60_102 interference 102. Norwegian whaling. It recalls that restrictions on conduct may constitute an interference with freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention (see, for instance, the Hashmann and Harrup v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 November 1999, Reports of Judgments- 9 - 33678/96 and Decisions 1999-, § 28). However, in view of its conclusions below, the Court does not find it necessary to determine whether the particular conduct which gave rise to the disputed measures could be viewed as falling within the notions of "expression" in Article 10 and/or "assembly" in Article 11, or was otherwise covered by the guarantees set out in the first paragraphs of these Articles. The Court will proceed on the assumption that the measures entailed an interference with the applicants' rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention and will examine whether the conditions for restricting them under the second paragraph of these provisions were fulfilled, namely whether they were "prescribed by law", pursued one or more of the legitimate aims mentioned, and were necessary in a democratic society for the pursuit of those aims.