The Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine made public the reasoning part of the decision, which refused to recognize unlawful the decree of the President of Ukraine "On the application of personal special economic and other restrictive measures (sanctions)".

Recall that the day after the signing of this document, a student of the Faculty of Juridical Sciences of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy Nikita Evstifeev filed a lawsuit with a demand to revoke his action with regard to the ban on Russian sites - VKontakte, Odnoklassniki and Mail. En. The plaintiff complained that the Decree violates his rights to freedom of expression in accordance with Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and on freedom of access to information.

The WACU in its decision stated that it does not see a violation of the rights of the plaintiff and refused to satisfy the claim - the Appeal can be appealed only by the persons defined in this document or representatives of such persons. "Since the plaintiff is not the owner of the site, the Internet provider or directly representative of legal entities to which the Decree has applied sanctions, this Decree does not give him the right to protection. But the plaintiff himself notes that he is a user of the Internet, "- explained in the WACU.

In this case, the decision says, it is debatable not to use the network as a whole, but only to prohibit Internet providers for a certain period to provide services for accessing Internet users to the resources of certain services, which, in turn, does not create obstacles for the use of any -or other services.

In addition, the law "On Information", in particular h. 2 items. 6, it is determined that the right to information may be restricted in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public order in order to prevent disorder or crime, public health, to protect the reputation or rights of others, to prevent disclosure of information received in confidence or for Maintaining the authority and impartiality of justice. The law also provides that no one can restrict the person's right to choose the forms and sources of information, except in cases provided for by law.

"The legislator envisaged to a certain extent the possibility of restricting the right to information, but at the same time did not in any way restrict the right to choose the forms and sources of information," the court noted..

The Supreme Commercial Court noted that this decree of the plaintiff limited the choice of forms and sources of information.

"Certain obstacles that may arise in the process of using the resources of the services" Mail. Ru "and socially-oriented resources" Vkontakte "and" Odnoklassniki "do not limit the rights of citizens to use these resources, but are caused solely by the need to create negative consequences for persons subject to special economic and other restrictive measures (sanctions)," The court's decision says.