ENGELS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 39. The applicant emphasised that the domestic remedies had not been effective. He had not been involved in any capacity in, or at least informed of, the proceedings in which the content had been banned. The appellate court had not considered the nature or the contents of his website, or the manner in which the first-instance court’s decision had affected his rights. 40. 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. 41. 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. 42. 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. 43. Although the applicant was able to lodge an appeal against the blocking order, the appellate court did not consider the substance of his grievance. Nor did it address the specific nature of the information about particular technologies or examine the necessity and proportionality of the blocking measure. 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). 44. There has therefore been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 10. III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 45. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 46. The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 47. The Government submitted that no compensation should be awarded because the applicant’s rights had not been violated. 11