THE GEORGIAN LABOUR PARTY v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT 45 election of 2 November 2003 is irrelevant, as only the circumstances surrounding the repeat election of 28 March 2004 were at stake. As regards the repeat election, the Court reiterates that the present application was about the applicant party’s right to stand for, rather than win it (see paragraph 121 above). It cannot be assumed that, had the Khulo and Kobuleti electorate voted, the applicant party would necessarily have entered Parliament. It is therefore impossible for the Court to speculate whether the applicant party’s members would have received salaries as parliamentarians, or that the expenditure on its electoral campaign is to be considered as a pecuniary loss. Lastly, the Court does not see any connection between the funds allegedly unpaid from the State budget in 2007-08 and the violation found with respect to the repeat election of 28 March 2004. 151. In conclusion, the Court does not discern any causal link between the only violation found in the present case and the pecuniary damage claimed. It accordingly dismisses the applicant party’s claims under this head. B. Non-pecuniary damage 152. With respect to non-pecuniary damage, the applicant party claimed EUR 2,000,000. It submitted that it had suffered severe harassment, repression and discrimination on account of its political opinions. The applicant party also contended that the above amount would compensate for the fact that it had been prevented from entering Parliament, taking part in political life and enjoying democracy. 153. The Government submitted that the applicant party had failed to prove any instances of discrimination on account of its political opinions. 154. The Court notes that the applicant party’s claim for non-pecuniary damage is mostly based on the allegations of discrimination and thus is irrelevant to the only violation found in the present case under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. 155. The Court does not rule out that the applicant party, as a legal entity (see Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others v. Russia, nos. 55066/00 and 55638/00, § 102, 11 January 2007, and Kommersant Moldovy v. Moldova, no. 41827/02, § 52, 9 January 2007), might have suffered some non-pecuniary damage on account of the disfranchisement of the Khulo and Kobuleti voters. However, the Court considers that the nature of the violation found, namely the arbitrary departure from the principle of universal suffrage, constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the breach of the applicant party’s right to stand for election under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.