Faith Protection

Fifth blockade in one year: Why UOJ is suing Security Service of Ukraine

15:53

114

Author: News

UOJ files a lawsuit against the SBU. Photo: UOJ

We break down why the decision to block Orthodox websites is unlawful and legally unfounded.

On January 10, 2025, the State Service of Special Communications of Ukraine issued an order to Ukrainian internet providers to block the website of the Union of Orthodox Journalists (UOJ). According to the service, this action was taken at the request of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). This marks the fifth time the website has been blocked in just over a year. Each time, the UOJ has been forced to change its domain to continue operating. The authorities are now targeting the domain spzh.eu.

The previous blockades occurred as follows:

December 16, 2023: spzh.news
March 13, 2024: spzh.media
September 12, 2024: spzh.live
November 15, 2024: spzh.life

The issue isn't merely the technical efforts or financial costs required to restore the website's functionality. The bigger question is why these blockades are happening at all. In 2024 alone, all major Orthodox websites in Ukraine covering the life of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) – including its official website (!) – were blocked.

Moreover, neither government officials nor security agencies have provided any explanation to journalists regarding the reasons for these blockades. There are no court rulings, no official letters from the SBU to editorial offices explaining their actions, and not even statements from law enforcement on social media (despite the SBU’s social media accounts being highly active and content-rich).

For this reason, the UOJ has decided that it can no longer remain silent in response to such actions by the SBU. The platform’s legal team is taking the matter to court, demanding that the SBU explain why those tasked with upholding the law are engaging in what appears to be blatant illegality. In doing so, the UOJ is not just defending itself. This legal case is setting a precedent. If the court rules in favor of the UOJ, the government will be obligated to lift the blockade on the official UOC website and all other platforms defending the Church. While these sites (like the UOJ) continue to operate, readers are forced to use VPNs to access their content, which is not always convenient.

Some may argue that our position is unfounded, suggesting that the SBU, acting in the interest of national security, can block media "without due process." To address this, let’s examine what Ukrainian and EU laws, as well as judicial practices, say on this matter.

What Ukrainian Law Says

According to Article 34 of the Constitution of Ukraine:
*"Everyone shall be guaranteed the right to freedom of thought and speech, and to free expression of his views and beliefs. Everyone shall have the right to freely collect, store, use, and disseminate information by oral, written, or other means at his discretion."*

*"The exercise of such rights may be restricted by law in the interests of national security, territorial integrity, or public order, for the purposes of preventing disturbances or crimes, protecting the health of the population, protecting the reputation or rights of other persons, preventing the publication of information received confidentially, or supporting the authority and impartiality of justice."*

Let’s ask a simple question: do the news and articles of UOJ (or, for example, the official website of the UOC) incite disorder or crime? Do they harm public health? Clearly, they do not. Perhaps they damage the reputation of individuals or organizations involved in religiously motivated crimes. However, that issue lies with those individuals, not with the journalists.

Article 15 of the Constitution of Ukraine states:
*"Social life in Ukraine shall be based on the principles of political, economic, and ideological diversity. No ideology shall be recognised as mandatory by the State. Censorship shall be prohibited. The State shall guarantee the freedom of political activities, not prohibited by the Constitution and
the laws of Ukraine."*

It’s worth recalling the criminal cases initiated by SBU investigators against UOJ journalists, in which the OCU is referred to as a "state attribute". Perhaps the same individuals wrote the orders to block Orthodox websites – individuals unaware that Ukraine does not have "mandatory" ideologies or confessions, and that censorship is constitutionally prohibited. Blocking websites is, undeniably, censorship.

Article 4 of Ukraine’s Law "On Media" states that activities in the media sphere *"are based on the principles of freedom of expression, freedom of dissemination, exchange, and reception of information. Censorship is prohibited. Illegal interference in the activities of media entities by state bodies, local governments, public associations, political parties, owners of relevant entities, or any other individuals or entities is not permitted."*

In practice, this is a clear violation of this article. Blocking websites constitutes obvious censorship and illegal interference in media activities by state authorities.

What International Law Says

According to Article 10 of the *Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms*:
*"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."*

Blocking the UOJ website infringes the rights of tens or even hundreds of thousands of readers in Ukraine who, due to "interference by public authorities," were unable to access certain information.

