MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT 11 the course of elections this manifests itself by citizens taking ballot photographs and sharing them with others on social media. In developing the application the complainant’s intention was to secure the possibility for voters to exercise their right to freedom of expression by anonymously sharing a photograph of their ballot papers (or, in the case of those who did not participate in the referendum, a photograph of the activity they were otherwise engaged in) and a related comment in a manner that did not allow the cast ballot to be linked to the voter him or herself. ... In the complainant’s view, the interpretation by the Kúria and the legal consequences of that interpretation infringed its rights under Article IX (1) of the Fundamental Law and is therefore unconstitutional. The aim of taking photographs of ballot papers and sharing them with others is for voters to express a viewpoint on a matter of public interest; therefore it falls within the scope of freedom of expression, and in particular the salient aspect of the discussion of public matters. Therefore, the complainant’s own conduct in enabling the exercise of voters’ right to freedom of expression also falls within the sphere of protection of Article IX (1) of the Fundamental Law. ... In the complainant’s view the purpose of the object shown on a photograph cannot serve as the basis for a constitutionally justified restriction on freedom of expression, exercised through taking photographs and sharing them with others, since such a restriction does not have a legitimate aim and it is not absolutely necessary. ... The purpose of the object shown on a photograph is not a fundamental right or a constitutional value; therefore, it cannot serve as a legitimate basis for restricting a fundamental right. That is to say, it does not fulfil the conditions required for the restriction of a fundamental right. ... In the complainant’s view the impugned decision of the Kúria restricts, without a constitutional basis, its conduct falling within the ambit of freedom of expression, by restricting voters’ right to freedom of expression. ... The complainant notes that it is common practice among voters to share their ballot photographs – like other aspects of their lives – with their friends and third parties on social media. Given the features of social media, this type of photograph-sharing links the cast ballot with the voter, since the photograph appears under the name of the user. By contrast, the application in the present case explicitly provides a possibility for individuals to share ballot photographs, and the content of their vote, with others without revealing their identity; therefore it is even less liable to breach the secrecy of the ballot than photographs shared on Facebook or other social media. If the development and advertising of the application were declared unlawful, this would result in voters sharing their ballot photographs on social media in a manner linking them with their vote, which would increase rather than decrease the hypothetical likelihood of electoral fraud.” 29. On 24 October 2016 the Constitutional Court issued two decisions, declaring both the complaint against the Kúria’s decision of 10 October 2016 (decision no. 3226/2016 (XI.14) AB) and the complaint against the Kúria’s decision of 18 October 2016 (decision no. 3227/216 (XI.14) AB) inadmissible and employing identical reasoning, as follows: “The Constitutional Court rejects [declares inadmissible] the constitutional complaint lodged against decision no. KvK.II.37.967/2016/2 of the Kúria.