ŽDANOKA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 43 Latvia now enjoys, inter alia, by reason of its full European integration (see paragraph 51 above). Hence, the failure by the Latvian legislature to take active steps in this connection may result in a different finding by the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Sheffield and Horsham v. the United Kingdom, 30 July 1998, § 60, Reports 1998-V; see also the follow-up judgment to that case, Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, §§ 71-93, ECHR 2002-VI). 136. The Court concludes that there has been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 10 AND 11 OF THE CONVENTION 137. The applicant complained that her disqualification from standing for election to the national parliament as well as municipal councils amounted to a violation of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The relevant parts of these Articles provide: Article 10 “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. ... 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, ... for the protection of the reputation or rights of others ...” Article 11 “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association ... 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, ... or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.” A. The Chamber’s judgment 138. The Chamber considered that there had been a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s rights, in breach of Article 11 of the