20 GROSARU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT opinion of the people as to the choice of legislative body. Article 13 of the Convention provides: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” 59. The Government submitted that an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention had been available to the applicant, namely, challenging the decision before the Central Electoral Office, a body meeting the requirements laid down in the Court’s case-law. They pointed out in that connection that, under Article 24 of Law no. 68/1992, the Central Electoral Office was composed of seven judges of the Supreme Court of Justice and sixteen representatives of the political parties, that the judges were selected randomly, by the drawing of lots, that the decisions of the office were reasoned, and that the members thereof were able to formulate dissenting opinions. 60. Lastly, the Government argued that the Contracting States had a wide margin of appreciation as regards Article 13 of the Convention (see Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, § 75, ECHR 1999-VII) and that the legislative provisions of other States provided for the same domestic remedy in that regard (see the case of Hungary). 61. The applicant submitted that the Central Electoral Office’s decision of 2 December 2000 did not constitute an effective remedy. He argued that that body was not impartial. In particular, he criticised it for being composed of judges of the Supreme Court of Justice, which had thus subsequently been influenced when refusing to examine his challenge. Lastly, he submitted that the Government’s reference to supposedly similar electoral legislation was irrelevant in the instant case, given the specific status enjoyed by national minorities in Romania. 62. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 55 and 56 above, the Court considers that there has also been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 63. 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.”