38 MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT the rights of others such as the reputation of candidates and political parties (see paragraph 69 above). 104. The Government referred to the principle of the exercise of rights in accordance with their purpose as laid down in section 2(1)(e) of the Electoral Procedure Act, and the domestic courts’ interpretation of that provision. They added that, as of 2014 (with the publication of the NEC Guidelines), the MKKP had been in a position to foresee that the taking of ballot photographs would be contrary to that principle (see paragraph 77 above). 105. The Court observes that, in its decisions of 30 September and 7 October 2016, the NEC relied on both section 2(1)(a) of the EPA, which enshrines the principle of fairness of the voting process, and section 2(1)(e) of the EPA, which enshrines the bona fide exercise of rights in accordance with their purpose. It further relied on Article 2(1) of the Fundamental Law which relates to the secrecy of voting, and on its own Guidelines which explicitly stated that the taking of photographs of ballot papers was to be considered as infringing the above-mentioned principles (see paragraphs 21 and 25 above). 106. The Kúria, for its part, relied in its decisions of 10 and 18 October 2016 solely on section 2(1)(e) in so far as it relates to the principle of exercise of rights in accordance with their purpose as the legal basis for the restriction. It found that the MKKP’s conduct did not infringe the principle of bona fide exercise of rights. That court further dismissed the NEC’s reasoning and conclusions according to which the MKKP’s conduct had jeopardised the principle of the protection of the fairness of elections and the right to voting secrecy. It emphasised that the NEC Guidelines did not constitute a legislative act and did not have legal binding force and were, thus, irrelevant for its assessment (see paragraph 26 above). 107. In the second decision dated 18 October 2016 the Kúria also endorsed the NEC’s classification of the MKKP’s conduct as carrying out campaigning activity during the campaign period within the meaning of section 141 of the EPA, since calling on voters to upload and publish photographs of ballot papers and encouraging them to cast an invalid ballot was likely to influence voters’ choice. This conduct was found to be in breach of the rules on election campaigns, for which MKKP was fined (on the basis of section 2(1)(e) read in conjunction with section 218(2)(d) of EPA). 108. The Court sees no reason to call into question the existence in Hungarian law of legal provisions designed to deter individuals and entities from engaging in unlawful electoral activity, including by imposing a fine on those who breach the law. It notes that section 2(1) of the EPA stipulates that the basic principles enumerated therein must prevail in the application of the rules of electoral procedure. In addition, section 218 provides for a fine to be imposed in the event of a breach of the campaign regulations. The