We understand that criticism of the authorities and the OCU by the UOJ might irritate officials, but let’s consider the following facts:

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled in cases such as *Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan* and *Handyside v. United Kingdom* that, under Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention, freedom of expression applies not only to "information" or "ideas" viewed favorably or considered inoffensive but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb the state or any segment of the population. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance, and open-mindedness, without which a "democratic society" cannot exist.

The UOJ denies offending, shocking, or disturbing anyone. But even if it did, the state cannot resort to censorship.

The *Declaration of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on Human Rights and the Rule of Law in the Information Society* (May 28, 2003) states:
*"Freedom of expression, information, and communication must be respected in both digital and non-digital environments and must not be restricted."* It also emphasizes that *"member states must support and improve legal and practical measures to prevent public and private censorship."*

Principle 3 of the Declaration specifies:
*"State authorities must not, through general blocking or filtering measures, deprive the public of access to information and other forms of communication on the internet, regardless of borders."*

The declaration also notes that some countries block access to domestic or foreign websites for political reasons, which constitutes a form of prior state control and should be strongly condemned.

Provisions for Content Removal

Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the *European Convention on Human Rights* permits measures to remove illegal internet content or block access to it but only if *"competent national authorities have made a prior or final decision on its illegality."*

Principle 3 of the Declaration of the Committee of Ministers clarifies that states can take such measures only *"after a prior or final decision by competent national authorities confirming its illegality under criminal, civil, or administrative law."* Typically, this involves court injunctions to prevent the dissemination of illegal content online.

To date, no such decisions regarding the UOJ or other Orthodox websites have been issued.

EU Parliamentary Recommendations

In Recommendation 2008/2160(INI), adopted by the European Parliament on March 26, 2009, member states were urged to:
*"Ensure that freedom of expression is not arbitrarily restricted by the state or private entities and avoid any legislative or administrative measures that could have a 'chilling effect' on freedom of speech in all its forms."*

UN Guidance

In General Comment No. 34 on Article 19 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* (adopted at the 102nd session, July 11–29, 2011), the UN Human Rights Committee stated:
*"It is not permissible to prohibit a website or information distribution system solely because it may contain criticism of the government or the political or social system it supports."*

Below we cite the principles and rulings that can be directly applied to the situation with the blocking of the UOJ and other Orthodox websites.

**European Court Practice**

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has clearly expressed its position on unlawful website blockages in cases such as *Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey* and *Cengiz and Others v. Turkey*.

In the first case, the state blocked a website owned by Ahmet Yildirim on the grounds of a criminal case related to insulting the memory of President Atatürk.

In the second case, Turkey blocked Cengiz's YouTube channel, also for criticism of Atatürk.

The ECHR found that the state violated rights in these cases by blocking websites within criminal proceedings due to the presence of potentially unlawful materials.

Additionally, Wikipedia filed a lawsuit against Turkey in the ECHR over a two-year ban on the site in the country.

On December 26, 2019, the plenary of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Turkey, before the ECHR reached a decision, ruled that blocking access to Wikipedia constituted a violation of freedom of speech. Six out of ten judges voted in favor of the ruling.

The case was accepted for consideration by the Constitutional Court on September 11, based on a private complaint filed by the Wikimedia Foundation in May 2017 after the Ankara court rejected its application.

It’s important to note that this case only gained traction after the Wikimedia Foundation’s complaint about Turkey’s blocking of Wikipedia was accepted for review by the ECHR. The foundation initiated the appeal because the Turkish judicial system had ignored its claim for over two years. The ECHR accepted the case in early July 2019, granted it priority status, and gave the Turkish government two months to provide documentation. On November 18, 2019, the European Commissioner for Human Rights submitted an analysis of the country’s human rights situation, arguing that *"Turkey’s judicial system for human rights protection needs a complete overhaul."*

National Practice

On November 27, 2024, the Kyiv District Administrative Court, in case № 320/43973/24, overturned the State Service of Special Communications' decision to block the website of the *Ukrainian National Lottery*.

Conclusions

The Constitution of Ukraine and international law explicitly state that censorship and unjustified violations of freedom of speech by the state are unlawful.
The practices of the ECHR and even Ukrainian courts demonstrate that judicial authorities compel state technical services to restore access to illegally blocked websites.
In Turkey's case, local judges only began to take action after appeals were filed with the ECHR. While we make no insinuations, it’s worth noting that Ukrainians and Turks share some similar traits in their national mentality.

The most important takeaway: the blocking of UOJ and other Orthodox websites is entirely unlawful and politically motivated. If judges carry out their duties honestly, restrictions on Orthodox resources must be lifted.

---