VLADIMIR KHARITONOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION law was not sufficiently foreseeable in its effects and did not afford the applicant the opportunity to regulate his conduct (see paragraph 42 of the judgment). We respectfully disagree with this way of looking at the existing domestic legal framework. 5. In our opinion, the Information Act, and in particular section 15.1, subsection 5(1), defines in a sufficiently precise way the categories of information that are prohibited and to which therefore access can be blocked. We do not find that this provision gives “unfettered discretion” to the competent federal executive bodies. It is true that the Act does not specify how Roskomnadzor should proceed when it receives a request to block a website. However, in our opinion it does not follow from the Convention that the manner of implementing a decision of an administrative authority should be regulated in detail by the legislature. This is all the more true when the implementation requires the taking of measures of a technical nature. To hold the contrary would lead to undesired over-regulation. It was within Roskomnadzor’s discretion to choose the method for implementation of the Federal Drug Control Service’s request. Under the principle of the rule of law it was for Roskomnadzor to make sure that, whatever method was chosen, the scope of the blocking measure remained within the limits of what had been requested by the competent executive body. Where the law grants discretion to an administrative authority, it is obvious that it does not allow that authority to exercise the power thus granted in a way that would violate the law. By using a method that had the effect of blocking the applicant’s website, although that website did not feature any illegal content and was not the object of the Federal Drug Control Service’s request, Roskomnadzor exercised its power in such a way that the blocking measure went beyond what was permissible under section 15.1, subsection 5(1), of the Information Act. That means that the blocking measure applied by Roskomnadzor did not have a basis in domestic law. 6. We note that the domestic courts found that Roskomnadzor had acted within its competence and had implemented a decision that was compatible with the Information Act. In fact, they did not address the issue of the blocking measure’s impact on the applicant’s website (see paragraphs 8 and 12 of the judgment). They simply left open the question, which in our opinion is of decisive importance. 7. Our finding that the impugned measure did not have a basis in domestic law is sufficient to conclude that the measure was not “prescribed by law”. 8. We thus consider that it is in the first place Roskomnadzor that is responsible for the violation of the applicant’s rights, as it did not remain within the limits of the Information Act. We consider that the domestic 20