ABDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAABAC
1
This tracker is maintained by Access Now (www.accessnow.org) and the #KeepItOn Coalition. We cannot guarantee complete accuracy or timeliness. Please contact legal@accessnow.org for more information or to suggest updates to the database. NOTE: this is not confidential; anyone with the link can "view".
2
Court (Country/ Region)Lawsuit Filing DateCase Open (Y/N)Ruling (Date)Appeal (Y/N)News/ Blog Posts (Link)Case NumberCase Summary and NotesPlaintiffs (Lawyers)RespondentsCourt DocsIntervenors/Amici (Link to Docs)Latest/ Next Hearing (Dates)Other DocsTelcos Involved
3
Turksib District Court, Almaty, KazakhstanMarch 2024YJuly 25, 2024https://shutdown.kz/ ; https://factcheck.kz/novosti/ya-ne-hochu-povtoreniya-yanvarskih-sobytiy-v-buduschem-kazahstanets-proigral-sud-po-delu-ob-ogranichenii-dostupa-v-internet/In early March, the Coalition of Human Rights Organizations filed lawsuits claiming violation of the rights of subscribers of communication services due to the internet shutdown during the January 2022 protests.

The lawsuits were filed as part of the campaign against Internet shutdowns and were sent to the district courts of Almaty with a request to recognize the actions of the defendants, represented by the defendants. Almaty with a request to recognize the actions of the defendants represented by Kazakhtelecom JSC, Kar-Tel LLP (Beeline & IZI) and Mobile Telecom Service LLP (Tele2/Altel), which led to disconnection of Internet access, as violating the rights of the plaintiffs - consumers of communication services, as well as with a request to recover from the defendants material compensation corresponding to the damage caused as a result of disconnection of Internet access.
On July 25, Turksib District Court of Almaty city made a decision on the case of restricting access to the Internet during the January events. The claims stated by the plaintiff were rejected in full.

The plaintiff was lawyer Elzhan Kabyshev, the defendants were Kar-Tel LLP (Beeline & IZI) and Kazakhtelecom JSC.

The court found the plaintiff's claims unfounded. In its decision, the court recalled that the state of emergency in Kazakhstan was introduced by presidential decree № 725 of January 5, 2022 to protect the territorial integrity, political stability and security of citizens.

Human rights coalition, led by Eurasian Digital Foundation, representing internet usersТОО «Кар-Тел» (Beeline & IZI) и ТОО «Мобайл Телеком Сервис» (Tele2/Altel).July 23, 15:00 Almaty timeТОО «Кар-Тел» (Beeline & IZI) и ТОО «Мобайл Телеком Сервис» (Tele2/Altel).
4
No. 2 Almaty District Court, Almaty, KazakhstanMarch 2024YJune 26, 2024Yhttps://shutdown.kz/ ; https://factcheck.kz/novosti/v-almaty-proshel-sud-po-delu-narusheniya-prav-abonentov-uslug-svyazi-iz-za-otklyucheniya-interneta-v-period-yanvarskih-sobytiy/ ; https://factcheck.kz/novosti/sud-v-almaty-otkazal-v-iskovyh-trebovaniyah-po-delu-narusheniya-prav-abonentov-uslug-svyazi-iz-za-otklyucheniya-interneta-vo-vremya-yanvarskih-sobytiy/Case number № 7520-24-00-2/6605; appeal number 197520400574926In early March, the Coalition of Human Rights Organizations filed lawsuits claiming violation of the rights of subscribers of communication services due to the internet shutdown during the January 2022 protests.

The lawsuits were filed as part of the campaign against Internet shutdowns and were sent to the district courts of Almaty with a request to recognize the actions of the defendants, represented by the defendants. Almaty with a request to recognize the actions of the defendants represented by Kazakhtelecom JSC, Kar-Tel LLP (Beeline & IZI) and Mobile Telecom Service LLP (Tele2/Altel), which led to disconnection of Internet access, as violating the rights of the plaintiffs - consumers of communication services, as well as with a request to recover from the defendants material compensation corresponding to the damage caused as a result of disconnection of Internet access.
The lawsuit stated that the Decree of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan numbered 725 "On the introduction of a state of emergency in the city of Almaty" dated January 5, 2022 does not contain a measure to disconnect the Internet, and that the restriction of access to the network and communications occurred at the sole discretion of certain state bodies or telecommunications operators and was not based on the Decree of the President, as required by the law of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the state of emergency.

In addition, the lawsuit claimed that the telecom operator was obliged to limit access to prohibited information, not the entire Internet. The plaintiff demanded to recover material compensation from telecom operators in the amount of 500 thousand tenge.

The defendants did not agree with the claims and asked the court to deny them in full. On June 26, District Court No. 2 of Almalinskiy district of Almaty city decided to reject the claims in the case.

The court considered reasonable the defendants' arguments that access to the Internet in January 2022 was limited not on their initiative, but by the government, which, according to the court, is confirmed by official statements of the authorities, including the president. On July 26 the plaintiff's laweyrs appealed the decision.
Human rights coalition, led by Eurasian Digital Foundation, representing internet users. Customer Seit R. (lawyer Yelzhan Kabishev)ТОО «Кар-Тел» (Beeline & IZI) и ТОО «Мобайл Телеком Сервис» (Tele2/Altel).N/ADecision announced June 26, 16:45 Almaty TimeТОО «Кар-Тел» (Beeline & IZI) и ТОО «Мобайл Телеком Сервис» (Tele2/Altel).
5
ECOWAS Community Court (ECOWAS)31 January , 2024YNhttps://law.stanford.edu/2024/02/12/slss-rule-of-law-impact-lab-and-media-defence-file-case-before-ecowas-court-challenging-senegals-internet-shutdowns/ ; https://www.mediadefence.org/news/senegals-internet-shutdowns/Media Defence and the Rule of Law Impact Lab at Stanford Law School have filed a lawsuit before the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS Court) challenging the Senegalese government’s shutdown of the Internet in June, July, and August of 2023. The case is brought on behalf of AfricTivistes, a pan-African civil society organisation registered in Senegal that seeks to protect democracy and human rights, and Senegalese journalists, Moussa Ngom and Ayoba Faye. The case argues that Senegal’s Internet restrictions breached the applicants’ right to freedom of expression as well as the journalists’ right to work, while significantly stifling media freedom and free expression in Senegal.

