Roskomnadzor filed a lawsuit in the Tagansky District Court of Moscow on the blocking of Telegram. This was reported in the press service of the department. A spokeswoman for the court noted that she had not yet received a statement, but she would arrive during the day.
The Office filed a lawsuit because of the messenger’s refusal to comply with the requirements of the information dissemination organizer (ARI) and pass encryption keys to Russian special services.
The statement of claim was filed in connection with the FSB’s failure to comply with Telegram Messenger Limited Liability Partnership’s obligations as the organizer of the dissemination of information specified in clause 4.1 of Article 10.1 of the Law on Information.
The head of the human rights group Agora, Pavel Chikov, representing the interests of Telegram, said that lawyers had not yet seen the claim and could not comment on it.
The position of Telegram remains the same – the requirements of the FSB to provide access to private correspondence of users are unconstitutional, not based on law, technically and legally unenforceable, hence the requirement of blocking is also unreasonable.
On March 20, Roskomnadzor gave Telegram 15 days to transfer the keys to decrypt the correspondence, the deadline expired on April 5. The department has addressed in court, as a last resort it will follow:
- the court’s decision to block;
- Telegram team’s appeal to this decision and loss in all instances;
- second warning from Roskomnadzor on the blocking;
- Telegram’s second refusal to hand over the keys within 15 days;
- the beginning of the messenger lock.
The FSB asks for keys from Telegram’s correspondence for “decoding received, transmitted, delivered and processed messages” by users. A formal motive – a messenger used by militants before the terrorist attack in the St. Petersburg metro. On April 4, the special services once again stated that all the latest terrorist attacks in Russia were coordinated through messengers.
Telegram lawyers tried to appeal this claim, because they considered it a violation of the law and the powers of special services. The Supreme Court disagreed with them.