TĂNASE v. MOLDOVA JUDGMENT 23 (c) The Romanian Government 102. The Romanian Government contended that the applicant could be considered a victim under Article 34 of the Convention. Relying on Klass and Others (cited above, § 34), they argued that a person could be a victim by virtue of the mere existence of measures or legislation, without having to show that the measures or Law in question had been applied to him. They noted that when the application was submitted to the Court, the applicant, a politician, had expressed his intention to stand as a candidate in the 2009 elections. He therefore risked being affected by the new Law. In the event, he was elected and was required to initiate a procedure to renounce his Romanian nationality. The Romanian Government considered the Očič case, cited by the respondent Government, to be irrelevant to the present application because in that case, the applicant failed to demonstrate that he could have been personally affected by the contested legislation. The Romanian Government further relied on the fact that the Chamber gave its judgment after the Law had been enacted. Accordingly, they argued, the application did not concern a mere draft law. 103. The Romanian Government invited the Court to reject the objection of the respondent Government. 3. The Court’s assessment 104. The Court reiterates that, in order to be able to lodge a petition by virtue of Article 34, a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals must be able to claim to be the victim of a violation of the rights set forth in the Convention. In order to claim to be a victim of a violation, a person must be directly affected by the impugned measure: the Convention does not envisage the bringing of an actio popularis for the interpretation of the rights it contains or permit individuals to complain about a provision of national law simply because they consider, without having been directly affected by it, that it may contravene the Convention. However, it is open to a person to contend that a Law violates his rights, in the absence of an individual measure of implementation, if he is required either to modify his conduct or risks being prosecuted or if he is a member of a class of people who risk being directly affected by the legislation (see Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, §§ 33 and 34, ECHR 2008; Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, 29 October 1992, § 44, Series A no. 246-A; and Klass and Others, cited above, § 33). 105. In Burdov v. Russia (no. 59498/00, § 30, ECHR 2002-III), the Court held that the question whether or not the applicant could claim to be a victim of the violation alleged was relevant at all stages of the proceedings under the Convention (see also E. v. Austria, no. 10668/83, Commission decision of 13 May 1987, Decisions and Reports (DR) 52, p. 177). The Court notes that the provisions of the Convention are to be interpreted in a