MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT 7 carry out such actions complies with the conditions of Article 10 of the Convention regarding the legality, legitimacy and proportionality of restrictions.” 23. Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)16 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on measures to promote the public service value of the Internet provides as follows: “Member states should encourage the use of ICTs (including online forums, weblogs, political chats, instant messaging and other forms of citizen-to-citizen communication) by citizens, non-governmental organisations and political parties to engage in democratic deliberations, e-activism and e-campaigning, put forward their concerns, ideas and initiatives, promote dialogue and deliberation with representatives and government, and to scrutinise officials and politicians in matters of public interest.” THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION 24. The applicant political party complained that the imposition of a fine on it for operating a mobile telephone application allowing voters to publish photographs of their ballot papers had violated its right to freedom of expression, as provided in Article 10 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers... 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” A. Admissibility 25. The Government submitted that the applicant political party could have lodged a constitutional complaint seeking the quashing of the decisions of the Kúria of 10 and 18 October 2016. In such proceedings they could have argued that the Kúria’s decisions had infringed its rights, as enshrined in the Fundamental Law, either because the Kúria had applied a law which was unconstitutional or because it had interpreted or applied a law in an unconstitutional manner. The Government maintained that the constitutional complaint which the applicant political party had actually