EuGH für Menschenrechte (v. 23.6.20): „Das Blockieren ganzer Webseiten gibt Anlaß zu ernster Sorge“

1. Das Bundesinnenministerium am 25.08.2017:

„Bundesinnenminister Dr. Thomas de Maizière hat heute die linksextremistische Internetplattform ‚#linksunten.#indymedia‘ … verboten und aufgelöst.“

„Ziel ist es, die Internetplattform ‚linksunten.indymedia‘ dauerhaft abzuschalten.“

2. Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte in Straßburg am 23.06.2020 über russische Fälle der Sperrung ganzer Webseiten:

„The Court reiterates that the wholesale blocking of access to a website is an extreme measure which has been compared to banning a newspaper or television station (see paragraphs 15 and 16 above). Such a measure deliberately disregards the distinction between the legal and illegal information the website may contain, and renders inaccessible large amounts of content which has not been identified as illegal. Blocking access to the entire website has the practical effect of extending the scope of the blocking order far beyond the illegal content which had been originally targeted (compare Ahmet Yıldırım, cited above, § 63). […]. However, even if there were exceptional circumstances justifying the blocking of illegal content, a measure blocking access to an entire website has to be justified on its own, separately and distinctly from the justification underlying the initial order targeting illegal content, and by reference to the criteria established and applied by the Court under Article 10 of the Convention (see Ahmet Yıldırım, § 66, and Kablis, § 94, both cited above). Blocking access to legitimate content can never be an automatic consequence of another, more restricted blocking measure in the way in which section 15.3 allows the authorities to extend a limited blocking request to encompass an entire website. Any indiscriminate blocking measure which interferes with lawful content or websites as a collateral effect of a measure aimed at illegal content or websites amounts to arbitrary interference with the rights of the owners of such websites. The Government did not put forward any justification for the wholesale blocking order. They did not explain what legitimate aim or pressing social need the Russian authorities sought to achieve by blocking access to the applicants’ online media. The applicants’ claim that the true objective of the Russian authorities was to suppress access to the opposition media outlets gives rise to serious concern. The UN Human Rights Committee and Special Rapporteurs have emphasised that targeting online media or websites with blocking measures because they are critical of the government or political system can never be considered a necessary restriction on freedom of expression (see paragraphs 16 and 25 above). Lacking any justification for the wholesale blocking orders targeting the applicants’ websites, the Court finds that they did not pursue any legitimate aim.“ (Textziffer 37 und 38)

3. Das Kuriose an dem deutschen Fall: Inzwischen behaupten Bundesinnenministerium bzw. die dieses vertretenende Rechtsanwaltskanzlei (S. 2 oben) und Bundesverwaltungsgericht, die fragliche internet-Seite sei gar nicht verboten worden:

„Regelungsgegenstand des Verbotsbescheids ist nicht das Verbot des unter der Internetadresse ‚‘ betriebenen Veröffentlichungs- und Diskussionsportals, […].“ (; Textziffer 33)

Siehe dazu:


Was ist eigentlich noch verboten?