Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 28438/07

Yet in Shishkov, the Court accepted that in 2005 and 2006 the applicant could have reasonably believed that a civil action for damages offered a prospect of success (see Shishkov v. Russia, no. 26746/05, §§ 84-86, 20 February 2014).

Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 28438/07

The extent to which the applicant was aware of the Court's case-law is not in itself decisive, for the Court ought to take into account his experience of availing himself of the remedy in question and specific features of the proceedings (see, for example, Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, §§ 114-116, 27 May 2010).

Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 28438/07

By contrast to an objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, which must be raised by the respondent Government, the Court cannot set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a government have not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 71-72, 10 January 2012).

Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 28438/07

In Norkin, the Court found that by 2007 its case-law on the absence of an effective remedy for complaints concerning poor conditions of detention had been sufficiently established and concluded that the applicant should have been aware of the ineffectiveness of the judicial avenue he had made use of before he lodged his application (see Norkin v. Russia (dec.), no. 21056/11, §§ 15-20, 5 February 2013).