AfricTivistes (Media Defence and the Rule of Law Impact Lab at Stanford Law School )Senegal
6
Sindh High Court, Pakistan2024https://pakobserver.net/court-directs-govt-to-restore-x-twitter-across-pakistan/The court was moved about the disruption and Sindh High Court Chief Justice Aqeel Abbasi directed federal authorities including the PTA to restore services of social media platforms.
7
Tanzania 2023YMisc. Case No. 27860/2023Human Rights Petition relating to internet restrictions in Tanzania, more particularly with regard to availability and access to ClubhousePaul KisaboTanzaniaFactcheck.kz — При использовании материалов гиперссылка обязательна. https://factcheck.kz/novosti/v-almaty-proshel-sud-po-delu-narusheniya-prav-abonentov-uslug-svyazi-iz-za-otklyucheniya-interneta-v-period-yanvarskih-sobytiy
8
Austrian NCP, Austria March 2022Yhttps://www.oecdwatch.org/complaint/open-society-justice-initiative-vs-a1-telekom-austria/On 16 March 2022, Open Society Foundations filed a complaint against A1 Telekom Austria at the Austrian NCP. The complaint alleges that Telekom Austria’s fully owned subsidiaries were involved in politically-motivated mobile internet shutdowns in Belarus, first immediately following the disputed August 2020 Belarusian presidential election and then continuing on a regular basis for several months thereafter. According to the complainants, the internet shutdowns were ordered by the Belarusian government and were in violation of international human rights law, including the rights to free speech, freedom of assembly, and political participation.

The complaint alleges that Telekom Austria contributed to adverse human rights impacts via its Belarusian subsidiary’s substantial contribute to the shutdowns. Telekom Austria failed to conduct adequate due diligence to mitigate or remediate the damage done by the shutdowns, and also failed to communicate clearly with its stakeholders and the public about the government’s orders and its own due diligence. Telekom Austria failed to meaningfully engage relevant stakeholders on the opportunities available to them to more stringently uphold their obligations under the OECD Guidelines, including those relating to the promotion of internet freedom. The complainants seek a facilitated conversation by the Austrian NCP on how these violations can be remedied.		Open Society Justice InitiativeA1 Telekom Austriahttps://www.oecdwatch.org/complaint/open-society-justice-initiative-vs-a1-telekom-austria/A1 Telekom Austria
9
NigeriaDecember 2021Nhttp://saharareporters.com/2021/12/05/serap-asks-court-stop-buhari-governors-others-shutting-down-mobile-phone-servicesFHC/ABJ/CS/1323/2021The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has filed a lawsuit asking the court for “an order of perpetual injunction to restrain President Muhammadu Buhari and the Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, Isa Pantami from unlawfully shutting down telecommunication networks in any part of the country.”

In the suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1323/2021 filed at the Federal High Court, Abuja, SERAP is asking the court to “determine whether the shutdown of telecommunication networks in any part of Nigeria by the Buhari administration is unlawful, and a violation of the rights of access to correspondence, freedom of expression, information, and the press.”

A statement by SERAP through its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare on Sunday noted that the group is also asking the court to determine if the shutdown of mobile services violates the rights of citizens.

It says SERAP is asking the court to “determine whether the shutdown of telecommunication networks in any part of the country is inconsistent with the principles of legality, proportionality and necessity, and the rights of access to correspondence, freedom of expression, information, and the press.”		The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP)The Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC)January 11, 2022No.
10
Khartoum District Cour[Nobember, 2021?]Nhttps://twitter.com/Nazar167Yousif/status/1456165997379981314?s=20


https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/9/calls-for-strike-and-civil-disobedience-in-sud


https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/sudanese-judge-urges-end-post-coup-internet-blackout-2021-11-11/		The Sudanese military, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, seized power on October 25, dissolving the transitional administration and arresting dozens of government officials and politicians. Since then, online access has largely been blocked and phone lines have also been intermittently disrupted.

A plaintiff filed a lawsuit against telecommunications companies for cutting off Internet services, and the complainants: 1- Consumer Protection Association. 2- United Lawyers Abdul Azim Hassan Lawyer and others. 3- Yasir Mirghani Abdul Rahman Suleiman.

Khartoum, Sudan , Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 8:30 am, the Internet Disconnection Court has been postponed until Sunday, November 7 at 9 am All telecommunications companies agreed that the time was not enough and they did not prepare their response.

On November 9, 2021, a judge ordered Zain, MTN and local provider Sudani to restore internet service immediately.

A judge on November 11, 2021 issued a second instruction to telecoms firms Zain (ZAIN.KW) and MTN (MTNJ.J) and local providers Sudatel and Canar to restore connections, pending the announcement of any damages to be paid to subscribers. Zain said the original order only applied to some accounts which the company reconnected immediately. It said it was working on Thursday's order to restore all lines. Other companies could not be reached or did not respond to requests for comment.

On the same day, the Telecommunication and Post Regulatory Authority (TPRA) insisted on maintaining the shutdown despite the court order, citing “national security” and a “State of Emergency” as justification. The authority argued that it was necessary to maintain the shutdown as ordered by “the higher leadership”, provided the state of emergency and threats to national security persisted.

