¹ Henry Farrell, Why the Hidden Internet Can't be a Libertarian Paradise, Aeon (Feb. 20, 2015), aeon.co/essays/why-the-hidden-internet-can-t-be-a-libertarian-paradise.Google Scholar

² See Internet Development Institute, ‘Predlozhenija po formirovaniju dolgosrochnoj programmy razvitija rossijskoj chasti informacionno-kommunikacionnoj seti “Internet” i svjazannyh s nej otraslej jekonomiki’ [Suggestions on formulating the long-term development programme of the Russian Internet sector and related branches of economy], (Draft Paper) (Sept. 29, 2015).Google Scholar

³ The Internet entered the commercial phase in 1984–89, and expanded into global networks during the 1990s when business and personal computers with different operating systems joined the universal network. See Cohen-Almagor, R., Internet History, 2 Int'l J. Technoethics 45, 45–47 (2011).Google Scholar

⁴ See Barlow, J. P., A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, Electronic Frontier Foundation (Feb. 8, 1996), www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence.Google Scholar

⁵ See Pollicino, Oreste & Bassini, Marco, The Law of the Internet Between Globalization and Localization, in Transnational law-Rethinking law and Legal Thinking 346, 348 (M. Maduro & K. Tuori eds., 2014).Google Scholar

⁶ See Goldsmith, J. L., Against Cyberanarchy, 65 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1199, 1200 (1998).Google Scholar

⁷ See European Convention on Human Rights, art. 10, Sept. 3, 1953 (defining freedom of expression).Google Scholar

⁸ See Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, App. No. 3111/10, para. 8–9 (Dec. 18, 2012), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

⁹ Erik Bleich, Freedom of Expression versus Racist Hate Speech: Explaining Differences Between High Court Regulations in the USA and Europe, 39 J. Ethnic & Migration Stud. 283, 283 (2013).Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Beck, Ulrich, The Terrorist Threat, 19 Theory Culture & Soc'y 39, 53–54 (2009).Google Scholar

¹¹ See generally Negroponte, Nicholas, Being Digital (1995).Google Scholar

¹² See Balkin, Jack M., The Future of Free Expression in a Digital Age, 36 Pepp. L. Rev. 427, 434–35 (2009).Google Scholar

¹³ The primary legal instruments regulating the online domain on the territory of Europe include the Council of Europe legal instruments (including but not limited to the 2001 Convention on Cybercrime with its Additional Protocol; and the 2007 Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse), the European Union instruments (including, but not limited to Directive 2000/31/EC on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market; and Regulation 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data), as well as national legislation.Google Scholar

¹⁴ For a more elaborate presentation, see Pollicino, Oreste & Bassini, Marco, Free Speech, Defamation and the Limits to Freedom of Expression in the EU: A Comparative Analysis, in Research Handbook on EU Internet Law 508, 541 (A. Savin & J. Trzaskowski eds., 2014).Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Council of Europe, Filtering, Blocking and Take-Down of Illegal Content on the Internet (Dec. 20, 2015), www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/study-filtering-blocking-and-take-down-of-illegal-content-on-the-internet.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁷ See European Commission, European Commission and IT Companies announce Code of Conduct on illegal online hate speech (May 31, 2016), www.europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Council of Europe, Internet Users' Rights (April 16, 2014), www.coe.int/en/web/internet-users-rights/home.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Tambini, Damian, Danilo Leonardi, & Chris Mardsen, Codifying Cyberspace 28–49, 112–89 (2008).Google Scholar

²⁰ Council of Europe, supra note 18.Google Scholar

²¹ For instance, the rights and freedoms guaranteed by Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights are qualified, and each Article contains a limitation clause. No restrictions on these rights are permitted other than those expressly listed, and such restrictions must have a legitimate aim.Google Scholar

²² See Simms, David & Ghernaouti, Solange, Report on Taxonomy and Evaluation of Existing Inventories, European Union E-Crime Project (Nov. 30, 2014), www.ecrime-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/E-Crime-Deliverable-2-1-20141128_FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar

²³ For the purposes of this article, this concept is defined as “the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious or social goal through fear, coercion or intimidation.” Gary LaFree & Laura Dugan, Introducing the Global Terrorism Database, 19 Terrorism & Pol. Violence 181, 184 (2007).Google Scholar

