48 GORZELIK AND OTHERS v. POLAND JUDGMENT – JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES COSTA AND ZUPANČIČ JOINED BY JUDGE KOVLER been asked to do by the Governor acting in his supervisory capacity (see paragraph 24 of the judgment). While this would have deprived it of the electoral “advantage” afforded national minorities, it would have acquired full legal capacity as an association. We thus return to the starting-point of this opinion: in practice, the measures the applicants complain of constitute not so much a real interference with their freedom of association as an attempt on the part of the domestic authorities to avoid the unforeseen consequences – which would infringe the principle of equality – of the exercise of that freedom. 13. For all these reasons, we were able to accept the finding that “it was not the applicants' freedom of association per se that was restricted by the State” (see paragraph 106 of the judgment). Indeed, in that regard, it seemed to us that Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France ([GC], no. 27417/95, §§ 8384, ECHR 2000-VII) might be of some relevance, mutatis mutandis. In the end, despite our initial reservations, we were able to concur with the majority in this very sensitive case, thus fully justifying its examination by the Grand Chamber of the Court.