The judge dismissed that argument and issued an arrest warrant for the chief executive officers of the telecom companies for not restoring internet access. On November 18, 2021, the telecom companies restored internet access for all subscribers. 		Consumer Protection Association, United Lawyers Abdul Azim Hassan Lawyer and others, Yasir Mirghani Abdul Rahman Suleiman. Telecommunications companies, i.e.,(ZAIN.KW) and MTN (MTNJ.J) and the complainantsLink; https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/9/calls-for-strike-and-civil-disobedience-in-sud Yes
11
ZambiaN8/12/2021 (the interim order)
3/17/2022 (the consent judgement)		Nhttps://www.newzimbabwe.com/zambias-high-court-orders-restoration-of-internet-services/The Zambian government blocked access to social media platforms throughout the nation’s August election, including WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Access has since been restored on August 15, with the High Court of Zambia ordering the government to end the internet shutdown following a lawsuit put forward by Chapter One Foundation (Ltd) challenging the decision.
On March 17, 2022, the High Court at the Principle Registration Holden at Lusaka (Civil Jurisdiction) ordered a consent judgment based on the both parties' agreement, which says, in summary:
the Respondent shall not act outside of its legal regulatory powers and authority which may inhibit or interrupt the flow of and uninhibited access to information on all available telecommunication platforms under their control where the interest of consumers and their consumer and constitutional rights are threatened.
the Respondent shall, in the event of interrupted or inhibited access to information on all available telecommunication platforms under their control and/or regulation inform the public as to the cause of disruption within 36 hours of the event.
Chapter One Foundation (Ltd)Zambia Information, Communication Technology Authority (ZICTA) No
12
RussiaAugust 19, 2021Yhttps://roskomsvoboda.org/post/isk-protiv-zamedlenia-twitter/Roskomsvoboda lawyers filed a collective administrative lawsuit against Roskomnadzor, challenging its actions to slow down Twitter. The complaint comes from 23 users who have joined our Battle for Twitter campaign. Roskomsvoboda lawyers are asking the court to declare the actions of Roskomnadzor illegal and oblige it to stop slowing down users' access to Twitter.Roskomsvoboda representing 23 Twitter usersRoskomnadzor
13
Federal High Court, Lagos, Nigeria August 6, 2021Yhttps://guardian.ng/news/eie-pin-mra-sue-telcos-over-twitter-suspension-nigeria/Enough Is Enough (EIE) Nigeria has filed a class-action suit against Telecommunications companies MTN, Airtel, Globacom and 9mobile for over alleged violation of fundamental rights on Nigerian Twitter users. Other complainants in the suit Paradigm Initiative Nigeria and Media Rights Agenda. “The suit calls for a declaration that the respondents’ blockage of twitter access was unlawful, unconstitutional and against the rights to freedom of expression and an injunction restraining all respondents from restraining blocking or interfering with Twitter and any other social media platform,” Khadijah El-Usman, Paradigm Initiative Nigeria’s programme officer for Anglophone-West Africa said in a statement.Enough is Enough, Paradigm Initiative, and Media Rights AgendaMTN, Airtel, Globacom and 9mobile https://paradigmhq.org/press-release-federal-government-reverses-twitter-ban-in-nigeria-after-222-days/Yes
14
Ecowas Community Court (ECOWAS)June 8, 2021Nhttps://www.reuters.com/article/nigeria-twitter-court-idUSL5N2NP2QX

https://www.accessnow.org/nigeria-twitter-ban-ecowas-court/

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/06/twitter-ban-fg-defiant-as-ecowas-court-stops-nigeria-from-prosecuting-users/		Application No. EWCS/CCJ/APP/23/21, 29/21, 24/21, 26/21 (merged into a single case on July 9).On June 4, 2021, Nigeria government announced ban of Twitter, two days after the social media giant removed a post from President Muhammadu Buhari that threatened to punish regional secessionists, and the government said those who continued to use Twitter would be prosecuted.

On June 8, [200] Nigerians filed a lawsuit seeking to lift a ban on Twitter, describing the government’s decision to block the site as stifling “any dissenting voice” and digital rights.

On June 23, ECOWAS court issued a injuction releaf against the defendants to stop prosecuting users of Twitter.

On July 8, Access Now, together with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Open Net Association, filed a legal intervention. ECOWAS court granted the applications to be admitted as amici for all the applicants.

On July 9, four separate cases were merged into a single case.

On July 12, the case was adjourned till 29th September, 2021 for hearing due to court's vacation.

On January 20, the court will reneder a judgement. 		(i) The Registered Trustees of the Socio-Economic Rights
and Accountability Project (SERAP)
(Suing for & on behalf of 196 concerned Nigerians) (Application No. EWCS/CCJ/APP/23/21);

(ii) 5 NGOs, including Paradigm Initiative, and four journalists, represented by Media Defence and Nigerian lawyer, Mojirayo Ogunlana Nkanga

(iii) [TBP]

(iv) [TBP]


The Federal Republic of Nigeria[TBP]https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2021/07/ECOWAS-Nigeria-Twitter-Ban-Amicus-Brief-AN_EFF_ONA.docx.pdfhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1sk9-CKkxjZBdoVqcE1TRG4BgquMGDWEH/editNo
15
NigeriaTBDhttps://www.dw.com/fr/letat-nig%C3%A9rien-et-les-op%C3%A9rateurs-gsm-menac%C3%A9s-dune-plainte/a-56739718(As of March 1, 2021) The government has started internet shutdown across the country since February 24, 2021. It is impossible for subscribers of Niger Telecom, Zamani Telecom, Moov Africa Niger and Airtel Niger to access messaging services [To be confirmed the scope of the shutdowns]. The cut occurred as soon as the provisional results of the second round of the presidential election were announced. The plaintiff is trying to sue the government and relevant telecommunications companies. This is the first country-wide internet shutdown in Nigeria. Ali Idrissa, the coordinator of the Network of Organizations for Transparency and Budget Analysism (Réseau des Organisations pour la Transparence et l'Analyse Budgétaire). Laywers are not yet known.Yes
16
High Court of EswatiniJuly 2, 2021NThe case was dropped on July 8, 2021 after the government lifted restrictions it said were imposed to maintain security.https://www.southernafricalitigationcentre.org/2021/07/05/statement-internet-shutdown-in-eswatini-challenged-in-the-high-court/Protests started in May 2021, following the unexplained death of Thabani Nkomonye, a finalyear law student. The hashtag #JusticeForThabani soon trended, and he became the symbol of police brutality in the country. As the protests continued, police was reportedly using excessive force and tear gas to disperse protesters.

