The ECHR has declared inadmissible complaints regarding the blocking of russian websites in Ukraine

The case concerned sanctions imposed by a decision of the National Security and Defence Council, which were brought into force by a Decree of the President of Ukraine dated 15 May 2017 restricting access to the platforms ‘VKontakte’, ‘Odnoklassniki’, Mail.ru and ‘Yandex’.

Four applicants – users of russian online platforms – applied to the Court seeking to block access to the aforementioned services within Ukraine. The applicants considered that the restrictions violated their rights to freedom of expression and respect for private and family life.

The Court examined these complaints and concluded that the applicants had not demonstrated the existence of a direct and substantial violation of their rights.

Sanctions against russian internet companies involved the cessation of telecommunications services to the relevant companies and restrictions on access to their resources from within Ukraine. According to the case file, it is known that the aforementioned platforms were used as tools for information influence and data collection during the ongoing armed conflict.

In particular, over 870 anti-Ukrainian communities with a total audience of around 9.5 million users were identified on the VKontakte and Odnoklassniki platforms. These groups disseminated propaganda-style material and published information on the locations of Ukrainian Armed Forces units. The platforms’ administrators systematically ignored requests from Ukrainian authorities to remove illegal content.

The ECHR drew attention to the context of the armed conflict, which has been ongoing since 2014, and recognised it as a significant factor in assessing the state’s actions.

The Court noted that modern conflicts involve not only military but also information and digital tools of influence. In this regard, states may employ a range of measures to protect national security and public order.

Referring to the judgment in the case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. russia, the Court also emphasised that since 2014, Ukraine has faced unprecedented challenges linked to the actions of the russian federation.

The judgment states that the VKontakte and Odnoklassniki platforms are under the control of entities linked to russian state-owned companies. This, in the Court’s view, is a key factor in assessing information security risks.

The Court also assessed the applicants’ argument regarding the sudden imposition of restrictions.

The ECtHR acknowledged that the sanctions were imposed without a transition period. At the same time, it noted that the decision was taken in circumstances where the state’s rapid response may be necessary to safeguard security.

Furthermore, the Court emphasised that the sanctions were directed not against users, but against specific legal entities — the owners of the platforms — and noted that users retained the ability to use other digital services for communication and the dissemination of information (Facebook, Gmail and others). It was also noted that access to the blocked resources remained technically possible through the use of VPN services. One of the applicants continued to use the platforms in precisely this way.

The ECHR has established an important legal position regarding access to social media.

The Court noted that the prevalence of social media in modern life does not mean that the loss of access to specific platforms automatically confers the status of a ‘victim’ of a violation of freedom of expression.

An applicant to the ECHR must demonstrate the specific and significant impact of such a restriction on their ability to receive or disseminate information.

The ECHR also compared this case with the judgment in Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, which concerned the blocking of the YouTube platform. In that judgment, the Court recognised that YouTube has unique significance as a platform for the dissemination of information and citizen journalism. In contrast, in the case of ‘Boyarov and Others v. Ukraine’, the Court noted that russian social media platforms have functional alternatives in the global market for digital services.

Margarita Sokorenko, Commissioner for the European Court of Human Rights, noted: “The European Court of Human Rights has effectively recognised that the information component of the current conflict is a legally significant circumstance. The state has the right to respond to such threats, in particular by restricting the operation of digital platforms that may be used as instruments of influence. At the same time, the applicant must prove the real and substantial impact of such measures on their rights, which was not done in this case. It is also important that the Court drew a clear distinction between the purpose of the sanctions and their consequences for users. The state acted against the platforms — instruments of hostile influence — rather than against people’s right to freedom of expression. The inconvenience undoubtedly experienced by users is a consequence, not the aim, of the sanctions. This distinction is fundamental from the perspective of Convention law.”

The ECHR’s ruling confirms the state’s right to apply restrictive measures against digital platforms if they are linked to threats to national security. At the same time, the Court emphasised that the proportionality of such measures must be assessed in light of the specific context.

Source: Ministry of Justice of Ukraine