36 ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT Article 46 “1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties. 2. The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.” A. Damage 104. The applicant claimed, firstly, 1,423 euros (EUR) in respect of the pecuniary damage caused by the violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. She submitted that that sum corresponded to 1,000 Latvian lati (LVL), the difference between the retirement pension she had actually received since her retirement in August 1997 up to October 2006 and the pension she should have received had the discrimination complained of not taken place. The applicant explained that in calculating that amount, she had taken into account the eighteen amendments of the basic pension rate that had occurred in the meantime and the increase of her pension following the entry into force of the agreement with Ukraine (see paragraphs 21-22 above). 105. In respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant, she defined it as a “feeling of frustration and helplessness, stress, prolonged anxiety and financial uncertainty due to [a] violation of the Convention for almost eleven years – from the moment of her initial application for the oldage pension”. According to her, since “[t]he calculation of non-pecuniary damage is impossible in essence, [she] relies on [the] principle of equity applied by the Court”. She further maintained that she had suffered as a result of not being able to attend the hearing of her appeal on points of law in the Supreme Court. The applicant claimed in particular the following sums in respect of non-pecuniary damage: (a) EUR 1,000 for the damage resulting from the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; (b) EUR 5,073 for the suffering and anxiety she had experienced during the proceedings between 2002 and 2005 for her divorce and the division of marital property; (c) EUR 10,000 for the deterioration of her health during the period in question. 106. In addition to the pecuniary award by way of just satisfaction, in the event of the Court’s finding of a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant asked the Court to indicate to the Government that they should “recalculate her pension, taking into account her work periods accrued in Russia, from the moment of the judgment delivery”.