Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 41767/09

As regards the Government's second objection, the Court reiterates that the objective behind the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies is to allow the national authorities (primarily the judicial authorities) to address an allegation that a Convention right has been violated and, where appropriate, to afford redress before that allegation is submitted to the Court (see Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI).

Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 41767/09

Under Article 35 of the Convention, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies that are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII with further references).

Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 41767/09

However, once this burden of proof has been discharged, it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government was in fact exhausted or was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case or that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from the requirement (see, amongst others, Soc v. Croatia, no. 47863/99, § 91, 9 May 2003).