KABLIS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 31 chosen by the applicant, which the Court has found to be contrary to the Convention (see paragraph 59 above) – rather than on the grounds that the event in question presented a risk of public disorder or crime or a risk to public safety or the rights of others. Thirdly, the impugned Internet posts did not contain any calls to commit violent, disorderly or otherwise unlawful acts during the public event. Fourthly, only about fifty people were expected to attend the public event (see paragraph 7 above) and, as asserted by the applicant and not contested by the Government, the chosen location was closed to traffic (see paragraph 46 above). In view of the event’s location, small size and peaceful character, there is no reason to believe that it would have been necessary for the authorities to intervene to guarantee its smooth conduct and the safety of the participants and passers-by, for example by diverting traffic. Lastly, as noted above, the applicant explicitly and clearly stated on his blog that the public event had not been duly approved. He did not therefore try to mislead prospective participants by making them believe that they were going to participate in a lawful event. 105. It follows that the breach of the procedure for the conduct of public events in the present case was minor and did not create any real risk of public disorder or crime. Nor did it have a potential to lead to harmful consequences for public safety or the rights of others. In such circumstances the Court is not convinced that there was “a pressing social need” to apply prior restraint measures and to block access to the impugned Internet posts calling for participation in that event and thereby expressing an opinion on an important matter of public interest. 106. Having regard to the above considerations and its case-law on the subject, the Court finds that the domestic law lacks the necessary guarantees against abuse required by the Court’s case-law for prior restraint measures. It also finds that the standards applied by the domestic courts were not in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and that the courts did not provide “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. 107. There has therefore been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 108. Article 41 of the Convention provides: