Previous 20 / 23 Next

VLADIMIR KHARITONOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period, plus three percentage points; 5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 June 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Milan Blaško Registrar Paul Lemmens President In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the separate opinion of Judges Lemmens, Dedov and Poláčková, is annexed to this judgment. P.L. M.B. 18

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia

Case Law

Country

Russia

Country Location

Latitude: 55.84775990443999

Longitude: 37.50146462023251

Country Location (linked Case Law): Russia

Decision Date: 23 de jun. de 2020

Case Status: Closed

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

Primary Documents

Third Section Judgment
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia

Primary Documents

Notifications