ENGELS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT the Plenary Supreme Court’s Ruling no. 21 of 27 June 2013, which required them to have regard to the criteria established in the Convention in its interpretation by the Court (see Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, § 217, 7 February 2017). In reaching the decision, the Regional Court did not seek to weigh up the various interests at stake. It confined its scrutiny to establishing formal compliance with the letter of the law. However, in the Court’s view, a Convention-compliant review should have taken into consideration, among other elements, the fact that a blocking measure, by rendering large quantities of legitimate information inaccessible, substantially restricted the rights of the website owner and of Internet users, and had a significant collateral effect (see Ahmet Yıldırım, cited above, § 66). 34. The Court reiterates that it is incompatible with the rule of law if the legal framework fails to establish safeguards capable of protecting individuals from excessive and arbitrary effects of sweeping blocking measures, such as those in issue in the instant case. In the light of its examination of the Russian legislation as applied in the instant case, the Court concludes that the interference resulted from the application of the procedure under subsection (5)(2) of section 15.1 of the Information Act which did not satisfy the foreseeability requirement under the Convention and did not afford the applicant the degree of protection from abuse to which he was entitled by the rule of law in a democratic society. Accordingly, the interference was not “prescribed by law” and it is not necessary to examine whether the other requirements of paragraph 2 of Article 10 have been met. 35. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 10 36. The applicant complained that the Russian courts had not involved him in the blocking proceedings or considered the merits of his arguments on appeal. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 10. Article 13 reads as follows: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” A. Admissibility 37. 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 38. The Government submitted that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies at his disposal and had used them to the full extent. His case had been heard and decided on the basis of the applicable legislation. Since access to his website had not actually been blocked, there had been no violation of his rights. 10