TĂNASE v. MOLDOVA JUDGMENT 29 were not rights guaranteed by the Convention. The Government challenged the significance accorded by the Chamber to ratification and non-ratification of the ECN. They pointed out that Moldova could simply denounce the ECN and, if it wished, re-ratify it subject to a reservation in respect of Article 17. 125. The Government requested the Court to consider this objection as an objection relevant to the substantive questions raised by the case and to deal with it in its examination of the merits. 126. Relying on Blečić v. Croatia ([GC], no. 59532/00, §§ 63-69, ECHR 2006-III), they contended that they were not estopped from raising the objection at this stage in the procedure as it went to the question of the Court’s jurisdiction. (b) The applicant 127. The applicant argued that, in principle, this objection should also have been raised before the application was declared admissible and that, accordingly, the Government were estopped from raising it at this stage. However, he accepted that the Court had to satisfy itself that it had jurisdiction in any case brought before it and that it was required to examine the question of jurisdiction at every stage of the procedure. 128. The applicant concluded that the complaint raised by the Government should not be considered a preliminary objection because it related to the interpretation of rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. He invited the Court to consider the arguments raised by the Government in its examination of the substance of the complaint. (c) The Romanian Government 129. The Romanian Government referred to their arguments as to estoppel in relation to the objection of the respondent Government regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies and contended that similar arguments applied to the objection of incompatibility ratione materiae. Unlike in Demir and Baykara v. Turkey ([GC], no. 34503/97, ECHR 2008), the respondent Government had clearly indicated that their objection was a reaction to the judgment of the Chamber and that the argument had not previously been raised in substance. Although in Blečić (cited above), the Court gave examples of incompatibility objections which could be raised at any stage of the procedure, none of the examples was similar to the present case. Accordingly, in the view of the Romanian Government, the respondent Government was not able to raise the objection at this stage. 130. However, if the Court were to conclude that there was no estoppel, the Romanian Government invited the Court to join the objection to the merits and to consider it in that context. They argued that it was necessary to analyse the undertakings of Moldova in the context of international agreements in order to assess how Moldova had chosen to give effect to