2 MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT accordance with Article 43 of the Convention. On 28 May 2018 the panel of the Grand Chamber granted that request. 4. The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24. 5. The MKKP and the Government each filed further written observations (Rule 59 § 1) on the merits. 6. A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 21 November 2018. There appeared before the Court: (a) for the respondent Government Mr Z. TALLÓDI, Ms M. WELLER, (b) for the MKKP Mr Cs. TORDAI, Mr T. FAZEKAS, Mr B. T. TÓTH, Ms D. G. SZABÓ, Agent, Co-Agent; Counsel, Adviser. The Court heard addresses and replies to the questions put by the judges by Mr Tallódi, Mr Fazekas and Mr Tóth. THE FACTS 7. The MKKP is a political party active in Hungary. At the 2018 legislative elections it obtained 1.73% of the votes cast on national lists (99,410 votes nationwide) and consequently did not attain the statutory threshold for parliamentary representation; moreover, none of its candidates was elected in the individual constituencies. Its political stance is largely conveyed through satire directed at the political elite and governmental policies, through its website (which includes much humorous content), through purported “campaigns” for clearly absurd causes, and through street art and performances. 8. In 2006 the party presented its candidature for the national elections, with an election manifesto containing ideas such as eternal life, free beer, lower gravitation and two sunsets a day. In their 2006 campaign for the office of mayor of Budapest their slogans included “More of everything, less of nothing!” “Eternal life, free beer and tax deductions!” and “We promise anything!” 9. In the context of the wave of refugees and migrants crossing Hungarian territory in 2015 and in response to the resultant governmental policies on migration, which received widespread media coverage, the MKKP launched what it called an “anti-anti-immigration campaign”. It was