Précédent 22 / 22 Next

OOO FLAVUS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT Appendix No. Application no. 1 12468/15 Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth 02/03/2015 OOO FLAVUS 3 23489/15 4 19074/16 24/04/2015 Garri Kimovich KASPAROV 1963 25/03/2016 OOO MEDIAFOKUS 20 Represented by Damir Ravilevich GAYNUTDINOV Damir Ravilevich GAYNUTDINOV Svetlana Igorevna KUZEVANOVA

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

Case of OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia

Case Law

Country

Russia

Country Location

Latitude: 55.84775990443999

Longitude: 37.50146462023251

Country Location (Lié Case Law): Russia

Decision Date: 16 nov. 2020

Case Status: Affaire Résolue

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Admissible

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Violation of a Rule of International Law

Keywords

Filtering and Blocking
Internet Shutdown

Judicial Body: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Court Name: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Case Number: Applications nos. 12468/15, 23489/15, and 19074/16

Case Summary: The European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that the “wholesale blocking of opposition online media outlets” violates freedom of expression, ordering the Russian government to pay €10,000 as compensation to each applicant. This was after the applicants’ request before national courts for a judicial review of a blocking measure imposed by the Prosecutor General was dismissed. The blocking measure was made through the telecoms regulator on the basis that the websites owned by the applicants “revealed a uniform thematic trend towards the coverage of public events of an unlawful nature in Russian territory”. The European Court of Human Rights reasoned that “blocking access to an [entire] website was an extreme measure which … deliberately disregarded the distinction between the legal and illegal information the website might contain”, and that the “measures taken before a judicial decision had been issued on the illegality of the published content had amounted to a prior restraint on publications”.

Case Significance: This decision has set a precedent that blanket blocking of online platforms violates freedom of expression and cannot be justified under the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision has also stressed that non-judicial blocking orders amount to a prior restraint on publications which can justifiably be issued only in exceptional circumstances and after strict scrutiny by Courts. The decision further emphasised that domestic law must provide adequate safeguards to individuals against arbitrary interference and that these safeguards should encompass “procedural guarantees”, “disallowance of unfettered authority”, “transparency”, and “national courts’ compliance with the criteria established by the European Court”.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Related Caselaw (self)

Case of OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 10 juil. 2024

Documents principaux

Third Section Judgment
English
Télécharger Vue

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

Case of OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia

Documents principaux

Notifications