ORLOVSKAYA ISKRA v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 41 applicant organisation’s freedom to impart information and ideas during the election period and was not shown to achieve, in a proportionate manner, the aim of running fair elections. (e) Conclusion 134. The Court concludes that, in view of the regulatory framework, the applicant organisation was restricted in its freedom to impart information and ideas. By subjecting the expression of comments to the regulation of “campaigning” and by prosecuting the applicant with reference to this regulation, there was an interference with the applicant organisation’s editorial choice to publish a text taking a critical stance and to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest. No sufficiently compelling reasons have been shown to justify the prosecution and conviction of the applicant organisation for its publications at election time. 135. The Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 136. 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 137. The applicant organisation claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 138. The Government contested the claim. 139. The Court considers that there is a sufficient causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged on account of the fine paid by the applicant organisation in the amount of RUB 35,000. 140. As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates that there is a possibility under Article 41 of the Convention that a commercial company may be awarded monetary compensation for non-pecuniary damage (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 35, ECHR 2000-IV). Non-pecuniary damage suffered by companies may include heads of claim that are to a greater or lesser extent “objective” or “subjective”. Among these, account should be taken of the company’s reputation, uncertainty in decision-planning, disruption in the management of the company (for which there is no precise method of calculating the consequences) and lastly, albeit to a lesser degree, the anxiety and inconvenience caused to the members of