MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT 13 alleging that the restriction of voters’ right to freedom of expression also infringed its right to freedom of expression. Based on the above, the Constitutional Court finds that the complainant requested the setting-aside of the impugned decision of the Kúria by relying on a violation, not of its own fundamental rights, but of the rights of others. Therefore the complaint does not fulfil the condition set out in section 27(a). In the light of the above, the Constitutional Court rejects the constitutional complaint pursuant to section 56(1) and (2) of the Constitutional Court Act and Rule 30(2)(h) of the Rules of Procedure.” 30. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Czine took the view that the case raised issues of constitutional importance. She commented as follows: “I do not agree with the decision rejecting the constitutional complaint, for the following reasons. In my opinion the substantive conditions, in particular those under sections 27 and 29, were met in the present case, since the arguments submitted concerning both the right to freedom of expression and the principle of the exercise of rights in accordance with their purpose under section 2(1)(e) of the Electoral Procedure Act raise doubts about the constitutionality of the judicial decision. They also render it necessary to examine a question of fundamental constitutional importance. ... In the present case the National Election Commission established, based on the available evidence, that the complainant had ‘encouraged voters to take photographs of valid and invalid ballot papers in the course of the referendum and to publish them on the application, thereby sending a message to the Government’. The complainant clearly argued in its constitutional complaint that ‘by making the application available its intention was to provide a possibility for voters to exercise their right to freedom of expression by taking and anonymously sharing photographs of ballot papers, or in the case of those who decided not to participate in the referendum, photographs of the activities they were engaged in instead of voting’. According to the complainant, its conduct in enabling the exercise of voters’ right to freedom of expression falls within the sphere of protection of Article IX (1) of the Fundamental Law. In my opinion, in the present case, it is a question of fundamental constitutional importance whether the impugned judicial decision restricted the right to freedom of expression and whether the principle of the exercise of rights in accordance with their purpose under section 2(1)(e) could serve as a constitutional ground, within the meaning of Article I (3) of the Fundamental Law, for restricting the right to freedom of expression. In the light of this, I considered it necessary to declare the constitutional complaint admissible and to examine it on its merits.”