TSALIKIDIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE JUDGMENT 15 applications lodged by relatives of deceased persons were considered admissible, the applicants claimed that they were indirect victims and that the Government’s objection should be rejected. In any event, the second and third applicants had actively participated in the preliminary investigation by submitting the application for the reopening of the case and by joining the proceedings as civil parties. 2. The Court’s assessment 47. The Court notes at the outset that in the letter sent out by the Registry on 5 January 2015, the applicants’ legal representative was informed only that a file had been opened and that he would be informed of any decision taken by the Court. At that stage it could only be said that the application had not been rejected on administrative grounds for failing to comply with the requirements set out in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, which is not the same as confirming the admissibility of an application governed by Article 35 of the Convention which has not yet been examined by the Court (see Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 88, 13 April 2017). 48. As regards the parties’ submissions, the Court notes that the Government’s objections can be separated in two parts: on the one hand, they have raised a number of objections in respect of the complaints concerning the initial criminal investigation, namely that they were filed outside the time-limit and that the second and third applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic legal remedies because they had not filed a criminal complaint. On the other hand, the Government raised some objections concerning the application as a whole, namely that the complaints were substantially the same as the ones raised in application no. 13207/07, that all the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic legal remedies due to the fact that they had not submitted an application for damages under Article 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code and also that the second and third applicants lacked victim status. (a) Failure to comply with the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention 49. The Court reiterates that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention provides that it may only deal with a complaint which has been introduced within six months of the date of the final decision delivered in the course of exhausting the domestic remedies. The purpose of the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention is to promote legal certainty and to ensure that cases raising issues under the Convention are dealt with within a reasonable time (see Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 110, ECHR 2009). It prevents the authorities and other persons concerned from being in a state of uncertainty for a prolonged period of time. Finally, it ensures that, in so far as possible, matters are examined while they are still fresh, before the