MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION 45 6. The Court’s approach in such situations was reiterated in the Taranenko judgment (Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, 15 May 2014), as follows: “67. To sum up, the Court reiterates that any measures interfering with freedom of assembly and expression other than in cases of incitement to violence or rejection of democratic principles do a disservice to democracy and often even endanger it (see Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 37, 24 July 2012)”. 7. In the Sinkova judgment (Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, 27 February 2018) the Court found that the form of expression used by the applicant was not appropriate, and stressed the following: “110... There were many suitable opportunities for the applicant to express her views or participate in genuine protests in respect of the State’s policy on the use of natural gas or responding to the needs of war veterans, without breaking the criminal law and without insulting the memory of soldiers who perished and the feelings of veterans, whose rights she had ostensibly meant to defend.” 8. I cannot find anything other than a rejection of democratic principles by the MKKP in the present case, although there were many other suitable opportunities for MKKP members, and for those voters who invalidated their ballots, to express their views. Such a conclusion would suffice in order to vote for no violation, to uphold the explanation given by the national authorities relating to the abuse of voting rights and to find that the interference was legitimate and proportionate. The authorities applied sections 2(1)(a) and (e) of the Electoral Procedure Act, which protects the fairness of elections and the exercise of rights in accordance with their purpose and in good faith. In paragraph 9 of its judgment the Kúria explained that “[a] ballot paper clearly serves the purpose of allowing voters to express their opinion on a question put to the vote; any use of ballot papers contrary to this purpose infringes the principle of the exercise of rights in accordance with their purpose”. 9. The majority of judges preferred not to assess the fact that the ballot papers had been invalidated intentionally and the way in which the opinion had been expressed. Their analysis was very narrow. They seized upon the contradicting approaches of the NEC and the Kúria (see paragraph 112 of the judgment). At the same time the Court preferred to close its eyes to the position of the Constitutional Court, which applied the principles of the prohibition of abuse of rights and the exercise of rights in accordance with their purpose. The fact that the Constitutional Court relied on the NEC and the Kúria in applying the principles in individual cases (see paragraph 109 of the judgment) does not, in my view, have a decisive effect – contrary to the approach taken by the majority. The Constitutional Court and the Kúria made reference to general principles including the abuse of rights and applied them in the MKKP’s case. 10. Actually, the MKKP sought to influence voters to invalidate their ballot papers. This is not a case about punishment for taking ballot photographs, as it was presented by the applicant (see paragraph 102 of the