FRESSOZ AND ROIRE v. FRANCE JUDGMENT 16 Cassation and that the legal arguments made by the applicants' in that court included a complaint connected with Article 10 of the Convention. The applicants' complaint under Article 10 of the Convention was thus raised, at least in substance, before the Court of Cassation. The Government's objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies must therefore be dismissed. B. The merits of the complaint 40. The applicants submitted that their conviction for handling photocopies of tax returns obtained through a breach of professional confidence by an unidentified tax official had infringed their right to freedom of expression. 41. The applicants' conviction was an “interference” with the exercise of their right to freedom of expression. Such interference breaches Article 10 unless it was “prescribed by law”, pursued one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 and was “necessary in a democratic society” to attain such aim or aims. 1. “Prescribed by law” 42. Those appearing before the Court agreed that the interference was “prescribed by law”, namely Article 460 of the former Criminal Code and Article L. 103 of the Code of Tax Procedure. The Court shares that view. 2. Legitimate aims 43. According to the applicants, the Government and the Commission, the interference was intended to protect the reputation or rights of others and to prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence. The Court sees no reason to conclude otherwise. 3. “Necessary in a democratic society” 44. The Court must therefore consider whether the interference was “necessary” in a democratic society in order to achieve those aims. (a) General principles 45. The Court reiterates the fundamental principles under its case-law concerning Article 10. (i) Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10, it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or