MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT 9 B. Merits 1. The parties’ submissions 31. The applicant political party submitted that the voters’ posting photographs showing their participation in the referendum and the way they had cast their votes had constituted the expression of opinions on political matters, as protected under Article 10 of the Convention. It also maintained that providing a forum for voters to express their opinions, in the form of using a mobile telephone application, fell under the scope of the right to freedom of expression. Thus, the restriction on, and penalisation of, the use of the application had constituted an interference with its right to freedom of expression, which had neither been prescribed by law nor had pursued a legitimate aim. 32. According to the applicant political party, the interference had had no legal basis, since the provisions of the Act on Electoral Procedure did not prohibit the taking of photographs of ballot papers; moreover, the guidelines of the National Election Commission had no binding effect. 33. Moreover, the principle of the proper exercise of rights could not possibly serve as a legitimate reason for a restriction on the right to freedom of expression. At any rate, the posting of photographs of ballot papers had not violated the fairness or secrecy of the voting procedure. 34. The Government maintained that there had been no interference with the exercise of the applicant political party’s right to freedom of expression, since it had only provided a mobile telephone application for voters to share their opinions with other users and had not engaged in political speech itself. They submitted, however, that even if the Court were to consider that there had been such interference, it had been in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 10. The interference with the applicant political party’s freedom of expression had had a legal basis, as clarified in the National Election Commission’s guidelines, and it had pursued the legitimate aim of ensuring the orderly conduct of the voting procedure and the proper use of ballot papers – notions falling under the scope of “the protection of the rights of others”. As to whether the interference in question had been necessary in a democratic society and proportional, the Government highlighted the fact that the Kúria had considerably reduced the fine imposed on the applicant political party. 2. The Court’s assessment (a) Whether there was an interference with the applicant political party’s freedom of expression 35. The Court notes at the outset that the applicant political party was sanctioned for running a mobile telephone application enabling users to share their comments and photographs taken of their ballot papers. The