KABLIS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 25 23676/03, § 27, ECHR 2009). User-generated expressive activity on the Internet provides an unprecedented platform for the exercise of freedom of expression (see Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 110, ECHR 2015). 82. As enshrined in Article 10, freedom of expression is subject to exceptions which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly. The adjective “necessary”, within the meaning of Article 10 paragraph 2, implies the existence of a “pressing social need”. The Contracting States have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether such a need exists, but it goes hand in hand with a European supervision, embracing both the law and the decisions applying it, even those given by independent courts. The Court is therefore empowered to give the final ruling on whether a “restriction” is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 (see Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 187, 8 November 2016). 83. The Court’s task, in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, is not to take the place of the competent national authorities but rather to review under Article 10 the decisions they delivered pursuant to their power of appreciation. This does not mean that the supervision is limited to ascertaining whether the respondent State exercised its discretion reasonably, carefully and in good faith; what the Court has to do is to look at the interference complained of in the light of the case as a whole and determine whether it was “proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued” and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are “relevant and sufficient”. In doing so, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and, moreover, that they relied on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland [GC], no. 16354/06, § 48, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 124, ECHR 2015; and Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no 17224/11, § 75, ECHR 2017). (b) Application to the present case 84. The Court finds that the blocking by a deputy Prosecutor General of the applicant’s social networking account and of three entries on his blog on the grounds that they contained calls to participate in a public event the location of which had not been approved by the town administration amounted to “interference by a public authority” with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, of which the freedom to receive and impart information and ideas is an integral part (compare Ahmet Yıldırım, cited above, § 55). That the applicant could create a new social networking account or publish new entries on his blog has no incidence on this finding.