38 TĂNASE v. MOLDOVA JUDGMENT Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 have been complied with. In this regard, it has to satisfy itself that the conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate (see, for example, Hirst (no. 2), cited above, § 62, and Yumak and Sadak, cited above, § 109). 2. Application of the general principles to the present case 162. The Court notes that it has found that the applicant can claim to be a victim of Law no. 273 (see paragraph 111 above). It further observes that in both the April 2009 and the July 2009 elections, the applicant was elected as an MP (see paragraphs 60 and 66 above). In order to have his mandate confirmed by the Constitutional Court, he was required to initiate a procedure to renounce his Romanian nationality (see paragraphs 60-61 and 66 above). Accordingly, the Court considers that there has been an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. Such interference will constitute a violation unless it meets the requirements of lawfulness, it pursues a legitimate aim and it is proportionate. (a) Lawfulness 163. The Court observes that the prohibition on multiple nationals sitting as MPs contained in Law no. 273 was couched in sufficiently clear terms. Once adopted, the Law was published in the Official Gazette. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the impugned legislation met the requirements of foreseeability. Although there would appear to be an inconsistency between the Law and Article 17 of the ECN, which is part of the domestic legal order under the Moldovan Constitution and takes precedence over national legislation (see paragraphs 71-73 above), the Court does not find it necessary to resolve the apparent conflict of norms. However, it will consider the impact of the ECN more closely in its examination of the proportionality of the measure below. (b) Legitimate aim 164. Unlike Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 does not itself set out a list of aims which can be considered legitimate for the purposes of that Article. Several aims are relied upon by the Government to justify the prohibition introduced by Law no. 273, namely ensuring loyalty, defending the independence and existence of the State and guaranteeing the security of the State. The Court observes that the Constitutional Court found the aim pursued by the prohibition to be securing the loyalty of MPs to the State and concluded that allowing MPs to hold dual nationality was contrary to the constitutional principle of the independence of the mandate of MPs, State sovereignty, national security