The Commission furthermore concludes in the amicus curiae brief that the provisions on the limitation of the activity of the political party, as a precautionary measure, and the dissolution of the party for the fact that it represents a successor party of a political party declared unconstitutional can in principle be justified under European and international standards, in particular under Article 11(2) of the ECHR and Article 22 of the ICCPR: they are defined by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and may be necessary in a democratic society. That said, finding that a political party is the successor of a political party declared unconstitutional should not necessarily result in the dissolution of such party – a measure which should be taken only in the most serious circumstances and as last resort: the law should foresee other means of achieving the same aims that interfere less seriously with the right to freedom of association. Likewise, the Commission considers that the activities of a political party may be limited as a precautionary measure, but this possibility should be foreseen only for dissolution proceedings or in proceedings that seek the limitation of a political party’s activity provided they are confined to narrowly defined and truly exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, less drastic measures should be envisaged that would precede the limitation as a precautionary measure. In any event, any decision imposing precautionary limitations must be supported by adequate, reasoned justification demonstrating their strict necessity.