22 OTEGI MONDRAGON v. SPAIN JUDGMENT III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 66. 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. Pecuniary damage 67. The applicant claimed 78,586 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage. He submitted that this amount corresponded to the losses actually sustained as a direct consequence of the alleged violation, and especially the loss of his allowance as a member of parliament on account of his imprisonment from 8 June 2007 to 30 August 2008. 68. The Government contested the claim. 69. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. B. Non-pecuniary damage 70. The applicant claimed EUR 30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 71. The Government considered the amount claimed to be excessive. 72. The Court considers that the applicant sustained, on account of the violation found, non-pecuniary damage that cannot be compensated by the mere finding of a violation. Ruling on an equitable basis as required by Article 41 of the Convention, it awards the applicant the sum of EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. C. Costs and expenses 73. The applicant also claimed EUR 3,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. 74. The Government contested the claim. 75. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the sum of EUR 3,000 for the proceedings before the Court.