46 TĂNASE v. MOLDOVA JUDGMENT Moldova sought to regulate elections to such bodies. They highlighted that ECRI had criticised the distinction as being unjustified (see paragraph 45 above) and invited the Court to accord some weight to this conclusion (relying on Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 48254/99, §§ 49-50, 26 July 2007). 186. In conclusion, the Romanian Government invited the Court to find that there was a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. C. The Court’s assessment 187. The Court notes that there is a dispute as to the correct interpretation of section 21(3) of Law no. 273, the wording of which is unclear. It considers that both interpretations advanced by the parties are possible. It is not the role of this Court to rule on the correct interpretation of domestic legislation, which is a matter for the domestic courts. 188. In the present case, in the light of the Court’s finding that there has been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the Court concludes that there is no need to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 14 of the Convention. IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 189. 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 190. The applicant did not make any claim for pecuniary or nonpecuniary damage. B. Costs and expenses 191. The applicant submitted a detailed claim for costs amounting to 5,021.83 euros (EUR) in additional costs and expenses of the proceedings before the Grand Chamber, including the costs of attending the hearing. He provided receipts. Including costs incurred in respect of the proceedings before the Chamber, the applicant claimed the sum of EUR 8,881.83 in total. 192. The Government made no submissions to the Grand Chamber on the applicant’s claim for costs.