42 GORZELIK AND OTHERS v. POLAND JUDGMENT In the instant case the refusal was not a comprehensive, unconditional one directed against the cultural and practical objectives that the association wished to pursue, but was based solely on the mention, in the memorandum of association, of a specific appellation for the association. It was designed to counteract a particular, albeit only potential, abuse by the association of its status as conferred by registration. It by no means amounted to a denial of the distinctive ethnic and cultural identity of Silesians or to a disregard for the association's primary aim, which was to “awaken and strengthen the national consciousness of Silesians” (see paragraph 19 above). On the contrary, in all their decisions the authorities consistently recognised the existence of a Silesian ethnic minority and their right to associate with one another to pursue common objectives (see paragraphs 32 and 36 above). All the various cultural and other activities that the association and its members wished to undertake could have been carried out had the association been willing to abandon the appellation set out in paragraph 30 of its memorandum of association. Like the Chamber, the Grand Chamber finds it hard to perceive any practical purpose for this paragraph in relation to the association's proposed activities other than to prepare the ground for enabling the association and its members to benefit from the electoral privileges accorded by section 5(1) of the 1993 Elections Act to “registered organisations of national minorities” (see also paragraph 64 of the Chamber's judgment). The disputed restriction on the establishment of the association was essentially concerned with the label which the association could use in law – with whether it could call itself a “national minority” – rather than with its ability “to act collectively in a field of mutual interest” (see paragraph 88 above). As such, it did not go to the core or essence of freedom of association. Consequently, for the purposes of Article 11 of the Convention and the freedom of association which it guarantees, the interference in question cannot be considered disproportionate to the aims pursued. (d) The Court's conclusion 106. The Court concludes, therefore, that it was not the applicants' freedom of association per se that was restricted by the State. The authorities did not prevent them from forming an association to express and promote distinctive features of a minority but from creating a legal entity which, through registration under the Law on associations and the description it gave itself in paragraph 30 of its memorandum of association, would inevitably become entitled to a special status under the 1993 Elections Act. Given that the national authorities were entitled to consider that the contested interference met a “pressing social need” and given that the interference was not disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, the refusal to register the applicants' association can be regarded as having been