²⁴ European Commission, supra note 17.Google Scholar

²⁵ Clive Walker & Maura Conway, Online Terrorism and Online Laws, 8 Dynamics Asymmetric Conflict 156, 156 (2015).Google Scholar

²⁶ See Cory, Nigel, The Worst Innovation Mercantilist Policies of 2016, Information Tech. & Innovation Found. (Jan. 9, 2017), www2.itif.org/2017-worst-innovation-mercantilist-policies.pdf; see also Council of Europe supra note 18, n. 15.Google Scholar

²⁷ Council of Europe, supra, note 15.Google Scholar

²⁸ See United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, The Use of the Internet for Terrorist Purposes 95–96 (2012), https://www.unodc.org/documents/frontpage/Use_of_lnternet_for_Terrorist_Purposes.pdf.Google Scholar

²⁹ See Neumann, Peter, Countering Online Radicalization in America, Bipartisan Policy Center (Dec. 6, 2012), www.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/BPC%20_Online%20Radicalization%20Report.pdf.Google Scholar

³⁰ Oreste Pollicino & Marco Bassini, supra note 14, at 517–20.Google Scholar

³¹ Daniel Castro, The False Promise of Data Nationalism, Info. Tech. & Innovation Found. (Dec. 9, 2013), www2.itif.org/2013-false-promise-data-nationalism.pdf.Google Scholar

³² See Anupam Chander & Le, Uyen P., Data Nationalism, 64 Emory L.J. 677, 679 (2015).Google Scholar

³³ Castro, supra note 31.Google Scholar

³⁴ Cory, supra note 26.Google Scholar

³⁵ See generally European Court of Human Rights, Internet: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (June 16, 2015), www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Research_report_internet_ENG.pdf.Google Scholar

³⁶ European Commission, Anonymity on the Internet (Dec. 3, 1997), ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/1997/wp6_en.pdf.Google Scholar

³⁷ European Union Ministers Bonn Declaration, July 8, 1997.Google Scholar

³⁸ See Delfi AS v. Estonia, App. No. 64569/09 (June 16, 2015), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

³⁹ See Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary, App. No. 22947/13 (Feb. 2, 2016), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995).Google Scholar

⁴¹ A Virtual Private Network extends a private network across a public network, such as the Internet. It enables users to send and receive data across shared or public networks as if their computing devices were directly connected to the private network. See Pinola, Melanie, Virtual Private Network (VPN) Definition and Examples, Lifewire (Oct. 14, 2016), www.lifewire.com/what-is-a-vpn-2377977.Google Scholar

⁴² The most well-known application of onion relaying is Tor, a software that protects a user by bouncing his/her communications around a distributed network of relays run by volunteers all around the world, thereby preventing third parties from monitoring a user's Internet connection and learning what sites he/she visits, as well as preventing the sites from learning the user's physical location. See Tor FAQ, Tor Project www.torproject.org/docs/faq.Google Scholar

⁴³ See Duah, Ebenezer, Internet Service Providers' Monitoring Obligation, 6 Masaryk Univ. J.L. & Tech. 207, 208 (2012).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Eng.), and subsequent amendments.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Arianna Vedaschi & Valerio Lubello, Data Retention and its Implications for the Fundamental Right to Privacy, 20 Tilburg L. Rev. 14, 15 (2015).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See Fabbrini, Federico, Human Rights in the Digital Age: The European Court of Justice Ruling in the Data Retention Case and its Lessons for Privacy and Surveillance in the U.S., 28 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 65, 69 (2015).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Council Directive 2006/24/EC, 2006 O.J. (EC) (explaining the retention of data generated or processed related to the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 8 April 2014Google Scholar

Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and Others and Kärntner Landesregierung and Others, Joined Cases C- 293/12 and C- 594/12Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See Case C-203/15 & Case C-698/15, Tele2 Sverige AB v. Post-och telestyrelsen and Secretary of St. for the Home Dep't v. Tom Watson and Others, 2016 E.C.R.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See Roman Zakharov v. Russia, App. No. 47143/06 (Dec. 4, 2015), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Akrivopoulou, Christina & Psygkas, Athanasios, Personal Data Privacy and Protection in a Surveillance Era 257 (2011).Google Scholar

