GORZELIK AND OTHERS v. POLAND JUDGMENT 33 Against that background, the Grand Chamber considers that the applicants have not put forward any arguments that would warrant a departure from the Chamber's finding that the interference in question was intended to prevent disorder and to protect the rights of others. Indeed, it could be said that, as the impugned measure purported to prevent a possible abuse of electoral law by the association itself or by other organisations in a similar situation, it served to protect the existing democratic institutions and procedures in Poland. 3. “Necessary in a democratic society” (a) The Chamber's judgment 77. The Chamber held that the refusal to register the association without the deletion of the contested paragraph 30 of the memorandum of association satisfied the test of “necessity”, as it was made with a view to protecting the electoral system of the State, which was an indispensable element of the proper functioning of a “democratic society” within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention (see paragraph 66 of the Chamber's judgment). (b) The parties' submissions to the Grand Chamber (i) The applicants 78. The applicants disagreed with the Chamber and stressed that the refusal had been an extreme measure that amounted to a prior, unjustifiable restraint on their freedom of association and could not be reconciled with the principles governing a democratic society. It had been based on entirely unfounded suspicions as to their true intentions and on speculation as to their future actions. In the applicants' opinion, there was always a hypothetical risk that a particular association might infringe the law or engage in activities incompatible with the aims it proclaimed. Yet the mere possibility of that happening could not justify a preventive blanket ban being imposed on its activities. 79. The principal argument put forward by the authorities had been the alleged need to protect the electoral system against a possible attempt by the applicants to claim national-minority status in parliamentary elections and special privileges under electoral law. In the authorities' view, that mere eventuality had become a certainty. By taking that stance, they had overlooked the obvious fact that only a series of events and decisions – none of which were in the least bit certain – would have enabled the applicants to gain those privileges. First, they would have had to want to run for elections. Second, they would have had to set up an “electoral committee of a registered organisation of a national minority”. Given that their memorandum of association had not envisaged such a form