46 THE GEORGIAN LABOUR PARTY v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT C. Costs and expenses 1. Domestic proceedings 156. The applicant party claimed EUR 1,832 in reimbursement of the court fees paid for the domestic proceedings bearing on various electoral disputes, mostly unrelated to the present case. In support of its claims, the applicant party submitted copies of numerous court decisions ordering it to pay fees. 157. The Government submitted that the above claim was unsubstantiated. 158. The Court reiterates that, where a violation of the Convention has been found, it may award the applicant the costs and the expenses incurred before the national courts for the prevention or redress of the violation (see, among other authorities, Papon v. France, no. 54210/00, § 115, ECHR 2002-VII). 159. In the instant case, the violation found relates to the disfranchisement of the Khulo and Kobuleti voters. As disclosed by the circumstances of the case, the only relevant set of proceedings which could arguably have prevented or remedied that violation was that brought by the applicant party before the Supreme Court on 20 April 2004 (see paragraphs 31 and 38 above). For these, there is evidence of only one order issued by the Supreme Court requiring the applicant party to pay 100 Georgian laris (approximately EUR 43) in court fees. 160. Consequently, the Court awards the applicant party EUR 43, dismissing the remainder of its claim for costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings. 2. Proceedings before the Court 161. Ms J. Rinceanu submitted to the Court a legal services contract of 28 August 2007, signed by herself and the Chairman of the applicant party, Mr Sh. Natelashvili. According to the terms of this contract, the applicant party was to pay Ms Rinceanu, upon signature, EUR 4,165, a sum which included 19% value-added tax (VAT) in accordance with German tax law, for “all types of activities” conducted by the lawyer in the interests of the client. Ms J. Rinceanu also submitted a copy of an invoice dated 3 September 2007, requesting the applicant party to pay her EUR 21,420 for its representation before the Court, which had involved 61.6 hours of work on the case at a rate of EUR 300 per hour, including 19% VAT. 162. The Government commented that, in view of the short period during which the applicant party had been represented by Ms J. Rinceanu (see paragraph 2 above), the latter sum was unreasonable. They submitted that a rate of EUR 300 per hour for legal services was exorbitant.