⁵² See Mälksoo, Lauri, Russian Approaches to International Law 3 (2015).Google Scholar

⁵³ Bill Bowring, Russia and Human Rights: Incompatible Opposites?, 1 Göttingen J. Int'l L. 257, 262 (2012).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See Meister, Stefan & Puglierin, Jana, Perception and Exploitation: Russia's Non-Military Influence in Europe, 10 DGAPkompakt 4 (2015).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See Washburn, Daniel, Religious Tradition and Innovation in the Post-Soviet World: A Case of Revival of Rejection, Cumberland Lodge (Feb. 2, 2007), https://www.cumberlandlodge.ac.uk/sites/default/files/public/Religious%20Tradition%20and%20Innovation%20in%20a%20Post%20Soviet%20World.pdf.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See Ekaterina Demakova & Godzimirski, Jakub M., Russian External Energy Strategy: Opportunities and Constraints, in Dynamics of Energy Governance in Europe and Russia 149, 150–51 (C. Kuzemko et al. eds., 2012).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See generally DeBardeleben, Joan, The Impact of EU Enlargement on the EU-Russian Relationship, in A Resurgent Russia and the West: The European Union, NATO, and Beyond 93 (R. E. Kanet ed., 2009).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See Bechev, Dimitar, Russia's Influence in Bulgaria, New Direction (May 12, 2015), www.europeanreform.org/files/ND-report-RussiasInfluenceInBulgaria-preview-lo-res_FV.pdf.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See Hegedŭs, Daniel, The Kremlin's Influence in Hungary, 8 DGAPkompakt 1 (2016).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See Feyt, Nadezda, Russian-Romanian Relations in the 21st Century, 11 Pol. Sci. Int'l Rel. 53 (2014).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Vladimer Papava, The Eurasianism of the Russian antiwesternism and the concept of Central Caucasia, 3 Ideology & Pol. 68, 69–70 (2013).Google Scholar

⁶² Tatyana Beschastna, Freedom of Expression in Russia as it Relates to Criticism of the Government, 27 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 1105 (2013).Google Scholar

⁶³ Bowring, supra note 53, at 258.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See Konstitutsiia Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Konst. RF] [Constitution] (Russ.).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ This article, in its entirety, states the following:Google Scholar

Konstitutsiia Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Konst. RF] [Constitution] art. 29 (Russ.).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Papava, supra note 61.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Id. Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See Arva, Bryan J. & Piazza, James A., Spatial Distribution of Minority Communities and Terrorism, 27 Def. & Peace Econ. 1, 3 (2016).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See generally Monica Duffy Toft & Yuri Zhukov, Denial and Punishment in the North Caucasus: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Coercive Counter-insurgency, 49 J. Peace Res. 785 (2012).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See English, Richard, Armed Struggle 3–4 (1st ed., 2005).Google Scholar

⁷¹ See Komen, Maria M., Homegrown Muslim Extremism in the Netherlands: An Exploratory Note, 7 J. Strategic Sec. 47 (2013).Google Scholar

⁷² See Alexander, Yonah et al., Turkey: Terrorism, Civil Rights and the European Union (2008).Google Scholar

⁷³ See Whitfield, Teresa, The Basque Conflict and ETA, United States Institute of Peace (Dec. 2015), cic.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/whitfield_basque_conflict_eta_dec2015.pdf.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See Soldatov, Andrei & Borogan, Irina, The Red Web 246 (2015).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ See Moore, Cerwyn, Foreign Bodies: Transnational Activism, the Insurgency in the North Caucasus and Beyond, 27 Terrorism & Pol. Violence 395, 406 (2015).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Roskomnadzor is the Russian Federal Surveillance Service for Mass Media and Communications, an executive structure within the Ministry of Communications and Mass Media and the federal body responsible for supervision and surveillance of the media in Russia, including electronic media. See Regulation of Online Content in the Russian Federation 6–8 (2015).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See generally Anderson, Nate, The Internet Police (2013).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Countering Violent Extremism, a “Perfect Excuse” to Restrict Free Speech and Control the Media (May 3, 2016), www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=19916&LangID=E#sthash.yNerWwqD.dpuf.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See Hughes, Justin, The Internet and the Persistence of Law, 44 B.C. L. Rev. 1, 37 (2003); see also Rowland, Diane & Kohl, Uta, Information Technology Law 3 (2012).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) & Mario Costeja González, 2014 E.C.R.Google Scholar

