ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 39 claim in whole or in part. Furthermore, costs and expenses are only recoverable in so far as they relate to the violation found (see, among many other authorities, Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 2000-XI; Beyeler v. Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 33202/96, § 27, 28 May 2002; and Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 170, ECHR 2006-III). 116. In the present case the Court observes that the applicant’s claim for reimbursement of costs and expenses manifestly fails to satisfy these requirements, since most of the sums claimed are not substantiated by any supporting documents. As regards the invoices referred to in paragraph 113, point (a) above, they are worded in excessively general terms and do not make it possible to ascertain the precise nature of the services rendered and whether they were objectively necessary in the proceedings before the Court; moreover, the wording of the Latvian and English versions is completely different. Nevertheless, the Court accepts that, in view of the complexity of the case, the applicant must have incurred costs, especially in the proceedings before the Grand Chamber. In those circumstances, ruling on an equitable basis as required by Article 41, it decides to award her EUR 1,500 in respect of all costs and expenses, together with any taxes that may be chargeable to her (see Svipsta, loc. cit., and Zaicevs v. Latvia, no. 65022/01, § 64, 31 July 2007). C. Default interest 117. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT 1. Dismisses unanimously the Government’s preliminary objections; 2. Holds by sixteen votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; 3. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; 4. Holds by sixteen votes to one (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Latvian lati at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: