44 THE GEORGIAN LABOUR PARTY v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” 144. The Court recalls that Article 14 has no independent existence, but plays an important role by complementing the other provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto, since it protects individuals, placed in similar situations, from any discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights set forth in those other provisions (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45, and Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III). 145. In the light of all the material in its possession, the Court does not find any evidence which might arguably suggest that either the challenged electoral mechanisms – the system for voter registration and the composition of electoral commissions – or the events which took place in Khulo and Kobuleti were exclusively aimed at the applicant party and did not affect the other candidates standing for that election. 146. The Court thus finds that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 147. 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. Pecuniary damage 148. The applicant party claimed 212,306.30 euros (EUR) in pecuniary damages. It submitted that such an amount would compensate for the expenses it had incurred in the course of its electoral campaigns for the regularly scheduled and repeat parliamentary elections in 2003-04. The amount claimed would also provide compensation for the salaries its members would have received had they been elected to Parliament. Lastly, this sum included funds which, under the relevant domestic law on the financing of political associations, were to be paid to the applicant party, in its capacity as a political party, from the State budget in 2007-08. 149. In reply, the Government noted that there was no causal link between the applicant party’s claims and the alleged violations. 150. The Court considers that the applicant party’s reference to the expenses incurred in the course of the regularly scheduled parliamentary