30 MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT major importance and was therefore protected by Article 10. Relying on the decisions of the NEC and the Kúria, it also contended that the mobile application itself, named “Cast an invalid ballot”, had conveyed a political opinion deserving the protection of Article 10 of the Convention, as it had encouraged voters to cast an invalid ballot and had thus been capable of influencing them. The MKKP also pointed to its role as a political party in contributing to the functioning of democracy, and to the fact that the mobile application had contributed to the electorate’s knowledge of its political views, since it had been widely reported on in the media. 68. Referring to the cases of Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary (no. 37374/05, 14 April 2009) and Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary ([GC], no. 18030/11, 8 November 2016), the applicant party stressed the importance of the collection of information on matters of public concern by protagonists playing the role of a public watchdog, and argued that the mobile application had been aimed at monitoring the fairness of the referendum through the collection and sharing of anonymous data. 69. As to the legal basis of the interference, the MKKP averred that there was no provision of Hungarian law or any decision by an election commission or a court that prohibited the taking of ballot photographs. It argued that the Guidelines issued by the NEC could not be considered as “law” for the purposes of Article 10 § 2, since they were non-binding in nature. Furthermore, the provision of the Electoral Procedure Act concerning the principle of the exercise of rights in accordance with their purpose could not serve as a legal basis for the restriction of freedom of expression either. The applicant party insisted that, according to the case-law of the Hungarian courts, a violation of the principle was to be found where there was clearly abusive conduct entailing a negative consequence (for instance, the limitation or infringement of the rights of others) under the pretext of formal compliance with the law. It pointed to the Constitutional Court’s practice of finding that in an electoral context the principle could only be relied on to restrict freedom of expression if it served the protection of the rights of others, that is, the reputation of candidates and political parties. Moreover, according to the MKKP, voting secrecy was a waivable right and not an obligation under Hungarian law. 70. With regard to the aim of the interference, the MKKP did not dispute that, in principle, the protection of the fairness of elections and voting secrecy could be regarded as legitimate aims justifying the restriction of freedom of expression. However, in the light of the Kúria’s findings that neither of these aims had been at stake in the circumstances of the present case, the MKKP questioned whether they could be considered as “legitimate aims” pursued by the restriction on the mobile application. Furthermore, the MKKP argued that the purpose of the ballot paper and the principle of the exercise of rights in accordance with their purpose could not be linked to any of the reasons listed in Article 10 § 2.