On June 29, 2021, along with the a strict curfew orded by Acting Prime Minister, the government of Eswatini ordered network providers, Eswatini Post and Telecommunications, Eswatini MTN and Eswatini Mobile to temporarily turn off internet connectivity and advised that military and police will be deployed to quell protests.

On July 2, 2021, plaintiff filed an urgent application in the High Court of Eswatini to oppose the internet shutdown to subdue mobilisation of recent protests that have been taking place in the country.

During the hearing, attorneys representing the Respondents proposed that they will provide access to the internet services, with limitation to social media sites like Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter. The Applicants declined this proposal arguing that the citizens of Eswatini have a right to freedom of information without hindrance and that limiting access to internet services amounts to infringing and hindering access to information.

The judge agreed and endorsed the Respondents' application to have the matter referred to a full bench of the High Court of Eswatini due to the constitutional nature of the case.

The Judge instructed that the Respondents file their answering affidavits on July 6 2021, and that the Respondents’ file their replying affidavits on 8 July 2021.		Melusi Simelane, represented by Celemusa Bhembe.Eswatini MTN and Eswatini Post and Telecommunications and Eswatini Mobile (the latter two respondents are state-owned)https://www.accessnow.org/keepiton-eswatini-protests/Yes
17
RussiaJune 7, 2021Yhttps://www.forbes.ru/newsroom/obshchestvo/431619-polzovateli-twitter-podali-v-sud-na-roskomnadzor-iz-za-zamedleniyaNet Freedoms, a project of the Agora human rights organization to protect freedom of speech and technology, fild a lawsuit against Roskomnadzor in the Tagansky District Court of Moscow in connection with the slowdown of Twitter. The case was filed on bahalf of the famous Russian Twitter useers - head of the Krasnoselsky municipal district Ilya Yashin, the oppositionist Yevgeny Domozhirov, the municipal deputy Vadim Korovin and the photographer Yevgeny Feldman. Lawyer Stanislav Seleznev represents their interests. The claimants state that neither the Law "On Information, Information Technologies and the Protection of Information", which Roskomnadzor referred to, nor the provisions of other regulatory legal acts, "does not provide for the regulator's right to" slow down "access to information on the Internet."

The claimants asked the court to oblige Roskomnadzor to stop slowing down Twitter and remove other restrictions from the social network, as well as to oblige the department “to exclude the service from the list of threats to the stability, security and integrity of the functioning of the Internet and the public communications network in Russia."		Net Freedoms representing Head of the Krasnoselsky municipal district Ilya Yashin, the oppositionist Yevgeny Domozhirov, the municipal deputy Vadim Korovin and the photographer Yevgeny Feldman. RoskomnadzorNo
18
East African Court of Justice March 12, 2021Y
12 of 2021
On 12 January 2021, the Uganda Communications Commission
(UCC) ordered all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) within
Uganda to block access to internet-based social media
platforms and online messaging applications including
Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Instagram. The same
was done to online mobile application stores including
Google Play Store and App Store. The Government further
ordered the blocking of access to over 100 Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs), barring any attempts to circumvent its
aforementioned internet censorship.
On 13 January, 2021 – the day before Uganda’s recent
presidential and parliamentary elections of 14th January,
2021, the Uganda Government further directed all Internet
Service Providers (ISPs) in Uganda to block all access to the
internet, thereby inducing a total internet shutdown that
lasted five days, from the 13th of January, 2021 to the 18th of
January, 2021. During this period, Ugandans were unable to
access any internet platform whatsoever.
Despite restoration of internet access in general on the 18th
of January, 2021, the blockage of access to social media sites
and applications including Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp,
Instagram, and others persisted for a number of days.
Notably, access to ‘Facebook’ remains restricted to date.		East Africa Law Society The Attorney General of Uganda, The Secretary general of the East African Community
19
African Court on Human and Peoples' RightsTBDNTBDTBDOn February 27, 2020, A complaint was filed to Aftican Commission on Human and People's Right against 28 States, i.e., Algeria, Benin, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo Brazzaville, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Libiya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Somaliland, Sudan, The Gabmia, Togo, Uganda and Zimbabwe. On December 16, 2020, ACHPR decided not to seize the case as it does not fulfil the criteria for Seizure under Rule 93(2) of the Commission's Rule of Procedure. The plaintiffs are considering to file a lawsuit to African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights.


