The Government invited the Court to reject the case as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention with reference to Article   17 of the Convention.

    In the light of the above considerations, the Court considers that the above complaint must be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant

Conclusion   : irrecevable (incompatibilité ratione materiae ). (Voir aussi Társaság a Szabadságjogokért c.

    It follows that the complaint under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention

    Il s’ensuit que le grief tiré de cette disposition est incompatible ratione materiae avec les dispositions de la Convention, au sens de l’article   35 § 3, et qu’il doit être rejeté

    Thus, given that the compatibility ratione materiae is an issue which the Court must examine on its own motion (see, for instance, Blečić v.

    Le Gouvernement excipe d’emblée de l’incompatibilité ratione materiae de la requête avec les dispositions de la Convention.

Conclusion   : irrecevable (incompatible ratione materiae ). (Voir aussi Beeler c.

Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae

Conclusion   : irrecevable (incompatibilité ratione materiae ).   © Conseil de l’Europe/Cour européenne des droits de l’homme Rédigé par le greffe, ce résumé ne lie pas la Cour.

Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ). (See Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], 76639/11, 25 September 2018, Information Note 221 ; Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v.

    The Government argued that the application should be considered incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention.

    The Government added that the applicant’s complaint was also incompatible ratione materiae with Article 10 of the Convention for another reason.

Conclusion   : requête irrecevable (incompatibilité ratione materiae ). (Voir aussi Magyar Helsinki Bizottság c.

Conclusion: inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ). Article 8: There was no indication that any “private life” issue had been the reason for the termination of the applicants’ terms of office.

Conclusion   : irrecevable (incompatible ratione materiae ). (Voir aussi Demir et Baykara c.   Turquie [GC], 34503/97, 12   novembre 2008, Résumé juridique   ; Barış et autres c.

Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ). (See also Vallianatos and Others v.   Greece [GC], 29381/09 and 32684/09, 7   November 2013, Legal Summary ; Roj TV A/S v.

Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae