34 GORZELIK AND OTHERS v. POLAND JUDGMENT of activity, the authorities could have interfered at that stage, under sections 28 and 29 of the Law on Associations. Next, the committee would have had to submit to the State Electoral College a declaration under section 5 of the 1993 Elections Act. The College would have examined that declaration thoroughly so as to ascertain whether it had been submitted by an entity entitled to make such a declaration. In case of doubt, it could have ordered the committee to produce supporting evidence. In consequence, the State Electoral College would have had the ultimate power to acknowledge or reject their claim to privileges under the 1993 Elections Act, as was apparent not only from section 5 but also from the general provisions of the Act, which obliged the College to ensure compliance with its provisions. 80. The applicants said that, in any event, it had not been necessary for the authorities to have recourse to so drastic a measure as preventing the very existence of the association. Under the Law on associations, they had a number of powerful legal tools at their disposal for regulating the activities of an existing association. They could reprimand its officers, annul any unlawful resolution passed by the association or even dissolve it under section 29. In contrast to a preventive restriction on registration in anticipation of a particular scenario, such measures could be regarded as acceptable under Article 11 as their application depended on the actual conduct and actions of the association. Accordingly, without needing to resort to a refusal of registration, the authorities could have effectively corrected or put an end to the association's future activity if the need to “prevent disorder” or to “protect the rights of others” had in fact arisen. 81. In view of the foregoing, the applicants concluded that the contested restriction had been disproportionate to the aims relied on by the authorities and could not, therefore, be regarded as necessary in a democratic society. (ii) The Government 82. The Government maintained that the authorities' intention was not to put a preventive restraint on the applicants' right to associate freely with others in order to maintain distinctive features of Silesians or to promote Silesian culture. Their primary purpose had been to forestall their likely attempt to use the registration of the association as a legal means for acquiring special status under electoral law. The authorities had not acted, as the applicants asserted, on unfounded suspicions as to their concealed intentions but on the basis of an objective assessment of the relevant facts and the legal consequences of the registration of an association that declared itself to be an organisation of a national minority. 83. Thus, the crucial issue between the applicants and the authorities was not the intended name of the association – as the latter had eventually