Syktyvkar Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. After citing Article 10 of the Convention and section 15.3 of the Information Act (see paragraph 36 below), and noting that the town administration had refused to approve “the picket” at the location chosen by the applicant, the court held: “Despite the lack of approval for the public event, [the applicant] described the preparations for holding it on his page on a social networking site, VKontakte, and on his blog ..., calling on an unrestricted audience to participate in an unauthorised public event ... In the present case, access to the information published by the claimant was restricted because he had breached information distribution rules, in particular by distributing information containing calls for participation in a public event to be held in breach of the established procedure. In such circumstances, the restriction had a basis in law and pursued the aim of preventing breaches of law in the sphere of distribution of information. Contrary to the claimant’s allegations, his freedom of expression was not restricted, because access was blocked to information distributed in breach of the law, rather than in connection with the contents of the claimant’s statements about the aims of the notified public event (to discuss the arrest of the Komi Republic government). Restriction of access to the entire VKontakte account rather than to the specific post also had a basis in law, which in substance provides for restriction of access to an entire account, taking into consideration the nature of real-time distribution of publicly accessible content on the Internet. In view of the above, and given that it is possible for the claimant to create and distribute new Internet posts, the claimant’s personal non-property rights were not breached. The claim must therefore be dismissed.” 24. On 7 July 2016 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic upheld that judgment on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified. 25. On 14 December 2016 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic refused to refer a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant with the Presidium of that court for examination. It held, in particular, that calls for participation in public events held in breach of the established procedure