Reiterating that free discussion of political issues is fundamental to democracy, the Court has developed doctrines such as the “privileged position” of political speech, holding that there is “little scope” for restricting political expression on matters of public interest under Article 10 ECHR. This protection extends to electoral campaigns: in principle, during electoral periods the free circulation of information and ideas on issues of public concern must be ensured, even if they are controversial or partly inaccurate. For instance, in the Handyside judgment, the Court stated that freedom of expression applies not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population”. Likewise, in Castells v. Spain the Court upheld the right of an opposition senator to sharply criticise the government’s inaction against terrorism, emphasising that public authorities must tolerate especially rigorous scrutiny and vehement criticism in the political-electoral context, since politicians – and particularly governments – voluntarily expose themselves to broader public examination.