MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT 11 in the instant case it is necessary to pursue this point further, since in any case, as explained below, the measure in question breaches Article 10 for other reasons. (ii) Legitimate aim 40. The Court reiterates that the number of exceptions to the right to freedom of expression contained in Article 10 is exhaustive. The definitions of those exceptions are necessarily restrictive and must be interpreted narrowly (see, within the context of both Articles 10 and 11, Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-IX). For it to be compatible with the Convention, a limitation on this freedom must, in particular, pursue an aim that can be linked to one of those listed in this provision. The Court’s practice is to be quite succinct when it verifies the existence of a legitimate aim within the meaning of the second paragraphs of Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, §§ 113-114, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). 41. The Government submitted that the measure aimed to ensure the orderly conduct of the voting procedure and to secure the proper use of ballot papers. They contended that these aims could fall under “the protection of the rights of others” within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention. The applicant political party disagreed. 42. In respect of the Government’s argument concerning the protection of the ordinary conduct of the voting procedure, the Court observes that the administrative authority was of the view that the uploading of photographs via the mobile telephone application should be balanced, as a matter of freedom of expression, against the competing interest of citizens lying in the fair conduct of referenda and the secrecy of the voting procedure. However, the Kúria held that the posting of photographs of ballot papers had had no impact on either. As to the secrecy of the voting, the Kúria emphasised that the identity of voters could not be discovered through the anonymously uploaded photographs. It also held that although posting photographs of the ballot papers on the mobile telephone application had constituted an infringement of the principle of the proper exercise of rights, it had had no repercussion on the fair conduct of the elections. For its part, the Court sees no reason to hold otherwise and is satisfied that the conduct of the applicant political party was not conducive to any prejudice in respect of the secrecy or the fairness of the referendum. 43. Moreover, the Government have not pointed to any other actual rights of “others” that would or could have been adversely affected by the anonymous publication of imagery of marked or spoiled ballots. They have not provided any elements showing that there was a resultant deficiency in the voting procedure, facilitated by the posting of images of those ballot