GORZELIK AND OTHERS v. POLAND JUDGMENT 41 Consequently, the Court accepts that the national authorities, and in particular the national courts, did not overstep their margin of appreciation in considering that there was a pressing social need, at the moment of registration, to regulate the free choice of associations to call themselves an “organisation of a national minority”, in order to protect the existing democratic institutions and election procedures in Poland and thereby, in Convention terms, prevent disorder and protect the rights of others (see paragraph 76 above). (β) Proportionality of the measure 104. It remains for the Court to ascertain whether, in view of its adverse effects on the ability of the association and its members, including the applicants, to carry out their associative activities, the refusal to register the association with the description “organisation of the Silesian national minority” was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. The applicants stressed the particular severity of the interference, which in their view had amounted to a preventive blanket ban on their activities. They also argued that it had not been necessary for the authorities to take such a drastic measure, because they could have corrected their future actions using the means designed by the Law on associations to regulate the latter's activities (see paragraph 80 above). The Government maintained that the authorities had not acted in order to prohibit the formation of an association preserving Silesian cultural identity but to prevent the applicants' possible attempt to obtain, through the registration of their association, a special legal status. They further submitted that the machinery established by the Law on associations for monitoring the activities of associations would not be sufficient to prevent them from taking advantage of privileges under electoral law (see paragraphs 82-86 above). 105. The Court, on the basis of Polish law as authoritatively interpreted by the Polish Supreme Court, has already rejected the applicants' argument that the provisions on the regulation of the activities of associations in the Law on associations would have provided an alternative and less onerous means of avoiding a future abuse of electoral privileges by the applicants' association (see paragraphs 101 and 103, first sub-paragraph, above). The Court does however accept that, in its impact on the applicants, the impugned measure was radical: it went so far as to prevent the association from even commencing any activity. However, the degree of interference under paragraph 2 of Article 11 cannot be considered in the abstract and must be assessed in the particular context of the case. There may also be cases in which the choice of measures available to the authorities for responding to a “pressing social need” in relation to the perceived harmful consequences linked to the existence or activities of an association is unavoidably limited.