⁸¹ See Kowalik-Bańczyk, Krystyna and Pollicino, Oreste, Migration of European Judicial Ideas Concerning Jurisdiction Over Google on Withdrawal of Information, 17 German L.J. 315, 319, 330–37 (2016).Google Scholar

⁸² See Pollicino, Oreste, Bridge Is Down, Data Truck Can't Get Through … A Critical View of the Schrems Judgment in the Context of European Constitutionalism, 26 ItYIL (forthcoming 2017).Google Scholar

⁸³ See Case C-362/14, Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner, 2015 E.C.R.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Oleg Soldatov, Is the Ukrainian Ban on Russian Social Media Justified?, European Ctr. for Press & Media Freedom (Aug. 1, 2017), www.rcmediafreedom.eu/Tools/Legal-Resources/Is-the-Ukrainian-ban-on-Russian-social-media-justified.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ See Kelly, Sanja et al., Freedom on the Net 2015, Freedom House (Oct. 2015), www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTN%202015%20Full%20Report.pdf.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Roskomnadzor Warned Media About Blocking for Extremism, Lenta (Jan. 31, 2014), www.lenta.ru/news/2014/01/31/extreme/.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Namely, Federal'nyi zakon (federal law) July 27, 2006, No. 149.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ See Ivanov, Ivan, Internet: Use and keep in check, Otrasli Prava (Apr. 7, 2015), www.otpacлиправа.рф/article/110.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Venice Commission Opinion on the Federal Law on Combating Extremist Activity, no. 660/2011.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ See Prime Minister's Task Force on Tackling Radicalization and Extremism, Tackling Extremism in the UK, U.K. Government (Dec. 4, 2013), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tackling-extremism-in-the-uk-report-by-the-extremism-taskforce.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Soldatov & Borogan, supra note 74, at 313.Google Scholar

⁹² In the end of July 2017, after this manuscript was accepted for the publication, a new Law prohibiting anonymizer and VPN usage and superseding Federal Law No. 97-FZ, was signed. Namely, Federal Law No. 276-FZ dated July 29, 2017 was enacted on November 1, 2017. This new piece of legislation prohibits usage of software and hardware solutions that facilitate access to the Internet resources blocked in Russia. The providers of such solutions will have to either voluntarily cooperate with Roskomnadzor, or face the prospect of unconditional ban on the Russian territory. It should also be observed that Federal Law No. 276-FZ only specifies the obligations of VPN service providers and website owners; ordinary Internet users would not, in principle, be prosecuted for using VPNs and anonymizers. See Soldatov, Oleg, The Russian VPN Ban: Another Round in the Battle for a Free Internet, European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (Sept. 20, 2017), www.rcmediafreedom.eu/Tools/Legal-Resources/The-Russian-VPN-ban-another-round-in-the-battle-for-a-free-Internet.Google Scholar

⁹³ Neil McFarquhar, Russia Quietly Tightens Reins on Web With “Bloggers Law”, N.Y. Times (May 6, 2014), www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/world/europe/russia-quietly-tightens-reins-on-web-with-bloggers-law.html.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See Maggs, Peter B. et al., Law and Legal System of the Russian Federation 372 (2015).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ See Legislative Restrictions on Popular Bloggers Come Into Force in Russia, Russ. Today (Aug. 1, 2014), www.rt.com/politics/177248-russia-bloggers-law-restrictions/.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ See Moyakine, Evgeni, Online Anonymity in the Modern Digital Age: Quest for a Legal Right, 1 J. Info. Rts., Pol'y & Prac. 5 (2016).Google Scholar

