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

The application must therefore be rejected as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

    It follows that the applicant party’s complaints are incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a), and must

    The Government submitted that the complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols since the independence referendum did not fall within

    The Government submitted that the application should be declared inadmissible ratione materiae since, in their view, the right to beg did not as such fall within the ambit of Article 8.

Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ). (See also Lacatus v.

sufficiently established claim to compensation for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the   Convention and that his complaints should therefore be rejected as incompatible ratione materiae

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

Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ). (See also Demir and Baykara v.   Turkey [GC], 34503/97, 12   November 2008, Legal Summary ; Barış and Others v.