PREZHDAROVI v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 13 Court need not examine whether the impugned measure had a legitimate aim and was proportionate. 52. Having considered all of the above, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 53. The applicants complained that they had been denied effective remedies for their complaints under Article 8 regarding, in particular, the search and seizure at the computer club and the retention of five computers. The applicants relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which provides: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” 54. The Government contested that argument. They stated that the search of the computer club and the seizure and retention of five computers had been subject to judicial scrutiny. The applicants submitted that the court’s review both of the search-and-seizure operation and of the retention of the computers could not be regarded as an effective remedy for the grievances raised under Article 8 because it had been very formalistic. 55. The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible. 56. Having regard to its findings under Article 8, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately whether there has been an additional violation of Article 13 (see Heino, cited above, § 55). III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 57. 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 58. In respect of pecuniary damage, the applicants claimed 18,066 euros (EUR): EUR 4,000, which they had to return to the bank (see paragraph 7 above); EUR 4,125, which was the value of the five computers; EUR 1,366, which was the value of the computer software; and EUR 8,575 in loss of profit.