KALDA v. ESTONIA – SEPARATE OPINION 17 DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KJØLBRO 1. In the present case, the Court has found that the Estonian authorities’ refusal to grant the applicant, a prisoner serving a life sentence, access to three specific webpages on the Internet violates the applicant’s right to receive information as protected by Article 10 of the Convention. I respectfully disagree. 2. I share the majority’s view that the refusal to grant the applicant access to the three webpages amount to an interference with the applicant’s right to receive information as protected by Article 10 of the Convention (see paragraph 45 of the judgment). However, I do not find it decisive for the assessment of the existence of an interference that access to certain sites containing legal information is already granted under Estonian law (section 31-1 of the Imprisonment Act). In my view, refusal to grant access to the Internet, thus rendering access to specific information either impossible or more difficult, will in general amount to an interference with the right to receive information (see Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, §§ 47-56, ECHR 2012; Akdeniz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 20877/10, §§ 18-29, 11 March 2014; and Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, nos. 48226/10 and 14027/11, §§ 47-58, 1 December 2015). Therefore, it is sufficient for me that prisoners in Estonia are, with a few exceptions, generally prohibited from using the Internet. 3. I also share the view of the majority that the interference was prescribed by law and pursued legitimate aims (see paragraphs 46-47). However, I respectfully disagree with the majority that the interference was not “necessary in a democratic society” as required by Article 10 of the Convention. 4. The question of prisoners’ right to access to the Internet, in general or in some restricted form, is a novel issue in the Court’s case-law, and in the present case the Court has for the first time stated that denying a prisoner access to the Internet may amount to a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. In my view, the majority fails to take sufficient account of the fact that the applicant is a prisoner serving a life sentence in a closed prison. 5. In general, prisoners continue to enjoy all the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, save for the right to liberty (see, for example, Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 126-45, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts), and Donaldson v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56975/09, § 18, 25 January 2011). That being said, the Court has in a number of cases found that justification for restrictions on prisoners’ rights under the Convention may be found in the considerations of security, in particular the prevention of crime and disorder, which inevitably flow from the circumstances of imprisonment (see Donaldson v. United Kingdom (dec.), cited above, § 18). 6. In order to justify the interference, the domestic authorities relied on the risk of misuse of access to the Internet as well as the inherent security