CONNORS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 33 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, § 85; A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35373/97, ECHR 2002-X, §§ 112-113). The applicant’s complaints related in essence to the exemption conferred on local authority gypsy sites by the Mobile Homes Act 1983. 110. The Court thus concludes that the facts of the present case disclose no violation of Article 13 of the Convention. VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 111. 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. The parties’ submissions 112. The applicant claimed damages in respect of distress and suffering experienced by himself and his family as a result of the eviction proceedings and for the ongoing loss of access to educational facilities, recreational facilities, medical and health services and basic sanitation and refuse disposal occasioned by the eviction. He pointed out that the Cottingley Springs site was the centre of their community and that he had known the people there all their lives. The way in which the eviction was enforced, involving several hours’ detention, caused him significant pain and stress and the applicant and his family had serious difficulties in finding places to station their caravans afterwards, repeatedly being threatened with eviction and being moved on. The stress and uncertainty contributed to the applicant’s wife’s decision to move into a house, thereby causing their separation in May 2001 and a loss of daily contact with his children, who have also had their education disrupted. The applicant claimed that a sum in the range of GBP 100,000 would be appropriate. 113. The Government submitted that the applicant’s central complaint was the lack of any power in the County Court to adjudicate on disputed facts and protect him from eviction save on reasonable grounds. If such adjudication had occurred, it was more than likely, in view of the acknowledged nuisance caused by the applicant’s visitors, that the County Court would have ordered the eviction anyway and the consequences would have been the same. In their view a finding of violation would provide sufficient just satisfaction, though if the Court considered a monetary award