CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 octobre 2020

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 245 November 2020 Telegram Messenger LLP and Telegram Messenger Inc. v. Russia (communicated case) - 13232/18   Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom to impart information Administrative fine and blocking of messaging application for owner-operator’s refusal to provide decryption information in respect of users suspected of terrorism: communicated The applicants are the previous and current owners and operators of Telegram, a free messaging application which can be used on various devices. Telegram provides for the possibility of sending messages with end-to-end encryption, which can only be read by the sender and recipient and cannot be deciphered by anybody else, including the owner-operators. In July 2017, Telegram Messenger LLP received a disclosure order from the Federal Security Service, requiring it to disclose information that would facilitate the decoding of information in respect of six Telegram users, who were suspected of terrorism-related activities. The applicant company refused to comply with the order and was subsequently convicted of an administrative offence and fined. They appealed unsuccessfully. In April 2018, and at the request of the Federal Telecom Supervision Service, Roskomnadzor, the District Court of Moscow ordered the blocking of the Telegram application in Russia. It reasoned that the company had failed in its statutory obligation to comply with the disclosure order and had subsequently refused to provide the necessary data again. The judgment was subject to immediate enforcement. Telegram Messenger LLP again appealed unsuccessfully. Telegram Messenger LLP complained before the Court that the conviction and fine imposed for failure to comply with the disclosure order had interfered with their freedom to impart information, had not been prescribed by law and not been necessary in a democratic society. They also complained that blocking the messaging application without a final court order was not based on any compelling reasons and was disproportionate; and that the domestic courts had not assessed whether the blocking order and its immediate enforcement were necessary in a democratic society. They further complained that the proceedings concerning the administrative offence were not objectively impartial and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. In respect of the blocking proceedings, they argued that the claim’s examination under civil rather than administrative procedural laws was unlawful; that there was insufficient time to prepare its defence prior to the first-instance hearing, no access to relevant documents and an inability to make arrangements for the lawyer’s presence at it. After taking over the messaging application, Telegram Messenger Inc. maintained the complaints and expressed intention to pursue them following Telegram Messenger LLP’s dissolution on their behalf and in their own name. Communicated under Article 6, Article 10 and Article 13 in conjunction with Article 10.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes