IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

119. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A. Damage

120. The applicants claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) and EUR 20,000 respectively in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

121. The Government contested the first applicant’s claims under this head. They argued,with reference to the Hirst (no. 2) [GC] judgment,that, should any violation of the first applicant’s rights be found in the present case, the mere finding of a violation would suffice. They did not comment on the second applicant’s relevant claims.

122. Having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in the present case for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants (see Hirst (no. 2) [GC], cited above, §§ 93-94 and Greens and M. T., cited above, § 98).

B. Costs and expenses

123. The applicants did not submit any claims under this head. Accordingly, there is no call to make any award in this respect.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Decidesto join the proceedings in the applications;

2. Declaresthe complaints under Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention and the complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention,in so far as it concerned the applicants’ disenfranchisement and their ineligibility to vote in the parliamentary elections held on 7 December 2003 and 2 December 2007, as regards the first applicant, and on 5 December 2004 and 2 December 2007, as regards the second applicant, admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

3. Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;

4. Holdsthat no separate issues arise under Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention;

5. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants, and dismissesthe applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 July 2013, pursuant to Rule 77§§2 and3 of the Rules of Court.

SørenNielsen Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre
Registrar President

Date: 2015-01-11; view: 716