CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Communicated on 2 July 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 25479/19 WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, INC. against Turkey lodged on 29 April 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the imposition of a blanket ban on access to the entire Wikipedia web site, a free online encyclopaedia. On 28   April 2017 the Turkish Information and Communication Technologies Authority (“ICTA”) requested that five URL addresses be removed from the Wikipedia website and the following day access to the entire web site was blocked by the ICTA. On the same day, this act was approved by the Ankara 1 st Magistrates’ Court (dec. no. 2017/2956 D. İş.) and the applicant’s objection was rejected by the same judge on 4 May 2017. According to the information in the case file, on 9 May 2017 the applicant filed an individual application with the Turkish Constitutional Court and this application is still pending. The applicant alleges under Articles 6, 10 and 15 of the Convention that the blanket ban imposed on the entire Wikipedia web site constituted an unjustified interference with its freedom of expression.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, could the individual application that was lodged with the Constitutional Court be considered as an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 of the Convention, having regard to the fact that access to the Wikipedia internet site has been blocked in Turkey since 2017 and that according to the applicant, its individual application has been pending before the Constitutional Court for more than two years? The Parties are further requested to inform the Court about the Constitutional Court’s approach to blanket bans on entire websites. Has a similar matter already been examined by the Constitutional Court to determine whether such restrictions are in line with the standards of Article 10 of the Convention?   2.     Did the blanket blocking of access to the entire Wikipedia internet site, ordered by the national authorities, amount to an infringement of the applicant’s rights under Article 10 of the Convention?   3.     Could Section 8A of Law no. 5631 on regulation of publications on the internet and combatting crimes committed by means of such publication (“the Internet Law”), as amended in 2015, be considered in line with the Convention standards? In particular, does the law foresee less intrusive measures rather than the blocking of access to an entire internet site? Furthermore, does the domestic law impose the national courts to make an assessment of the proportionality of the measure depending on the circumstances of each case?   4.     Did the restriction in question, namely the blanket ban on accessing the Wikipedia internet site as a whole, pursue a legitimate aim as required by Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?   5.     Did the restriction in question respond to a clear, pressing and specific social need and was it proportional to the legitimate aim pursued? Did the reasons put forward by the authorities justify the restriction in question?     6.     What are the judicial safeguards foreseen under Turkish law to ascertain that the imposed measures are in accordance with the Convention standards? In particular, is there a possibility of judicial review of the decisions delivered by the magistrates’ court? In this connection, did the applicant have at its disposal an effective judicial remedy whereby it could challenge the blanket ban imposed on the entire Wikipedia website? If so, the Government are requested to provide copies of the sample decisions.   7.     Finally, in order to evaluate the issues arising out of the implementation of Law no. 5651, the Parties are requested to inform the Court about the actual number of blocked URLs and websites.