d’une disposition de droit interne simplement parce qu’il leur semble, sans qu’ils en aient directement subi les effets, qu’elle enfreint la Convention ( Norris , précité, §   31, et Sejdić et Finci

soulever une objection partielle quant à la compétence ratione personae de la Cour, mais cette question, pour l’ensemble des requérants, appelle de la part de la Cour un examen d’office ( Sejdić et Finci

    Although the Government did not raise any objection as to the Court’s competence ratione personae , the issue calls for consideration by the Court of its own motion (see Sejdić and Finci

On 16 September 1971 Sweden and Finland concluded the Frontier Rivers Agreement (hereinafter “the Agreement”) under which an inter-state body, the Finnish-Swedish Frontier Rivers Commission ( finsk-svenska

  36042/97, §   48, ECHR 2002-IV; with regard to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 see the Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 12, § 18; Sejdić and Finci v.

breach of those provisions – and to this extent it is autonomous –, there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall “within the ambit” of one or more of the latter ( Sejdić and Finci

  Marsh ‑ Finch, counsel, of the Creed Lane Law Group. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.

pursue a “legitimate aim” or that there is not a “reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised” (see, among many other authorities, Sejdić and Finci

  55707/00, § 74, ECHR 2009; and Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 39, ECHR 2009). 51.

Russia , nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 56, ECHR 2005-XII; D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 176, ECHR 2007-IV; and Sejdić and Finci v.

  2312/08 and 34179/08, §   81, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Sejdić and Finci v.   Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 42, ECHR 2009; and Zornić v.

Georgia , (no. 9103/04, ECHR 2008); Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina ([GC], nos.   27996/06 and   34836/06, ECHR 2009); and Krivobokov v. Ukraine ((dec.), no.

Notwithstanding the difference in scope between those provisions, the meaning of this term in Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 was intended to be identical to that in Article 14 (see Sejdić and Finci v.

    In the light of the above, and noting that the meaning of discrimination in Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 is identical to that in Article   14 (see Sejdić and Finci v.

It thus introduces a general prohibition on discrimination (see Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 53, ECHR 2009). 43.

  12, the Court therefore sees no reason to depart from the established interpretation of “discrimination” (see Sejdić and Finci v.

prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of “the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention”, Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 introduces a general prohibition of discrimination (see Sejdić and Finci

12 extending the scope of protection to “any right set forth by law” – the meaning of discrimination in Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 was intended to be identical to that in Article 14 (see Sejdić and Finci

prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of “the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention”, Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 introduces a general prohibition of discrimination (see Sejdić and Finci