African Freedom of Expression Exchange (AFEX), Africa Freedom of Information Centre (AFIC), Association for Media Development in South Sudan (AMDISS), L'association Pour Le Development Integre Et La Solidarite Interactive (ADISI-Camerron), Centre for Media Studies and Peace Building (CEMESP), Collaboration on INternational ICT POlicy in Eastern and Southern Afica (CIPESA), Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI), Gambia Press Union (GPU), Human Rights Network for Journalists in Uganda (HRNJ-U), Institute for Media and Society (IMS), International Press Centre (IPC), Journaliste en Danger (JED), Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA), Media Institute for Southern Aftica (MISA), Media Rights Agenda (MRA) and West Aftican Journalists Association (WAJA) (the Complaintants), represented by Freedom of Information (FOI) Attorneys.28 African States, i.e., Algeria, Benin, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo Brazzaville, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Libiya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Somaliland, Sudan, The Gabmia, Togo, Uganda and Zimbabwe. TBDhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1z7JGwBcFxtSCawISqH4RTYrWerxCB9hU/view
20
European Court of Human Rights (ECrHR)November 19, 2020YLinkThe case challenges internet shutdowns in Ingushetia during the 2018 protests of border changes agreement between Chechnya and Ingushetia.The Federal Security Services admitted that it ordered the internet shutdowns on eight occasions, coinciding with peaceful protests in Magas.The Federal Security Services explained that it ordered restrictions to the internet to prevent “terrorist” and “diversionary activities.” The Security Agency qualified its actions under Section 3 of Article 64 of the Federal Law on Communication that obliged commercial and private entities to restrict access to the internet or other modes of communication upon receipt of a written request from law enforcement or security agencies. The applicant argues that the state actions violated Articles 10, 11, 13, and 18 of the European Human Rights Convention. As of January 22, 2021, no update.Murad Hazbiyev, represented by AgoraRussiaThe complaint was filed, waiting for communication from the Court
21
Jakarta Constitutional (Indonesia)November 21, 2019N6/3/2020 (State Administratative Court)

10/27/2021 (Indonesia's Constitutional Court)		Nhttps://advox.globalvoices.org/2021/11/09/indonesian-court-allows-internet-blocking-amid-social-unrest/The Jakarta State Administrative Court (PTUN) held a further hearing on the case for internet shutdown in Papua, where the response of the President of the Republic of Indonesia as Defendant II (Republic of Indonesia Ministry of Communication and Information being Defendant I) was revealed. The case arose out of the intentional throttling of bandwidth on 19-20 August 2019, a full internet shutdown from 21 August to 4 September 2019, and the extension of the termination of internet access from 4 to 11 September 2019 in Papua. In their response, the attorneys for the President stated that the plaintiffs had made an 'error in persona', and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to file a lawsuit, as they lacked standing. The President went on to state that the subject of the dispute was not in conflict with the laws, regulations and 'General Principles of Good Governance' of Indonesia. In addition, the President requested a declaration that the actions of the President (which aligned with the actions of the Ministry of Communication and Information) – namely, internet shutdown, slowing down and extending the termination of access – were not unlawful acts.The Jakarta court rejected the government’s position, ruling that internet shutdowns were “a violation of the law by government bodies or officials.” Importantly, the judges added that “any decision that limited people’s right to information should be made in accordance with the law and not merely based on the government’s discretion.”

On October 27, 2021, Indonesia's Constitutional Court overturned the State Administrative Court and ruled that it is constitutionally acceptable for the Indonesian government to block and throttle the internet in times of social strife. Seven out of nine judges voted in favor of the government. The court explained that the government has a responsibility of “preventing the dissemination and use of electronic information and/or electronic documents that have prohibited contents in accordance with statutory provisions.” 		AJI Indonesia (plaintiff I) and members of SAFEnet (plaintiff II)President of the Republic of Indonesia and Republic of Indonesia Ministry of Communication and InformationPress Freedom Defenders, ELSAM, Access Now https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2020/05/Indonesia-Shutdowns-Amicus-ENG.pdfhttps://leip.or.id/the-implementation-of-human-rights-principles-in-jakarta-administrative-court-judgment-on-internet-access-in-papua-and-west-papua/
22
India, Uttar PradeshDecember 20, 2019YLinkOn 20.12.2019, a two judge bench of the Allahabad High Court headed by the Chief Justice directed the Registry of the Allahabad High Court to register a writ petition in public interest jurisdiction regarding suspension of internet services in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Internet shutdowns were imposed by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh in multiple districts in December 2019 in response to protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act which has been criticised for discriminating against Muslims. On 17.01.2020, the Court directed the State Government to submit a detailed statement about the legal framework for imposing internet shutdowns and enumerate circumstances in which this extraordinary power can be invoked.

As of January 22, 2021, no update. 		This is a suo moto public interest litigation and there is no plaintiff.State Government of Uttar PradeshLinkJanuary 31, 2020
23
India, AssamDecember 1, 2019YDecember 19, 2019 (interim decision)LinkThe Gauhati High Court issued an interim order directing the Assam Government to restore mobile internet services of all mobile service providers. The Court observed that the Government had not placed any materials to justify the continuation of the internet ban, which was imposed on December 11 in the wake of anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests. This case involved a set of four petitions: PIL No. 76 of 2019 filed by Randeep Sharma, PIL No. 77 of 2019 filed by Deva Kanya Dole, PIL No. 78 of 2019 filed by Banashree Gogoi and PIL No. 79 of 2019 filed by Ajit Kumar Bhuyan. PIL Nos. 76, 77 and 78 challenged the legality of specific internet shutdowns imposed in Assam in December 2019 but PIL No. 79 also challenged the constitutionality of the Telecom Suspension Rules 2017 which provide the underlying statutory power to impose internet shutdowns. While PIL Nos. 76, 77 and 78 were disposed on 20.02.2020, the Court has issued notice in PIL No. 79 and directed the State Government to file its reply.

In the interim decision, the government was allowed to take steps to curb and stop dissemination of explosive messages or videos on various social media platforms which may have a tendency to incite violence and disruptions affecting public safety on cogent and justifiable grounds and materials.
As of January 22, 2021, no update. 		Advocates Banashree Gogoi, Deva Kanya Doley and journalist Ajit Bhuyan represented by Senior Advocates K K Mahanta and A C Borbora and Advocate J Kothari Assam Government represented by Senior Counsel D Saikia LinkFebruary 20, 2020
24
IraqOctober 1, 2019YLinkA local lawyer is filing a case against the Ministry of Telecommunications, arguing that the internet shutdown amid Iraq's protests in October 2019 violates Iraq's constitution. The lawsuit demands that the minister of telecommunications “repeal the decision to shutdown the internet in the country and establish that network disruptions are illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and the laws in force.” He is also demanding compensation for the “damage of infringement on freedom.”

