26 TĂNASE v. MOLDOVA JUDGMENT 2. The parties’ submissions (a) The Moldovan Government 113. The Government argued that the applicant could have requested Mr Filat, who was an MP and therefore had standing to lodge a request with the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 82 above), to challenge Law no. 273 before the Constitutional Court. Referring to the Chamber’s conclusion that a request to the Constitutional Court via the Ombudsman was not an effective remedy, the Government distinguished the present proposal on the ground that Mr Filat was the President of the political party of which the applicant was Vice-President; Mr Filat also held dual nationality; and Mr Filat had already assisted the applicant in the present case. Accordingly, they argued, the remedy proposed was accessible to the applicant. 114. The Government emphasised that the present case concerned a matter of constitutionality which could only be remedied by the Constitutional Court. In their submissions on admissibility before the Chamber, the Government had raised the possibility of lodging a case with the Constitutional Court via the Ombudsman. They argued that the substance of the remedy advanced was the possibility of the Constitutional Court considering the case and that the precise intermediary by which the applicant sought its introduction was irrelevant. Accordingly, the Government argued, the current objection was not a new plea but a reiteration of the previous objection and they were therefore not barred from raising the objection at this stage of the proceedings. 115. Finally, the Government pointed out that a request to the Constitutional Court in December 2008 to consider the constitutionality of Law no. 273 was successful as the request was admitted for examination (see paragraphs 54-58 above). Thus, this was clearly an effective remedy, although in the event the court found the Law to be constitutional. (b) The applicant 116. The applicant argued that the objection raised by the Government was a new objection. It did not depend on facts which were not available when the Court considered the admissibility of the case. Accordingly, relying on Sejdovic v. Italy ([GC], no. 56581/00, § 41, ECHR 2006-II), the applicant contended that the Government should have raised the possibility of this remedy in their written and oral pleadings on admissibility. He did not consider that there were any exceptional circumstances in favour of relieving the Government of the obligation to comply with this requirement and accordingly he invited the Court to reject the Government’s objection. 117. In the event that the Court were minded to allow the objection to be raised at this stage in the proceedings, the applicant argued that a complaint to the Constitutional Court via Mr Filat was not an effective remedy open to