22 KABLIS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT the interference advanced by the public authority had been relevant and sufficient (see paragraph 29 above). The Court welcomes these instructions, but notes that they were issued after the events at issue in the present cases. It will have to wait for an opportunity to examine the practice of the Russian courts after that Ruling to assess how these instructions are be applied in practice. 71. The Court concludes from the above that the domestic law as in force between 15 September 2015 and 26 June 2018 did not provide for an effective remedy because the scope of review of the only available remedy was limited to examining the lawfulness of the proposal to change the location, time or manner of conduct of a public event, and did not include any assessment of its “necessity” and “proportionality”. 72. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 13 in the present case. IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION 73. The applicant complained that the blocking of his social networking account and of three entries on his blog calling for participation in an unauthorised public event had breached his right to freedom of expression. He relied on Article 10 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” A. Admissibility 74. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.