16 TSALIKIDIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE JUDGMENT passage of time makes it difficult to ascertain the pertinent facts and renders a fair examination of the question at issue almost impossible (see Jeronovičs v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 74, ECHR 2016). Where no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period starts to run from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of cognisance of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant (see Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 106, ECHR 2016). 50. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the preliminary investigation conducted by the domestic authorities took place in two distinct phases: one part was conducted between 2005 and 2006 and one was conducted between 2012 and 2014. The initial criminal investigation came to an end by virtue of order no. 565/25-9-2006 issued by the public prosecutor at the Athens Court of Appeal which upheld the conclusion of the public prosecutor at the Athens Court of First Instance that there were not sufficient indications of criminal wrongdoing to justify the initiation of a criminal prosecution in rem. The next procedural step was the applicants’ request dated 8 February 2012 for the reopening of the investigation. Following this, a supplementary preliminary investigation was conducted between February 2012 and June 2014. 51. As is apparent from the foregoing, in the period between the two phases of the investigation the case file had been archived, owing to the fact that there had not been sufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing to justify the initiation of criminal proceedings. According to the domestic legislation, that would have been the end of the investigation into the criminal complaint lodged by the first applicant unless new facts or evidence arose which, in the public prosecutor’s view, would warrant a supplementary investigation. 52. The Court notes the applicants’ argument that the preliminary criminal investigation should be regarded as a whole. However, in the Court’s view, the two phases of the investigation were distinct. The applicants should have been aware of the ineffectiveness of the initial criminal investigation long before they petitioned the public prosecutor on 8 February 2012 and should have raised any objection regarding deficiencies in the initial investigation within six months of the date on which order no. 565/25-9-2006 was issued. The applicants could not rely on the possible reopening of the case file, which domestic legislation would only allow if new facts or evidence were presented, and even then would be left to the discretion of the public prosecutor. The period of more than five years which elapsed between the two phases of the preliminary criminal investigation – in respect of which the applicants provided no explanation detailing why it took so long to seek and introduce the new evidence – is sufficiently lengthy to have severed the link between the two distinct phases of the investigation. The applicants should have realised the ineffectiveness of the initial preliminary investigation as soon as the case was archived and