BULGAKOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 5. As it transpired, in late 2011 the Rostov Regional prosecutor had brought a public-interest claim against a regional ISP. The prosecutor claimed that, by using the provider-facilitated connection to the Internet, he had been able to access a particular pamphlet and an electronic book (“the e-book”), both of which had been previously categorised as extremist publications. One copy of the e-book in PDF format was accessible, in particular, in the files section of the applicant’s website. The prosecutor asked the Kirovskiy District Court to block access to the publications “by adding filter rules for the websites’ IP addresses to the area border router” («путем добавления на пограничном маршрутизаторе правил фильтрации IP-адресов указанных сайтов»), that is to say, by way of blocking access to the websites by their numerical network addresses (“IP address”). Referring to the provisions of the Suppression of Extremism Act and section 10(1) and (6) of the Information Act, the Kirovskiy District Court required the ISP to block access to the applicant’s website using the formulation of the blocking measure which the prosecutor had suggested. 6. Immediately upon finding out about the Kirovskiy District Court’s judgment, the applicant deleted the offending e-book and brought proceedings against the ISP, seeking to have access to his website restored. On 25 March 2014 the Savelovskiy District Court in Moscow granted the claim, noting that the extremist material had been removed. That decision was overturned on appeal: on 14 August 2014 the Moscow City Court held that the Kirovskiy District Court’s judgment had required the ISP “to block access to the website’s IP address, rather than to a specific page of the website” and that it would be contrary to the terms of that judgment to grant the applicant’s claim. On 5 December 2014 and 5 March 2015 the City Court and the Supreme Court, respectively, refused the applicant leave to appeal to the cassation instance. 7. In the meantime, the applicant asked the Kirovskiy District Court to fix a new time-limit for lodging an appeal against the 2012 judgment. On 9 December 2014 the Kirovskiy District Court acceded to his request. Referring to the Constitutional Court’s case-law, it noted that the proceedings could not be considered fair if the judgment determined the rights and obligations of, or imposed new restrictions on, persons who had not taken part in the proceedings. 8. In his statement of appeal, the applicant pointed out that as he had been unaware of the original blocking proceedings, he had been unable to defend his rights. In the meantime, the proscribed e-book had been removed. In evidence, he enclosed a copy of the Savelovskiy District Court’s judgment and a printout from his website. 9. On 29 January 2015 the Rostov Regional Court dismissed the appeal. It found that the 2012 judgment could not be set aside on the grounds that the applicant had not been able to join the proceedings because the prosecutor had lodged a claim against the ISP, rather than against him. Without examining the applicant’s evidence, the Regional Court held that it had not been shown that the offending e-book had been removed. On 15 June and 5 October 2015 the Regional Court and the Supreme Court, respectively, refused the applicant leave to appeal to the cassation instance. 2