THE GEORGIAN LABOUR PARTY v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT 47 163. The Court notes that, since no claim was made in respect of the applicant party’s other representatives (see paragraph 2 above), there is no call to make any award for their involvement in the proceedings. 164. As to the applicant party’s representation by Ms J. Rinceanu, the Court first recalls that it is not bound by domestic fee scales and practices (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 206, ECHR 2004-II). Moreover, the second sum of EUR 21,420 has not been shown to have been reasonably or necessarily incurred on behalf of the applicant party (see, among many authorities, Assanidze, cited above, § 206; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 77, Series A no. 316-B; and Malama v. Greece (just satisfaction), no. 43622/98, § 17, 18 April 2002). This part of the claim cannot therefore be accepted by the Court in full. 165. Ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant party the sum of EUR 10,000 in respect of its representation by Ms J. Rinceanu before the Court. D. Default interest 166. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT 1. Holds unanimously that the applicant party may claim to be a “victim” under Article 34 of the Convention of alleged violations of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1; 2. Holds unanimously that there has been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the introduction on 27 February 2004 of a new system of voter registration for the repeat parliamentary election of 28 March 2004; 3. Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the composition of the electoral commissions at the material time; 4. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the disfranchisement of the Khulo and Kobuleti voters;