KERIMOVA v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT 15 57. The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible. 58. However, having regard to its above finding in relation to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether in this case there has been a violation of Article 14. III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 59. 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 60. The applicant claimed 83,185.83 euros (EUR) for loss of the earnings she would have received in the form of a parliamentary member's salary if elected to the Milli Majlis had the results of elections in her constituency not been invalidated. She noted that her other income during the relevant period, as a retired singer and recipient of a State allowance, amounted only to 125 new Azerbaijani manats (AZN) (approximately EUR 120) per month. 61. The Government contested the applicant's claim and argued that her other income must have been much higher than AZN 125 per month. 62. The Court reiterates its analysis made in the Kovach case (cited above, § 66), which concerned a similar claim: “It is true that, if elected, the applicant would have received a salary as a member of Parliament. That is not, however, sufficient to award the sums claimed, because the sums claimed would have to be set off against other income which he may have been receiving and which he would have had to forego if elected, as in the case of Lykourezos v. Greece ([no. 33554/03, § 64, ECHR 2006-VIII], in which the applicant was prevented from continuing to exercise his mandate). The applicant has given details of the salary he would have received as a member of Parliament, but has not specified what his net loss would have been.” 63. In the earlier Lykourezos judgment (cited above, § 64), the Court approached the issue as follows: “The Court notes that it was not disputed that, had the applicant not been forced to forfeit his parliamentary seat, he would have received, between the date of the impugned measure and the end of the legislature to which he had been elected, the amount claimed. However, the Court also notes that the applicant did not remain inactive during this period; on the contrary, he was able to resume his professional