THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF RUSSIA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 39 not unreasonable that a seat in the parliament obtained by a particular party could be transferred to another person on that party’s list if the person originally elected within the quota of the party was unable or unwilling to fulfil the mandate for some reason. The Court expresses concern in respect of the practice of coordinated forfeiture of a great number of mandates obtained by a political party. However, the Court will not analyse the dangers inherent in such a practice in the abstract. In the case at hand the Court confines itself to observing that the rule allowing forfeiture of parliamentary mandates was not as such contrary to the concept of free elections, and that the application of this rule in 2003 by the United Russia deputies was not abusive on the face. It follows that the application in this part is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 3 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 THERETO 137. The applicants complained that they had been discriminated against in the course of the 2003 electoral campaign, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The former provision reads as follows: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” 138. The Government argued that the applicants had not been discriminated against, since the law did not make any distinction between them and other candidates and/or voters. The fact that the media coverage of different candidates outside the time allocated for “political campaigning” had not been equal was immaterial. 139. The applicants maintained that the coverage given to United Russia (and particularly the positive coverage) had exceeded the amount of coverage given to the other political parties. Therefore, either the State discriminated the opposition parties and candidates deliberately, or it had failed in its duty to protect them from discrimination by the media companies. 140. The Court considers that, even though it has not found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the case at hand, the applicants’ complaints can be said to “fall within the ambit” of that provision (see Inze v. Austria, 28 October 1987, §§ 43-45, Series A no. 126). Therefore, the applicants’ complaint under Article 14 is compatible ratione materiae with the Convention. The Court further observes that in order to claim that there has been discrimination, an