⁹⁷ See Drezner, Daniel W., So You Want to Blog …, in APSA Guide to Publications 181, 190 (2008).Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Sazonoiv, V., The Law on Giving the Mass Media Status to Bloggers, Radio Ekho Moskvy (May 7, 2014), echo.msk.ru/blog/advokat_sazonov/1315532-echo/.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Mikhail Chentsov et al., Personal Data Storage in Russia, East-West Digital News (Sept. 2015), www.ewdn.com/files/personaldatastorage.pdf.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ See Fiero, Anne, Russia's Federal Law No 242-FZ—Where Does it Leave us on Data Retention and Sharing, LinkedIn (Oct. 1, 2015), www.linkedin.com/pulse/russias-federal-law-242-fz-where-does-leave-us-data-anne-fiero.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Maggs et al., supra note 94.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Id. Google Scholar

¹⁰³ See Pollicino, Oreste & Bassini, Marco, supra note 5, at 348–49.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ See LinkedIn to be Blocked by Telecom Providers, Roskomnadzor (Nov. 17, 2016), rkn.gov.ru/news/rsoc/news41615.htm.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ See LinkedIn Traffic Statistics, Alexa (Jan. 12, 2018), www.alexa.com/siteinfo/linkedin.com.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ See Kang, Cecilia and Benner, Katie, Russia Requires Apple and Google to Remove LinkedIn from Local App Stores, N.Y. Times (Jan. 6, 2017), www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/technology/linkedin-blocked-in-russia.html.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ See LinkedIn refused to eliminate violations of Russian legislation, Roskomnadzor (Mar. 7, 2017), rkn.gov.ru/news/rsoc/news43486.htm.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Maggs et al., supra note 94.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Fiero, supra note 100.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Ivan Nechepurenko, Russia Moves to Tighten Counterterror Law, N.Y. Times (June 24, 2016), www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/world/europe/russia-counterterrorism-yarovaya-law.html.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Postanovlenie Plenuma Verkhovongo Suda Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Russian Federation Supreme Court Plenary Ruling of Feb. 9, 2012] Biulleten' Verkhovnogo Suda RF [BVS] [Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation] 2012, No. 1.Google Scholar

¹¹² Federal'nyi zakon (federal law) July 21, 2014, No. 274.Google Scholar

¹¹³ See Bailey, Ronald, I Learned It By Watching You!, Reason 18 (Nov. 2016).Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ See Morschakova, Tamara et al., Zakonoproekty Ozerova i Yarovoj ne snizjat terroristicheskoj i jekstremistskoj ugrozy i nuzhdajutsja v pererabotke [Draft laws prepared by Ozerov and Yarovaya will not decrease the terrorist and extremist threat, and need to be reworked], Human Rights Council (Apr. 16, 2016), www.president-sovet.ru/presscenter/news/read/3151/.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ See Potresov, S., “Popravki Yarovoj i Ozerova,” tsena voprosa [Ozerov's and Yarova's Drafts, Amounts Involved], Mobile-Review (June 24, 2016), www.mobile-review.com/articles/2016/data-storage.shtml.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ See Savitskiy, V., Kvartalnyy Podschet [Quarterly Results], Comnews (Sept. 1, 2016), www.comnews.ru/content/103556/2016-09-01/kvartalnyy-podschet.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Potresov, supra note 115.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Bailey, supra note 113.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ See Vkontakte so sledovatelyami [Online with Prosecutors], Medusa (July 5, 2016), www.meduza.io/feature/2016/07/05/vkontakte-so-sledovatelyami.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ See European Commission on Human Rights, High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights, Brighton Declaration (Apr. 19, 2012), www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2012_Brighton_FinalDeclaration_ENG.pdf (last visited April 7, 2017).Google Scholar

¹²¹ See Sweet, Alec Stone, On the Constitutionalisation of the Convention: The European Court of Human Rights as a Constitutional Court, 71 Fac. Scholarship Series 4 (2009).Google Scholar

¹²² Ed Bates, The Evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights: From its Inception to the Creation of a Permanent Court of Human Rights 22 (2010).Google Scholar

¹²³ Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, A Tale of Two Courts: Luxembourg, Strasbourg and the Growing European Human Rights Acquis, 43 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 629, 631 (2006).Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Francoise Tulkens, Execution and Effects of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: The Role of the Judiciary, in Dialogue Between Judges 9, 12 (2006).Google Scholar

¹²⁵ See Supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: 9^th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers, Council of Europe 21 (2016).Google Scholar

