OOO FLAVUS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION 19. The applicants complained that the Russian authorities’ decision to block access to their websites had breached their rights under Article 10 of the Convention, which reads in its 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 20. 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 21. The Government submitted that calls for mass disorder, extremist activities or unauthorised mass gatherings constituted illegal content which should be prohibited from dissemination on the Internet. The Russian courts had established that the applicants’ websites had contained such calls and upheld the Prosecutor General’s decision to restrict access to the illegal content. The applicants, in the capacity of website owners, had been legally required to take down the illegal content upon receiving notification from the Russian telecoms regulator, Roskomnadzor, but they had failed to act upon it. The second applicant, who owned www.kasparov.ru, had informed Roskomnadzor that the offending content had been removed. However, upon verification, it had been established that the website had still contained information which had called for blocking access to that site. The Government concluded that the measures which had prevented users from accessing the applicants’ websites had been necessary and proportionate. (b) The applicants 22. The applicants submitted that their online media targeted primarily a Russian audience. The measures preventing users in Russia from accessing their websites had amounted to a de facto ban on media activity, even 7