As of January 22, 2021, no update.		Lawyer Mohammed JoumaaMinistry of Telecommunications, Iraq https://smex.org/iraqi-lawyer-sues-the-minister-of-telecommunications-for-shutting-down-the-internet-during-protests/
25
Karnataka High Court (India)August 19, 2019NFebruary 11, 2020LinkFollowing the blackout of communications in Kashmir early August 2019, a student residing and studying in Bengaluru filed an Article 266 Writ Petition in Karnataka High Court citing violations of Articles 14,19(1)(a) and 21 of the India's Consitution and India's international human rights obligations. The student took action in the High Court because due to the blackouts, he is unable to make contact with his parents, located in Kashmir Valley, who are chronically ill. The student further claims that due to shutdowns and stricter curfews in the Kashmir Valley it is harder for his parents to call for medical assistance or access hospital services. Similar petitions, including a petition from Tehseen Poonawalla, are pending at the Supreme Court. Recent hearings at the end of August and early September 2019 therefore address the issue of whether such a petition can be maintained by the student with similar petitions pending in the Indian court system. Nonetheless, the student advances two critical arguments. First, he argues that he - and others in his situation - have a right to know, communicate and receive information under Article 14 and 19 of the Consititution. Importantly, that such rights underpin the right to a dignified life. Second, that the communication blackout is illegal, arbitrary and disproportionate violation of fundamental rights and therefore unconstitutional. In light of the Supreme Court judgement in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India pronounced on 10 January 2020 and change in circumstances, the petition was withdrawn on 11.02.2020 with the liberty to approach the Jammu and Kashmir High Court against continuation of the internet shutdown. Mr. Vishwajith Sadan and Mr. Ravi Varma Kumar part of Internet Freedom FoundationUnion of India represented by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the State of Kashmir represented by the Chief SecretaryLink
26
Supreme Court (India)August 1, 2019NJan 10 2020LinkThe Executive Director of Kashmir Times filed a lawsuit in response to the shutdown of communication services and the severe restriction on movement of journalists across Kashmir. In August 2019 the petitioner filed a Writ Petition aruging that the communication blockade and strict restriction on movement violate Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Indian Constiution. The Supreme Court initially cited jurisdictional concerns regarding the case. Specifically, the Supreme Court stated that it is difficult for the Court to understand the factual circumstances in Kashmir regarding the communication shutdown, and therefore citing the Jammu and Kashmir High Court as a more appropriate judicial forum for advancing the Petition. In response, the advocate for the Petitioner clarified that the Jammu and Kashmir High Court is increasingly difficult to access in the wake of movement restrictions, lack of public transit and the communication shutdown. Hearings have since proceeded in the Supreme Courts. More recently, the Supreme Court orally directed the Government to respond to the Writ Petition, the Intervention Application led by Foundation for Media Professionals and restore communication channels bearing in mind security considerations. On 1 October 2019, the Government filed its repsonse in court. The Petitioner and Intervenors then sought production orders issued under the Telecom Suspension Rules (Rule 2 requires orderr issued by the competent authority must contain reasons). The Government responded citing national security concerns. On 16 October 2019 The Court directed the Government to either produce the orders or file an affidavit stating why these orders must be kept secret. On 10 January 2020 the Supreme Court of India issued its judgement in the case with 15 conclusions (see para 152 of the judgement). Important conclusions, include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) the Court endorsed the proportionality standard as the appropriate standard for review for communication shutdown orders (2) Court has read three procedural safeguards into the Telecom Suspension Rules which will increase transparency and accountability in the telecome shutdown process; (3) the Court affirms that expressing one's views or conducting one's business through the internet are guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution; (4) the Court confirmed that even when the state is fighting the threat of terrorism, it can prohibit speech only if it is likey to lead to imminent violence; (5) The Court concluded taht the government must make all orders issued under S.144 Cr.P.C. and Telecom Suspension Rules available to petitioners, but the government may refuse disclosure if (a) there is a specific ground of privilege or (b) countervailing public interest; (6) Governments cannot cite lack of technial ability as an excuse; (7) The position of the law under s.144 Cr.P.C. has changed after notification of the Teelcom Suspension Rules in 2017 (more info: https://internetfreedom.in/scs-judgement-on-kashmir-communication-is-just-the-beginning/)

https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/bhasin-v-union-of-india/		[Bhasin v. Union of India]

