Tokens: 9
.
In
the
light
of
the
above
,
we
conclude
that
the
interference
with
the
applicant
’s
freedom
of
expression
is
indeed
properly
to
be
treated
as
“
necessary
in
a
democratic
society
”
within
the
meaning
of
Article
10
§
2
of
the
Convention
and
gave
rise
to
no
violation
.
It
is
no
part
of
the
Court
’s
function
to
express
a
view
on
whether
the
means
chosen
by
the
national
authorities
to
deal
with
the
applicant
’s
situation
were
or
were
not
the
most
suitable
,
and
we
,
accordingly
,
refrain
from
doing
so
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O