12 ATAKISHI v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT Cherepkov v. Russia (dec.), no. 51501/99, ECHR 2000-I; Ždanoka v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58278/00, 6 March 2003; and Mutalibov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 31799/03, 19 February 2004). Accordingly, this Convention provision does not apply to the proceedings complained of. 53. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 54. 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 1. Pecuniary damage 55. The applicant claimed 101,346 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) in respect of pecuniary damage, including damage caused by loss of the earnings he would have received in the form of a parliamentary member’s salary if elected to the National Assembly, as well as loss of the useful effect of the funds spent on his election campaign. 56. The Government contested these claims and submitted that they were unsupported by sufficient documentary evidence. 57. As to the claim in respect of loss of earnings, the Court notes that the present application concerns the applicant’s right to stand for election. It cannot be assumed that, had the applicant’s registration as a candidate not been cancelled, he would have necessarily won the election in his constituency and become a member of parliament. It is therefore impossible for the Court to speculate as to whether the applicant would have received a salary as a parliamentarian. Accordingly, no causal link has been established between the alleged pecuniary loss and the violation found (see Seyidzade v. Azerbaijan, no. 37700/05, § 50, 3 December 2009). 58. Likewise, as to the claim in respect of expenses borne during the election campaign, the Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged. 59. For the above reasons, the Court rejects the claim in respect of pecuniary damage.