CĂLIN GEORGESCU v. ROMANIA DECISION meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Court finds that Article 6 of the Convention is not applicable to these proceedings. 30. It follows that the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 a) and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 31. Given these findings, the applicant does not have an “arguable claim” under Article 13. Therefore, the complaint raised under this Article is similarly incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. C. As regards the complaints under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention 32. Relying on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, the applicant alleged that the Constitutional Court’s decision no. 32 of 6 December 2024 was the result of political interference by “the ruling party” in charge of the electoral process and that it undermined the freedom to participate in the democratic process, particularly the freedom of political association. 33. The Court recalls that the wording of Article 34 indicates that a “claim” or complaint in Convention terms comprises two elements, namely factual allegations (i.e. to the effect that the claimant is the “victim” of an act or omission – see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51) and the legal arguments underpinning them (i.e. that the said act or omission entailed a “violation by [a] Contracting Party of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto”). These two elements are intertwined because the facts complained of ought to be seen in the light of the legal arguments adduced and vice versa (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 110, 20 March 2018). 34. The Court notes that the applicant did not raise any factual and legal arguments in support of his complaints under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. 35. The Court would point out that it is not for it to speculate on the substance of an applicant’s complaints, especially if he or she is represented by a lawyer of his own choosing, as in the present case. Insofar as the complaints, in the light of the scarce elements put forward by the applicant, could be understood as concerning his alleged inability to participate in the electoral process, the Court considers that that is an aspect already examined under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see paragraphs 21-27 above). As regards the freedom to political association that he also mentioned without any further details, the Court observes that the applicant was an independent candidate in the elections for the President of Romania (see paragraph 2 above). 8