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

the Fishing Regulation ( kalastussääntö, fiskestadgan ) for the Tornio River ( Torniojoki/Torne älv ) Area, the Finnish-Swedish Frontier Rivers Commission ( suomalais-ruotsalainen rajajokikomissio, finsk-svenska

  55707/00, § 74, ECHR 2009; and Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 39, ECHR 2009). 49.

The Court will examine this issue of its own motion (see, mutatis mutandis , Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, §   27, ECHR 2009). 48.

community (see, regarding education, ibid., §§   175 ‑ 210; regarding housing, Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, § 73, ECHR 2001 ‑ I; and, regarding elections, Sejdić and Finci

not pursue a “legitimate aim” or if there is no “reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved” (see, among many other authorities, Sejdić and Finci

In the case of Sejdić and Finci v.

However, in view of the fact that the matter calls for consideration by the Court of its own motion (see, for instance, Sejdić and Finci v.

prosecuted or if he is a member of a class of people who risk being directly affected by the legislation (see, for example, Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 34, ECHR 2008; Sejdić and Finci

Court recalls that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention applies only to elections of a “legislature”, or at least of one of its chambers if it has two or more (see, for instance, Sejdić and Finci

However, in view of the fact that the matter calls for consideration by the Court of its own motion (see, for instance, Sejdić and Finci v.

issue of his victim status of its own motion, as a matter that goes to its own jurisdiction, notwithstanding the absence of any objection by the Government under this head (see, for example, Sejdić and Finci

Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR   2000-IV;   Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 51, ECHR 2006 ‑ VI; and Sejdić and Finci v.

Russia , nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 56, ECHR 2005 ‑ XII, and Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos.   27996/06 and 34836/06, § 43, ECHR 2009). 25.

notes that, although the respondent State has not raised any objection as to its jurisdiction ratione personae , this question calls for consideration by the Court of its own motion (see Sejdić and Finci

third applicant’s victim status based on his relationship with the deceased, this aspect of compatibility ratione personae calls for consideration ex officio by the Court (see, for example, Sejdić and Finci

Therefore, in applying the same term under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, the Court sees no reason to depart from the established interpretation of “discrimination” (see Sejdić and Finci v.

The Court will examine this issue of its own motion (see, mutatis mutandis , Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, §   27, ECHR 2009). 77.

The Court will examine this issue of its own motion (see, mutatis mutandis , Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, §   27, ECHR 2009). 45.