32 ORLOVSKAYA ISKRA v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 100. It has not been concluded at the domestic level that the “negative comments” in the impugned publications amounted to an affront to Mr Stroyev’s dignity, good name or reputation, which would normally be protected within the scope of an action for defamation. Further, the Government do not suggest that the interference pursued the aim of protecting Mr Stroyev’s reputation, and the domestic court decisions contain no specific assessment of any such comments. Accordingly, as the aim of the interference in the present case was not to protect Mr Stroyev’s reputation, the circumstances of the case do not turn on the balancing exercise between the rights and freedoms under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention. 101. At the same time, it is noted that the requirement to indicate the sponsorship of published “campaigning material” was one of the checks and balances which make up Russian law in relation to election procedures, including the regulations relating to mass media work during elections. 102. The present case arises from interference with freedom of expression, which is protected under Article 10 of the Convention, and not a complaint brought under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. From this perspective, since the circumstances of the case relate to the parliamentary elections so that the “choice of the legislature” was at stake, it is appropriate to consider the applicant organisation’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention in the light of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which provides as follows: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.” 103. In previous cases the Court has considered that the balancing exercise could take account, under the heading of the “rights of others”, of the general public interest, for instance relating to absence of distortion of the electoral process, including fair competition between the candidates (see also Erdoğan Gökçe v. Turkey, no. 31736/04, § 40, 14 October 2014, and Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 48876/08, §§ 78, 99 and 112, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). It may be legitimate that certain formalities, restrictions or penalties may be called for during an election period, for instance to ensure a level playing field, for example by way of regulating and controlling campaign expenditure. This might be relevant where certain candidates or parties, because of their relative financial strength, might have obtained an unfair advantage over those with less resources by being able to spend more, for instance on political advertising (see TV Vest AS and Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway, no. 21132/05, § 72, ECHR 2008 (extracts), and VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, § 75, ECHR 2001-VI). 104. It follows from the constitutional rulings of 30 October 2003 and 16 June 2006 (see paragraphs 44 and 51 above) that the applicable