BULGAKOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT B. Merits 43. The Government submitted that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies at his disposal and had used them to the full extent. His case had been heard and decided on the basis of the applicable legislation. Since access to his website had not actually been blocked by Roskomnadzor, there had been no violation of his rights. 44. The applicant did not dispute that he had been able to lodge an appeal and take part in the appeal hearing. He also accepted that the Russian law provided, in theory, a remedy for the alleged violation. The courts could have drawn a distinction between a webpage and a website and pronounce unlawful a blocking order which affected the entire website, rather than a particular webpage. However, in practice, the courts had not considered the merits of his arguments or examined his evidence. They had not addressed them in any way or made any findings of fact or law. He had therefore been denied an effective domestic remedy for his grievances. 45. The third-party intervener, the European Information Society Institute, submitted that both ex ante and ex post remedies needed to be made available to the affected parties. Ex ante remedies should include prior notification to the owners of targeted websites. Ex post remedies should ensure that, once a blocking order has been implemented, there are efficient mechanisms for restricting its scope or challenging it on account of new circumstances. 46. The Court notes that the complaint under Article 13 arises from the same facts as those it has examined when dealing with the complaint under Article 10 above. However, there is a difference in the nature of the interests protected by Article 13 of the Convention and those protected under Article 10: the former affords a procedural safeguard, namely the “right to an effective remedy”, whereas the procedural requirement inherent in the latter is ancillary to the wider purpose of ensuring respect for the substantive right to freedom of expression (see Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 65, ECHR 1999-II). Having regard to the difference in purpose of the safeguards afforded by the two Articles, the Court considers it appropriate in the instant case to examine the same set of facts under both provisions. 47. The Court notes that the applicant had an arguable claim of a violation of his right to freedom of expression. Accordingly, Article 13 required that he should have had a domestic remedy which was “effective” in practice as well as in law, in the sense of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred. 48. Although the applicant was able to bring an appeal against the blocking order and to take part in the appeal proceedings, the appellate court did not consider the substance of his grievance. It did not address the legal distinction between a webpage and a website or examine the necessity and proportionality of the blocking measure and the excessive effects of the chosen method of its implementation. Nor did it evaluate the applicant’s evidence and make any findings as to whether it should be accepted or rejected. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy which the national law provided for was not effective in the circumstances of the applicant’s case (see Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, § 64, 30 April 2019). 12