ENGELS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 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 17. The applicant complained that the decision requiring him to remove information from his website had been in breach of Article 10 of the Convention, which reads in the relevant parts: “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 18. 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 19. The Government submitted that the web tools described on the page rublacklist.net/bypass had enabled users to gain unlimited access to prohibited extremist material, including a collection of material on the Federal List of Extremist Material. The Anapa Town Court had correctly granted the prosecutor’s application seeking the blocking of access to that content. The legal framework for updating the Integrated Register had been sufficiently clear and foreseeable in its application, and Roskomnadzor’s decision to add the page to the Integrated Register of banned content had been a legal, justified and necessary measure. Since the applicant had taken down the offending page, access to his website had not been blocked. The Government concluded that there had been no violation of Article 10. (b) The applicant 20. The applicant submitted that there had been interference with his right to impart information, because he had been forced to take down legitimate content in order to avoid having his entire website blocked. The Russian authorities had not cited any legal provision restricting information about tools for filter-free browsing; nor had they shown that the impugned page had contained any extremist 5