Tokens: 8
.
On
the
other
hand
,
I
can
not
accept
in
all
legal
conscience
the
finding
that
the
application
is
not
out
of
time
,
at
least
in
respect
of
the
only
admissible
complaint
.
Since
no
judicial
(
or
other
)
remedy
was
available
,
the
final
domestic
decision
was
,
at
the
latest
and
at
best
from
the
applicant
's
perspective
,
the
Act
of
15
July
2004
.
That
date
constitutes
the
starting
-
point
,
the
dies
a
quo
,
for
the
six
-
month
period
.
Being
unable
to
apply
to
any
national
court
,
Mr
Paksas
would
not
have
breached
the
principle
of
subsidiarity
by
applying
to
the
European
Court
of
Human
Rights
;
quite
the
contrary
.
In
paragraph
81
,
however
,
the
judgment
observes
,
as
the
Government
did
,
that
in
his
application
(
lodged
on
23
September
2004
,
within
the
time
-
limit
)
the
applicant
did
not
raise
,
even
in
substance
,
the
complaint
concerning
his
ineligibility
to
stand
for
election
to
the
Seimas
.
Although
the
applicant
–
who
,
moreover
,
was
well
informed
and
represented
by
qualified
lawyers
–
could
and
should
have
done
so
,
he
did
not
raise
that
complaint
until
30
September
2005
,
one
year
later
,
in
a
supplement
to
his
application
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O