INCAL JUDGMENT OF 9 JUNE 1998 27 Turkey judgment of 1 April 1998 (Article 50), Reports 1998-II, pp. 723-24, § 47). B. Damage and costs and expenses 79. The applicant claimed 2,000,000 French francs (FRF) for pecuniary damage and FRF 5,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage. In support of his claims he asserted that at the material time he was in practice as a lawyer and was an associate director of five commercial undertakings. He asserted that he had sustained a considerable loss of income. Mr Incal further claimed reimbursement of his costs and expenses, which amounted to FRF 20,000 for preparing and communicating the documents produced in Strasbourg and FRF 80,000 for his representation before the Convention institutions, including his lawyers’ fees. 80. The Government argued, as their principal submission, that no compensation was called for in the present case. In the alternative, they maintained that the sums claimed were excessive and unjustified. They emphasised that the applicant had had the advantage of a stay of execution of four months in which to organise his affairs and minimise any losses. If the Court were to find a violation of the Convention, that finding in itself would constitute sufficient just satisfaction, as no causal connection had been established between the facts complained of and the damage alleged. The Government also considered that the claim in respect of costs and expenses had not been duly documented. 81. With regard to pecuniary damage, the Delegate of the Commission suggested that the Court should consider the question of the application of Article 50 in the light of the hypothetical character of the amount claimed. He left the question of non-pecuniary damage to the Court’s discretion. Lastly, with regard to the sum claimed for costs and expenses, he mentioned the problem raised by the lack of supporting documents. 82. On the question of pecuniary damage, the Court considers in the first place that it cannot speculate as to what the outcome of proceedings compatible with Article 6 § 1 would have been. It further notes that there is insufficient proof of a causal connection between the breach of Article 10 it has found and the loss of professional and commercial income alleged by the applicant. Moreover, the applicant’s claims in respect of pecuniary damage are not supported by any evidence whatsoever. The Court can therefore not allow them. With regard to non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the applicant suffered a certain amount of distress on account of the facts of the case. Making an assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 50,