GROSARU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT 21 A. Damage 64. The applicant claimed 200,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, corresponding to the salary and allowances to which he would have been entitled as an MP for the period 2002 to 2004. He sought EUR 1,500,000, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, for the injury he claimed to have incurred as a result of it being impossible for him to carry out his duties as an MP and the attacks and injustices to which he claimed he and his family had been exposed. 65. The Government submitted that the amount claimed by the applicant in respect of pecuniary damage was excessive and purely speculative. They pointed out that the claim was not accompanied by any supporting documentation. Furthermore, they referred to the Court’s case-law concerning Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, according to which the Court does not award amounts in respect of pecuniary damage in this domain (see Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 49, ECHR 2002-II; Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, § 43, ECHR 2004-V; Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, § 75, ECHR 2004-X; and Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 94, ECHR 2005-IX). 66. As regards non-pecuniary damage, the Government argued that no causal link had been established between any damage and the alleged violation of the Convention. Furthermore, they pointed out that in several cases in which it had found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the Court had considered that the finding of a violation in itself provided sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage incurred by the applicants. In any event, the amount sought was exorbitant given the amounts normally awarded by the Court under this head (see Podkolzina, cited above, § 52, and Melnychenko, cited above, § 78). 67. As regards pecuniary damage, the Court cannot speculate as to what the outcome of the elections would have been had there been a clear provision interpreted by a body adequately meeting the requirements of impartiality. Furthermore, the applicant had failed to mention the professional activities in which he had been engaged between 2000 and 2004 and had not proved that the amount of any fees or salaries he had received had been lower than the amount of any parliamentary allowances forfeited during the period under consideration. The Court therefore rejects the claims made in respect of pecuniary damage (see Kovach v. Ukraine, no. 39424/02, § 66, ECHR 2008). 68. The Court acknowledges, however, that the applicant did incur nonpecuniary damage as a result of the violation found. Accordingly, ruling on an equitable basis and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it awards him EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.