GLUKHIN v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT locate and arrest him while he was travelling on the Moscow underground – did not correspond to a “pressing social need”. 90. In the light of all the above considerations the Court concludes that the use of highly intrusive facial recognition technology in the context of the applicant exercising his Convention right to freedom of expression is incompatible with the ideals and values of a democratic society governed by the rule of law, which the Convention was designed to maintain and promote. The processing of the applicant’s personal data using facial recognition technology in the framework of administrative offence proceedings – first, to identify him from the photographs and the video published on Telegram and, secondly, to locate and arrest him while he was travelling on the Moscow underground – cannot be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society”. 91. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. V. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 92. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the administrative-offence proceedings against him had been unfair because there had been no prosecuting party. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Articles 8 and 10, the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and the merits of the complaint under Article 6 (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 93. 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 94. The applicant claimed 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 95. The Government submitted that the claim was excessive. 96. The Court awards the applicant EUR 9,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 28