to Law No. 81-10, of 23 June 1981, the procedure before the Administrative Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Togo, provides for a appeal against any administrative decision. And that only that Chamber entertains jurisdiction to decide on the legality or not of an administrative act. Since the Applicant has not appealed to the Administrative Chamber which could confirm or not the legality of the decision taken by the minister, with the period of time for this having expired, 20 years later, the Applicant cannot appeal directly to the Court of Justice for violation of his right. 104. With this argument, the Respondent seems to intend to invoke the principle of the need to exhaust domestic remedies, as a condition of access to the Court which, which if applicable to this Court - which is not the case - could determine the inadmissibility of the case, but not the lack of jurisdiction of the Court - See Judgments Nos. ECW/CCJ/JUD/07/11 in the case OCEAN KING LTD. V. REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL; ECW/CCJ/JUD/25/2015, in the case, HANS CAPEHART WILLIAMS SR. AND OTHERS V. REPUBLIC Of LIBERIA AND OTHERS (page 11, Case No. ECW/CCJ/APP/06/14.) – so this Respondent's argument is unfounded. 105. However, the Court assumes ex officio its own jurisdiction. 106. The jurisdiction of the Court results, above all, from the legal texts governing it and from the nature of the question that is put before it by the Applicant, based on the facts, as alleged by the Applicant. 107. In this regard, this Court ruled in the case BAKARY SARRE AND 28 ORS VS. REPUBLIC OF MALI, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/11 of March 17, 2011, in CCJLR, 2011, p. 67, §25 that; “The competence of the Court to adjudicate in a given case depends not only on its texts but also on the substance of the initiating application. (…)” 18