TSALIKIDIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE JUDGMENT 17 thus should have introduced their application in respect of that part of the investigation within six months of the date on which the public prosecutor of the Court of Appeal confirmed its archiving (see Cerf v. Turkey, no. 12938/07, §§ 62-64, 3 May 2016, and Kadri Budak v. Turkey, no. 44814/07, §§ 56-58, 9 December 2014). 53. The present case is, therefore, distinguishable from the Court’s judgment in Yotova (cited above) which was relied on by the applicants. In that case the criminal investigation conducted by the public prosecutor was suspended four times and the case file was not archived but was sent back to the investigator for the necessary measures to be taken to identify the perpetrator of the crime (see Yotova, cited above, § 51). In addition, the criminal investigation by the public prosecutor was resumed following the successful challenge by the applicants of the decision to suspend the criminal investigation, whereas in the present case the first applicant’s appeal against the public prosecutor’s decision to archive the case file was unsuccessful and a supplementary preliminary investigation was not ordered until five years later, following the presentation of new evidence. 54. It follows from the foregoing that the applicants failed to comply with the six-month rule in respect of their complaints alleging deficiencies in the initial preliminary investigation conducted in 2005 and 2006 and this aspect of the case should be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 55. In view of the above conclusion, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the Government’s other objection concerning the initial criminal investigation, namely that the second and third applicants failed to exhaust the domestic legal remedies because they did not file a criminal complaint. (b) Application substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court 56. In preventing the Court from dealing with any application which is substantially the same as a matter already decided, the admissibility criterion under the first limb of Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention is intended to ensure the finality of the Court’s decisions and to prevent applicants from seeking, through the lodging of a fresh application, to appeal against previous judgments or decisions of the Court (see Harkins v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 71537/14, § 41, 10 July 2017; Lowe v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 12486/07, 8 September 2009 and Kafkaris v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 9644/09, § 67, 21 June 2011). 57. An application will generally fall foul of the first limb of Article 35 § 2 (b) where an applicant has previously brought an application which related essentially to the same person, the same facts and raised the same complaints (see Vojnovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 4819/10, § 28, 26 June 2012; Anthony Aquilina v. Malta, no. 3851/12, § 34, 11 December 2014; and