| Analysis |
The case revolves around the question of the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The applicant had sent a letter to the constitutional court whether they would receive his complaints, but in the letter, he expressly indicated that his complaints did not concern the matter of his correspondence being published in the press. The national court answered that they would not receive his claims. The applicant argues that from the statement of the national court, he could deduce that there was no domestic remedy available to him with respect to his complaint concerning the publication of his correspondence as well, which is why he turned to the ECtHR directly. The Commission, however, rejects that stance and refers to the fact that he explicitly communicated to the constitutional court that his questions did not concern the publication of his correspondence. The government has persuasively showed that there would be domestic remedies available to the applicant with respect to this part of his claim. That is why the Commission declares the application inadmissible.
|