16 HAJILI v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 62. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic judicial proceedings had been unfair and arbitrary. Article 6 of the Convention provides as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” 63. The Court notes that the proceedings in question involved the determination of the applicant’s right to stand as a candidate in the parliamentary elections. The dispute in issue therefore concerned his political rights and did not have any bearing on his “civil rights and obligations” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Pierre-Bloch v. France, 21 October 1997, § 50, Reports 1997-VI; Cherepkov v. Russia (dec.), no. 51501/99, ECHR 2000-I; Ždanoka v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58278/00, 6 March 2003; and Mutalibov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 31799/03, 19 February 2004). Accordingly, this Convention provision does not apply to the proceedings complained of. 64. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 65. 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 1. Pecuniary damage 66. The applicant claimed 134,938 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) in respect of pecuniary damage, including damage caused by loss of the earnings he would have received in the form of a parliamentary member’s salary if elected to the National Assembly had the results of elections in his constituency not been invalidated, as well as loss of the useful effect of the funds spent on his election campaign. 67. The Government contested the applicant’s claims. 68. As to the claim in respect of loss of a parliamentary member’s salary, the Court reiterates that, as discussed in paragraph 49 above, it cannot be established with sufficient certainty in this case (unlike in the