12 MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT papers, which should have been addressed through a restriction on the use of the mobile telephone application. 44. The Government’s second argument focused on the violation of the principle of proper exercise of rights, laid down in section 2(1)(e) of the Act on Electoral Procedure, which, in their submissions, would also entail a violation of the rights of others. The Court is, however, not persuaded by this suggestion. While it is true that the domestic authorities established that the use of the ballot papers for any other purpose than casting a vote infringed that provision, the Government have not convincingly established any link between this principle of domestic law and the aims exhaustively listed in paragraph 2 of Article 10. 45. It follows that the Court is unable to accept that the interference complained of pursued any of the legitimate aims enumerated in Article 10 § 2. 46. Where it has been shown that an interference did not pursue a “legitimate aim”, it is not necessary to investigate whether it was “necessary in a democratic society” (see, mutatis mutandis, Erményi v. Hungary, no. 22254/14, § 38, 22 November 2016). (iii) Conclusion 47. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the sanction imposed on the applicant political party for operating the mobile telephone application in question did not meet the requirements of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention. 48. There has therefore been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 49. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Damage 50. The applicant political party did not submit any claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage. However, it claimed 100,000 Hungarian forints (HUF – approximately 330 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage. This sum corresponded to the amount which it was ordered by the Kúria to pay as a fine. 51. The Government considered that the applicant’s claim was reasonable as to quantum.