In 2015 the applicant company created a new website at www.ej2015.ru. The content of the original website had not been moved to the new website. 5.

access to his website.

La société ACOUSTIQUE SURDITE WERNERT a adressé à la CPAM des observations.

When the user’s browser requests a website from the server, it includes the requested domain name as part of the request. The server uses this information to determine which website to show the user.

By April 2018, the website generated monthly revenue of up to 1,500 euros. 4.

material and continued blocking even after material had been removed: violation Facts – The applicant, the owner and administrator of a website, had access to his entire website blocked by a local ISP

The judge held, in particular, that one publication hosted on the applicant’s website contained defamatory statements concerning third persons, that this website had been declared material evidence in

    Blocking of Mr Bulgakov’s website (application no.   20159/15) 9.     The applicant, Mr Bulgakov, is the owner of the website “Worldview of the Russian Civilization”.

It also owns and administers the websites www.glazey.info and www.glazey.ru which publish the materials of Glazey and local news.

The instant case concerns the decision to block access to that website in State-owned schools in Moscow.

grounds for blocking access to the entire website.

tools, which was arbitrarily banned by court, in order to avoid blocking of his entire website: violation Facts - The applicant, the owner and administrator of a website dedicated to the protection of

taken by the Professional Union of Phonogram Producers, which had unsuccessfully served notice on the websites concerned.

Those data also became accessible through the search interface on the Tax Authority’s dedicated website, as per the update of 25 July 2023.

What is the legal definition of a “mirror website” and what are the criteria and procedure for determining that one website is a “mirror” of another?

Any indiscriminate blocking measure which interfered with lawful content or websites as a collateral effect of a measure aimed at illegal content or websites amounted to arbitrary interference with the

:0), (min--moz-device-pixel-ratio: 0) {.pdfOutput_view{ font-size:10em; transform:scale(0.1); -moz-transform:scale(0.1); -webkit-transform:scale(0.1); -moz-transform-origin:top left; -webkit-transform-origin

would block only that article or the entire website. 23.

on website B.