50. The Court notes that, with regard to the second question concerning the alleged lack of local remedies available to the Applicant in the present case to lodge his complaint and thus recover his debt, the Court refers to Article 36 of the Respondent State’s CPC: Closure of a case by the Public Prosecutor does not prevent the injured party from initiating public proceedings on his own responsibility. In this case, the injured party can either request that an investigation be opened or summon the accused to appear in court. Article 206 of the same CCP reads: A case is referred to the Court of First Instance: - by direct summons from the Public Prosecutor's Office when the latter considers that there is no need for a preparatory investigation, from the administrations and financial authorities in cases where the law authorises them to bring a public action directly, or from the injured party when the Public Prosecutor's Office refuses to prosecute ex officio. In this case, the prosecution shall summon the other parties. [...] 51. The Court notes that Article 36 of the CCP provides the Applicant an avenue to access justice as an injured party, either by requesting that the case be referred for investigation or by bringing the case directly before the court. The provision also entitles the Applicant to bring the case directly before the court of first instance if the Public Prosecutor fails to do so, and to summon the other party before the court. This Court considers that the Applicant could have made use of this remedy. 52. The Court considers that as the Applicant neither completed the criminal proceedings nor initiated civil proceedings before the national courts, this Application was filed prematurely. 14