48 ŽDANOKA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES SPIELMANN AND JAEGER join a political party but also restricts the possibilities for penalising past party membership. 6. In addition, the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Article 11 § 1 of the Convention can only be construed within the limits of the second paragraph of that provision, which does not, however, leave States the same margin of appreciation as that granted by the Court in respect of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and which is described in the judgment as “wide” (see paragraphs 103, 115 (c), 121 and 135). The Court has noted this fundamental distinction more specifically in paragraph 115 (a) of the judgment, where it states: “... where an interference with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 is in issue the Court should not automatically adhere to the same criteria as those applied with regard to the interference permitted by the second paragraphs of Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention, and it should not necessarily base its conclusions under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 on the principles derived from the application of Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention. Because of the relevance of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the institutional order of the State, this provision is cast in very different terms from Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention. Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 is phrased in collective and general terms, although it has been interpreted by the Court as also implying specific individual rights. The standards to be applied for establishing compliance with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 must therefore be considered to be less stringent than those applied under Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention.” 7. Finally, the parties agreed before the Court that a separate issue arose under this Article. The respondent Government alleged that the interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 11 was compatible with the requirements of the second paragraph of that provision and that the impugned measure was “necessary in a democratic society”. The applicant contested the legitimacy of the aims pursued by the impugned measure, and considered that it was disproportionate. 8. In consequence, we consider that the Court ought to have made a separate finding on this important question.