16 October 2019 the sixth hearing was held. The gov't has not furnished legal orders under which the shutdowns were made. This disclosure is important to help the petitioners contest legality. 24 October 2019 the seventh hearing was held. Government has filed a copy of certain telecommunication shutdown orders. Some of them are peculiar requiring ISPs to slow down speed. Hearing date in 5 November 2019. Judgement 10 January 2020. 		Attorney General Mr. KK VenugopalLinkIndian Journalist Union has sought to intervene in the Writ Petition; Foundation for Media Professionals represented by Mr. Dushyant Dave and Ms. Astha Sharma (lawyer on record) filed an Application for Intervention on 9 September 2019 https://drive.google.com/file/d/15tn8nTp2h-9kuTRQEaBrZ47Czt_Qe_B7/view
27
Khartoum District Court (Sudan)June 1, 2019NFor Plaintiff (7/9/2019)LinkThis is the second ruling against MTN and Sudatel that restored the internet for the whole country. Unclear whether this is the same lawsuit as the below suit against Zain, or a second suit from Hassan that targetted MTN and Sudatel because his luck with Zain was limited. Abdelazeem HassanMTN, SudatelLinkMTN, Sudatel
28
Khartoum District Court (Sudan)June 1, 2019NFor Plaintiff (6/24/2019)LinkJune 2019, Sudanese lawyer Abdelazim Hassan lodged a lawsuit against the internet shutdown that had been instituted earlier that month. Within two weeks of filing the case, court on June 23 ordered his service provider, Zain, to restore his internet service, which the ISP promptly did. However, service was only restored for the litigant’s SIM card, with the block on access maintained for the rest of Zain’s customers. This was because Hassan had filed the case in a personal capacity as a Zain customer.Abdelazeem Hassan (a Sudanese lawyer)ZainLinkZain
29
Magas District Court (Russia) March 1, 2019NFor the State (5/13/2019)LinkThe Magas District Court ruled that internet shutdowns were lawful. Mr. Khazbiev will appeal the decision. The Federal Security Services admitted that it ordered the internet shutdowns on eight occasions, coinciding with peaceful protests in Magas.The Federal Security Services explained that it ordered restrictions to the internet to prevent “terrorist” and “diversionary activities.” The Security Agency qualified its actions under Section 3 of Article 64 of the Federal Law on Communication that obliged commercial and private entities to restrict access to the internet or other modes of communication upon receipt of a written request from law enforcement or security agencies. Mr. Murad KhazbievFederal Security Services (and used to be Ministry of the Interior but they were removed mid-trial)Rostelecom
30
Kinshasa Commercial Court / Gombe (DRC)January 1, 2019YAdjourned until February 2019LinkUnclear what came of the February hearing, not a lot of information. Vodacom requested a week in order to push the Fédération des Entreprises du Congo (FEC), which is a chamber of commerce in DRC, to appear during the trial to support its interests. A request to which the judges of the commercial court granted, while setting the last hearing for Tuesday, August 13, 2019. No update as of January 22, 2021.Consumers Union of CongoVodacom, Orange, Airtel, Africell1/3/2019. The case was adjourned until February 19, 2019. Then the hearing was reset on August 13, 2019. https://www.7sur7.cd/2019/08/06/rdc-proces-coupure-internet-par-les-societes-de-telecoms-vodacom-sollicite-une-semaineVodacom, Orange, Airtel, Africell
31
High Court (Zimbabwe)January 1, 2019NFor petitioners (1/21/2019)LinkRuled that the Minister of State in the President’s Office Responsible for National Security does not have the authority to issue any directives in terms of the Interception of Communications Act. Shutdown order was therefore illegal and without effect.　According to Kuda Hove, one of the petitioners’ lawyers, the decision was not forthcoming since the case was decided on procedural grounds without addressing merits of the case such as the right violations due to the shutdown such as curtailing freedom of expression. The Zimbabwean Lawyers for Human Rights and the Media Institute
for Southern Africa (MISA)		Statehttps://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=462
32
ECOWAS Community Court (ECOWAS)December 1, 2018NJune 25, 2020NLinkAccess Now and 7 other organizations filed a joint application to intervene. Togo objected to our motion, but the ECOWAS court ruled in our favor. On June 25, the court ruled that the September 2017 internet shutdown ordered by the Togolese government during protests is illegal and an affront to the applicants’ right to freedom of expression. The court ordered the government of Togo to pay two million CAF to the plaintiffs as compensation, and to take all the necessary measures to guarantee the implementation of safeguards with respect to the right to freedom of expression of the Togolese people. Amnesty West Africa, MLDITogohttps://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2020/06/KIO_ECOWAS_Togo-Intervention.pdfAnalysis of the decision https://www.accessnow.org/ecowas-togo-court-decision/
33
N’Djamena High Court(Chad)August 1, 2018NDismissed (10/1/2018)LinkCourt dismissed complaint"A group of Chadian Lawyers"Airtel, TigoAirtel Tigo/Millicom
34
India (Rajasthan High Court)July 1, 2018NFor Plaintiff (28th of Nov 2018)LinkRuled that school exams do not fall into the ambit of ‘public safety’ or ‘public emergency’ as provided under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules, 2017Advocates Nitin Goklani & Pravin VyasState of Rajasthan25th July 2018-
35
Constitutional Council (Cameroon)July 1, 2018NDismissed; fees returned (July 2018)LinkDismissed quickly with finding of no standing for the plaintiffs. Other than Congress and the Executive, only Presidential Candidates have been granted standing before the Council. NGOs run by Emmanuel Nkea (Veritas Law Offices), MLDIState of Cameroon, Cameroon Telecommunications (CAM-TEL)Access Now-
36
Supreme Court sitting as Constitutional Council (Cameroon)January 19, 2018NAwaiting considerationLinkNever heard; essentially ignoredNGOs run by Emmanuel Nkea (Veritas Law Offices), MLDIState of Cameroon, Cameroon Telecommunications (CAM-TEL)LinkJoint brief of Access Now, ISF, ADISI-Cameroun-
37
High Court (Cameroon)April 1, 2017NJune 2019Linkhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9AYTpKbbuu1OXdKQlJqWGFTcENSbDZycU5oaC1yb1BrQ2lz/view?usp=sharingNGOs run by Emmanuel Nkea (Veritas Law Offices), MLDIState of Cameroon, Cameroon Telecommunications (CAM-TEL)LinkReport/ Affidavit issued by Nexttel (Telco)Orange, MTN, Cameroon Telecommunication (CAMTEL)
38
High Court (Uganda)September 29, 2016NLinkVery slow but perhaps progressing; hearing was scheduled for Nov 2018 then Feb 2019. High court Judge Andrew Bashaija has fixed June 28 th 2019 to deliver judgment. Justice Bashaija set the date after declaring the case admissible and with defense parties laying out all issues that they would consider in framing their final arguments. The Uganda Communications Commission lawyer Augustine Idoot argues that the law gives UCC powers to shutdown Internet and mobile money services as and when it deems fit. Court therefore allocated a month to each party (applicant and Defense) to file their final submission and another month for filing of a rejoinder before ruling in June 2019. Meanwhile the judge has permitted Unwanted Witness’s request to drop all telecom companies from the application.

