BULGAKOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT with the conditions of Article 10 of the Convention regarding the legality, legitimacy and proportionality of restrictions. 2.2.3. Internet service providers as a general rule treat Internet traffic equally and without discrimination on the basis of sender, receiver, content, application, service or device. Internet traffic management measures are transparent, necessary and proportionate to achieve overriding public interests in compliance with Article 10 of the ECHR. 2.2.4. Internet users or other interested parties have access to a court in compliance with Article 6 of the Convention with regard to any action taken to restrict their access to the Internet or their ability to receive and impart content or information. 2.2.5. The State provides information in a timely and appropriate manner to the public about restrictions it applies to the freedom to receive and impart information, such as indicating websites that have been blocked or from which information was removed, including details of the legal basis, necessity and justification for such restrictions, the court order authorising them and the right to appeal.” THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION 21. The applicant complained that the domestic courts had upheld a measure blocking access to his entire website at the level of the ISP, even after the prohibited content had been taken down. He relied on Article 10 of the Convention, which reads in the relevant part: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom ... to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers ... 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 ...” A. Admissibility 22. The Court considers that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 1. Submissions by the parties (a) The Government 23. The Government submitted that pursuant to the Kirovskiy District Court’s judgment, access to the applicant’s website had been blocked by an ISP. The judgment had not been submitted to the telecoms regulator, Roskomnadzor, for implementation, and Roskomnadzor had not deployed any blocking measures against the applicant’s website. Once the extremist content had been taken down, no measures to restrict access to the applicant’s website had been implemented. 6