Russian media watchdog uses unpublished order for blocking

Russian media watchdog uses unpublished order for blocking
The Agency explained the appearance of a new version of the document by replacing it with an "actual version"

Representatives of the Agency argue that the document appeared in the database of regulatory legal acts as early as 25 September.

The Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) denies that the order on the blocking rules is published on the site of normative legal acts with hindsight. According to the Agency, the document was posted on regulation.gov.ru on September 25, after which it was to pass a public examination, which ended on October 20.

"Upon completion of the public discussion, the order and the consolidated report were sent to the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia to prepare an opinion on the assessment of the regulatory impact," the Agency writes.

Further, as reported in the statement of Roskomnadzor, the Ministry of Economic Development issued a negative conclusion to the project and sent it for revision. After the last one was held, the order was signed by the Ministry of Economic Development and then sent for state registration to the Ministry of Justice.

"Accordingly, the draft order and the opinion on the assessment of the regulatory impact were not ‘slipped in’ on the official site regulation.gov.ru, but replaced with actual versions," the Agency claims.

Recall that previously CNews reported that the regulator has replaced the draft on the order of blocking sites. Allegedly, on February 2, the Economic Development Ministry issued a negative response to its original version, and a few days later the site published a new version of the project and a new positive response from the Ministry of Economic Development.

According to the edition, the old project and the review disappeared from the site on February 9, but after the publication of the article they appeared again. However, the existence of the first version of the project is not reported in its history. The edition claimed that the drafter should send the project for a second discussion in case of a revision. In fact, the Agency ignored this rule.

Discuss

Recommended

1 / 3