CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

- Bibliothèque
- S'identifier

Trié par

Date ajoutée

25 Relations, 24 Entités

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

Uwazi est développé par
CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law
Bibliothèque
Connexion

Info
25Relations

Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia

Case Law

Astuces de recherche

Recherche de texte

Type something in the search box to get some results.

Table des matières

Aucune table des matières

Aucune description de Table des matières

Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia

Case Law

Country

Russia

Country Location

Latitude: 55.84775990443999

Longitude: 37.50146462023251

Country Location (Lié Case Law): Russia

Decision Date: 23 juin 2020

Case Status: Affaire Résolue

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Admissible

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Violation of a Rule of International Law

Keywords

Content Regulation / Censorship
Filtering and Blocking

Judicial Body: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Court Name: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Case Number: Application no. 10795/14

Case Summary: The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that the Russian authorities’ decision to block the IP address of an offending website, which in turn resulted in the blocking of the applicant’s website, amounted to a violation of the applicant’s right to impart information (Article 10), and the right to an effective remedy (Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 10) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The applicant’s website availed the hosting services of a U.S.-based company that further hosted multiple other websites with the same IP address; the applicant, in effect, shared their IP address with other websites, though with a different domain name. In December 2012, the government authorities blocked access to an IP address that contained offending material, however, the applicant also shared the same IP address. Resultantly, access to the applicant’s website was blocked, which the applicant only came to know about after the blocking order was passed and implemented. Upon finding out about the order, the applicant appealed against it on the ground that they were unconnected to the offending website and that their legitimate content is being harmed, however, all their attempts to appeal and complaints were rejected. The ECtHR held that the interference from the application of the procedural law had arbitrary and excessive effects; it did not afford the applicant the requisite degree of protection and opportunity to be heard. Additionally, the ECtHR found that the domestic law remedy was ineffective; the appellate court did not consider the substance of the applicant’s grievances.

Case Significance: This decision expands expression.

This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.

Related Caselaw (self)

Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Documents principaux

Third Section Judgment
English
Télécharger Vue

Pas de références

References are parts of this document related with other documents and entities.

Country1
- Country1
Related Case Law23
- Case Law23
Aucune étiquettes1
- Analysis1

Create Reference

Sélectionner le type de relation

Original Law Cited
Related Translation
Related Media Source
Country
Related Law
Related Regulations
Related Secondary Law
Related Amendments
Related Draft Amendments
Related Case Law
Related Analysis

Astuces de recherche

Ajouter des entités / documents

Astuces de recherche

Notifications

You're all caught up

New activity will show up here.