[February 2021 update] The Court of Appeal has begun hearing 25 election-related petitions, including this Unwanted Witnesss case. Other petitions include the case by Fox Odoi, who contends that regulation 20 (21) on the National Resistance Movement (NRM) primary elections is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, and Democratic Party (DP) president Norbert Mao suing Electoral Commission for allegedly refusing to nominate him as parliamentary candidate.

Unwanted Witness (Tumuhibise Norman)Attorney General; Uganda Communications Commission; Telecom companies MTN, Africell, Vodafone, Smile, Airtel, Smart, K2, Uganda TelecomLink25th Feb 2019https://www.independent.co.ug/constitutional-court-dismisses-petition-challenging-internet-mobile-money-shutdown-during-elections/MTN, Africell, Vodafone, Smile, Airtel, Smart, K2, Uganda Telecom
39
Islamabad High Court (Pakistan)March 23, 2016NStrong ruling for petititioners in High Court (26 Feb 2018), overturned by Supreme Court (2020)YLinkFAONo. 42of 2016Four cases filed and combined.The four petitioners were subscribers of 3 different telecom operators. Initial ruling: Gov't cannot issue shutdown orders under Section 8 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorganization) Act 1996, so the order is void to the extent it conflicts with section 54(3) of the Act. Now on appeal - the Government won a stay on initial order and pending the adjudication of the appeal, the PTA can issue shutdowns. It is unclear currently whether the earlier order of the single judge bench of High Court restricting the Govt issuing internet shutdowns applies. The operation of the this judgment has been stayed by a Division Bench of the Islamabad High Court on 21 March 2018. The proceedings before the Division Bench are currently pending.

However this decision of the Islamabad High Court was overruled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunications & Pakistan Telecommunication Authority v. CMPak Limited (C.A 977 & 978/2018 (Supreme Court of Pakistan, 2020). Though the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s limited interpretation of Section 54(3), it held that the shutdowns at issue in this case were actually governed by Section 8(2) (c) of the Telecommunication Re-organisation Act which empowers PTA to take steps pertaining to matters of national security, diplomatic protocols and State functions. Holding that the power under Section 8(2)(c) could be exercised when the shutdowns were temporary, localised and eventspecific, the court observed that the only question was whether PTA exercised its power “reasonably, fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purposes of the Act”. Examining the shutdown directives issued by PTA as precautionary measures during public holidays or parades, the court held: These protective measures are taken on the request of law enforcement authorities in view of past experience of terrorist activities at similar events. If such events caused the issuance of the impugned directions then the same would be in the public interest, reasonable, fair, consistent with the object of the law and therefore valid.		4 cases, by Islamabad residents Masooma Hassan, Waqar Ahmad, Muhammad Zohaib and Ahmed Raza (Umer Gilani of Law & Policy Chambers)Pakistan Telecom Authority; Federation of Pakistan; Zong, PakTelecom/Ufone, Telenor PakistanLink3/21/2018https://cyrilla.org/en/entity/r56ly3e5ksi?file=15676906674603l68926m8pf.pdf&page=15

https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/Jurisprudence_Shaping_Digital_Rights_in_South_Asia_Dec_10_3.pdfhttps://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/Jurisprudence_Shaping_Digital_Rights_in_South_Asia_Dec_10_3.pdf		Zong, PakTelecom/Ufone, Telenor Pakistan
40
Gujarat High Court (India) July 7, 2015NDismissed (2015)LinkIn the aftermath of the Patel agitation in Gujarat in 2015, Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas, a student of law approached the Gujarat High Court, demanding the court to declare the act of banning mobile internet by the state authorities during the Patidar Andolan riots, as void ab initio, ultra vires and unconstitutional (Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas vs State of Gujarat 2015). He argued that the act of banning mobile internet was violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution[4] and thus also demanded the court to issue an appropriate writ to permanently stop the state and officers to impose such a ban. The petitioner argued that the state could have blocked certain websites using the powers under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and there was no need to invoke the powers under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to impose a blanket ban on the use of mobile internet. The court dismissed this petition by agreeing with the defendant that given the uncertain riot situation on the ground during the Patel agitation, the state authorities under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had the powers to take actions that they deemed fit to maintain public order and peace. Law studentState of Gujarat Link-
41
High Administrative Court (Egypt)April 2011NMay 2011Y
http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/13296.aspx
Court found the shutdown was not made “spontaneously” or “overnight,” as authorities have claimed. Rather, the court said, "as early as April 2008 the ministries of interior, telecommunications and mass communications, in association with telecom companies and internet providers operating in Egypt, conducted a series of experiments to practice how to cut connections." The court imposed fines only former regime figures Mubarak (LE200 million), former Minister of Interior Al-Adly (LE300 million) and ex-Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif (LE40 million). The companies stand to benefit from the ruling. Communications and IT Minister Maged Osman announced in a press conference Sunday that the ministry would pay domestic mobile-phone operators LE100 million ($16.8 million) in compensation for the five day disruption of services.

The State Council administrative court adjourned on October 2016 its review of the appeals to December 2016. Appeals argues that the verdict of the fine is not related to the demand of the plaintiffs (the initial lawsuit did not demand compensation to the state budget, but rather they demanded personal compensation for the financial damages that were inflicted upon them due to the incident). The appeal report further highlighted that the plaintiffs' submission does not contain proof of any financial damage inflicted on the plaintiffs, nor the extent and duration of these damages.

At least Al-Adly was acquittal.

Egyptian Coalition for Human Rightsthree telcos - Vodafone, Mobinil, Etisalat - and a number of current and former Egyptian officialshttps://www.voanews.com/africa/egyptian-court-fines-mubarak-ex-officials-90-million-telecom-shutdown

https://dailynewsegypt.com/2016/10/08/court-adjourns-trial-shawkan-738-defendants-rabaa-dispersal-case/		Etisalat, Mobinil (France Telecom), Vodafone
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100