32 GORZELIK AND OTHERS v. POLAND JUDGMENT held that the interference with the applicants' right had pursued legitimate aims under Article 11, namely “the prevention of disorder” and “the protection of the rights of others” (see paragraph 44 of the Chamber's judgment). (b) The parties' submissions to the Grand Chamber (i) The applicants 73. The applicants stressed that it was undisputed that all the aims of their association, as set out in paragraph 7 of the memorandum of association, were in conformity with the law. The name chosen for the association could not be seen as capable of causing “disorder” and, therefore, justify measures to “prevent disorder”, especially as the authorities had eventually accepted the name and only insisted on the deletion of paragraph 30 of the memorandum. 74. They further submitted that the fact that that paragraph stated that “[t]he Union is an organisation of the Silesian national minority” did not by itself infringe the rights of other ethnic groups, in particular under electoral law. That single provision, in the absence of any attempt on their part to stand in elections or to claim minority status under the 1993 Elections Act, and in the absence of any such objective in the memorandum of association, could not in any way affect the rights or freedoms of others. In conclusion, the applicants invited the Grand Chamber to hold that the restriction on their right to freedom of association had not been imposed in pursuance of any legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention. (ii) The Government 75. The Government disagreed. They fully subscribed to the Chamber's conclusion and stood by their submissions to it, reiterating that it had been legitimate for the authorities to refuse to register the applicants' association as an organisation of a national minority. Had they allowed the registration, it would have had serious consequences for the domestic legal order because it would have enabled the applicants to claim privileges reserved for genuine national minorities. It would also have amounted to discrimination against other ethnic groups in the sphere of electoral law. (c) The Court's assessment 76. When justifying the impugned decisions, the domestic courts expressly relied on the need to protect the domestic legal order and the rights of other ethnic groups against an anticipated attempt by the applicants' association to circumvent the provisions of the 1993 Elections Act or other statutes conferring particular rights on national minorities (see paragraphs 32 and 36 above).