8 MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT submitted had been declared inadmissible since it had not challenged an alleged violation of its own constitutional rights but that of voters, and had therefore not complied with procedural requirements. 26. The applicant political party argued that it had exhausted all available remedies. Its constitutional complaint had been dismissed on the grounds that providing a platform for voters to express their opinions had not fallen under the scope of freedom of expression. Thus, the merits of its complaint had been examined by the highest judicial forum. 27. The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies referred to in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention obliges applicants to use first the remedies that are normally available and sufficient in the domestic legal system to enable them to obtain redress for the breaches alleged. Article 35 § 1 also requires that complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been lodged with the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law (see Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, § 116, ECHR 2015). 28. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that in its constitutional complaint the applicant political party did provide the domestic authorities with a complete account of the proceedings and complained that sanctioning it for operating the impugned mobile telephone application had infringed its right to freedom of expression, since that activity had fallen under the scope of Article IX (1) of the Fundamental Law (see paragraph 16 above). The Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible, concluding that the case concerned voters’ right to freedom of expression, for which the applicant political party had merely provided a platform, but had not itself expressed an opinion. 29. The Court therefore considers that the applicant political party raised the essence of its complaint before the Constitutional Court, which ruled on the question of whether the case concerned the applicant political party’s exercise of its right to freedom of expression. In these circumstances the Court finds that the applicant political party made the domestic authorities sufficiently aware of its situation and gave them adequate opportunity to assess whether the imposition of a fine had been reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances (see Džinić v. Croatia, no. 38359/13, § 49, 17 May 2016). 30. The Court accordingly concludes that the applicant political party has complied with the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies and that the Government’s objection must be rejected. It also notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.