¹²⁶ See Abdelgawad, Elisabeth Lambert, The Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 6 (2006) (citing interim resolutions in cases of Loizidou v Turkey, and Ilaşcu and others v Moldova and the Russian Federation).Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Council of Europe, supra note 125, at 101.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Helfer, Laurence R., Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime, 19 Eur. J. Int'l L. 125, 125 (2008).Google Scholar

¹²⁹ High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights, Brighton Declaration, supra note 120.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Pomeranz, William E., Uneasy Partners: Russia and the European Court of Human Rights, 19 Human Rts. Brief 17, 17 (2012).Google Scholar

¹³¹ See Mälksoo, Lauri, Russia's Constitutional Court Defies the European Court of Human Rights, 12 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 377, 380 (2016).Google Scholar

¹³² Postanovlenie Konstitutsionnogo Sudaa Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot 14 июль 2015 [Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of July 14, 2015], Rossiiskaia Gazeta [Ros. Gaz.] 2015, No. 21-Π [hereinafter Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation].Google Scholar

¹³³ This law was criticized by the Venice Commission. See Venice Commission Interim Opinion on the Amendments to the Federal Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation no. 832/2015, http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2016)005-e.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, supra note 132.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Postanovlenie Konstitutsionnogo Sudaa Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot 19 aΠpeπb 2016 [Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of Apr. 19, 2016], Rossiiskaia Gazeta [Ros. Gaz.] 2016, No. 12-Π [Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of Apr. 19, 2016].Google Scholar

¹³⁶ See Neuman, Gerald L., Human Rights and Constitutional Rights: Harmony and Dissonance, 55 Stan. L. Rev. 1863, 1863 (2003).Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Sweet, supra note 121, at 6.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ See Pollicino, Oreste, The European Court of Human Rights and the Italian Constitutional Court: No “Groovy Kind of Love”, in The UK and European Human Rights: A Strained Relationship? 361, 363 (K. Siegler ed., 2015).Google Scholar

¹³⁹ See Kanetake, M. and Nollkaemper, A., The Rule of Law at the National and International Levels 215 (Hart Publishing 2016).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Pollicino, supra note 138, at 377.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ European Court of Human Rights HUDOC Database Search, hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22respondent%22:[%22RUS%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22CHAMBER%22,%22COMMUNlCATEDCASES%22]} (last visited January 17, 2018).Google Scholar

¹⁴² European Court of Human Rights HUDOC Database Search, hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22internet%22],%22respondent%22:[%22RUS%22],%22article%22:[%228%22,%228-1%22,%228-2%22,%2210%22,%2210-1%22,%2210-2%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22COMMUNICATEDCASES%22]} (last visited Jan. 17, 2018).Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Oleg Soldatov, Data Retention Under the 2016 Yarovaya Law in Russia, Medialaws (March 2, 2017), www.medialaws.eu/data-retention-under-the-2016-yarovaya-law-in-russia-disrupting-the-european-status-quo/.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Shabanov & Tren v. Russia, App. No. 5433/02 (Dec. 2006), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/. In this case, the Court explored, inter alia, the journalistic duties to cover stories of general interest and to avoid gratuitous attacks on public personalities' reputations.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Filatenko v. Russia, App. No. 73219/01 (June 3, 2004), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/. In this case, the Court reached the conclusion that opinions and information aired during an electoral campaign should be considered as part of a debate on issues of public interest and that there is little scope under Article 10 for restrictions on such a debate.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Shimovolos v. Russia, App. No. 30194/09 (June 21, 2011), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/. In this case, the Court noted that the existence of the “surveillance database” containing the information about the applicant's travel amounted to an interference with his private life, given the fact that the creation and maintenance of the database and the procedure for its operation were governed by a ministerial order, which had never been published or otherwise made accessible to the public.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Olga Dubinska & Oleg Soldatov, Fighting the Lernaean Hydra—General Measures in the Operative Part of the European Court of Human Rights Judgments: Broad Context and Ukrainian Perspectives, 1 Kyiv-Mohyla L. & Pol. J. 176, 179–80 (2015).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Putin: vyhod Rossii iz-pod jurisdikcii ESPCh vozmozhen, no vopros na povestke ne stoit [Putin: Russia Can Leave the Jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, but the Question is not on the Agenda], TASS (Aug. 14, 2015), www.tass.ru/politika/1380242.Google Scholar