In particular: (a)     Was the remedy provided for in Article 49a of the Court Organisation Act an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicants

or no remedies are available.”

    The arguments of the parties (a)     The Government’s plea of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies The Government maintained that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies

    The obligation to exhaust domestic remedies therefore requires applicants to make normal use of remedies which are available and sufficient in respect of their Convention grievances.

Effective domestic remedy Effectiveness of remedy which did not allow for a claim of non-pecuniary damage to be made in defamation proceedings: admissible Facts – In August 2015 a right-wing journal published

In particular, as regards the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in application no. 33990/17, the applicant replied that the Government was referring to theoretical remedies.

For a remedy to be effective, it must be, inter alia , capable of remedying the criticised state of affairs directly.

necessity of pursuing this particular remedy.

    If another legal remedy exists in respect of the violation of the constitutional right [complained of], a constitutional complaint may be lodged only after that remedy has been exhausted.

    The Law also prescribes that when the administrative action is flawed, the court shall call upon the plaintiff to remedy the deficiency within a set time-limit.

a preventive or for a compensatory remedy.

Accordingly, they maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, as they had not made any application to the Compensation Commission. 19.

.) - 39076/97 Decision 14.10.1999 [Section IV] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Petition to Ombudsman not considered as a domestic remedy to be exhausted

In the Government’s view such an application is an effective remedy as its use would have reduced the length of the proceedings.

davası ) or a joint action both for annulment and for a full remedy before the administrative courts.

remedy before the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, they maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, as they had not made any application to the Compensation Commission. 16.

The Government noted that the applicant could have resorted to the compensatory remedy provided for by Act no. 82/1998. The applicant did not wish to use this remedy.

    The applicant stated that he did not have an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his detention.