28 TĂNASE v. MOLDOVA JUDGMENT which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, among other authorities, Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 66). 121. The Court further reiterates that under Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, any plea of inadmissibility must be raised by the respondent Contracting Party in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application (see K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 145, ECHR 2001-VII, and N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 44, ECHR 2002-X). However, there may in particular cases be exceptional circumstances that dispense the Government from the obligation to raise their preliminary objection at the admissibility stage (see Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, § 29, 18 November 2004, and Sejdovic, cited above, § 41). 122. The Court considers it unnecessary to examine whether the Government were estopped from raising this objection at this stage in the proceedings as, in any case, the Court finds the remedy now proposed to be one which the applicant was not required to exhaust. The Court notes the finding of the Chamber, which is not contested by the respondent Government, that the possibility of lodging a complaint with the Ombudsman, who in turn could challenge the Law before the Constitutional Court, was not an effective remedy because it was not open to the applicant to complain directly to the court. The Court sees no reason to disagree with the Chamber’s assessment. The remedy currently proposed by the Government is, similarly, not directly accessible to the applicant as he was unable to approach the Constitutional Court directly but had to rely on the exercise of discretion by Mr Filat to lodge a complaint. Accordingly, this remedy was not effective for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. 123. In any event, it is clear that, the Constitutional Court having pronounced on the constitutionality of Law no. 273 (see paragraphs 54-58 above), the remedy proposed has now been exhausted. In the circumstances, the Government’s objection is dismissed. C. Incompatibility ratione materiae 1. The parties’ submissions (a) The Moldovan Government 124. In their submissions to the Grand Chamber, the Government raised for the first time an objection ratione materiae following references to the European Convention on Nationality (“the ECN”) in the Chamber’s judgment. In their view, the Chamber did not consider the right to stand for elections, protected by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, but instead examined the right to multiple nationalities and the right to acquire a nationality, which