TSALIKIDIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE JUDGMENT 13 who had filed a criminal complaint on 9 February 2006 and had later challenged order no. 80/2006 issued by the public prosecutor at the Athens Court of First Instance by virtue of which the case had been archived. In the Government’s view, filing a criminal complaint and – in the event that it was later archived – lodging an appeal against the public prosecutor’s order were appropriate and effective remedies, as proven by the fact that the first applicant had used them. The second and third applicants should therefore also have availed themselves of these legal remedies, but as they had not done so, the application should accordingly be rejected in respect of the second and third applicants’ complaints relating to the initial criminal investigation. 41. Secondly, the Government submitted that the application should be rejected in its entirety due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as none of the applicants had submitted an application for damages under Article 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention, which was directly applicable to the Greek legal order. Relying on a series of judgments issued by the Supreme Administrative Court, the Government claimed that an application for compensation in respect of damage caused by unlawful acts or omissions committed by the State could have resulted in an award of compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and it was therefore an appropriate and effective legal remedy that the applicants should have used. In the Government’s view, the present case should be distinguished from the Court’s judgments in Papapetrou and Others v. Greece (no. 17380/09, 12 July 2011) and Zontul v. Greece (no. 12294/07, 17 January 2012) in which the Court dismissed the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion for failure to use the remedy under Article 105. In the former case the applicants had submitted an application for damages which was still pending at the time they applied to the Court and, in any event, no violation of Article 2 was found. In the latter, the Court had dismissed the Government’s objection on the basis that the applicants had joined the proceedings as civil parties; however, in that case criminal proceedings had already been initiated. It should be also distinguished from other cases where an application for damages had been considered ineffective remedy for complaints under other articles of the Convention. 42. Lastly, the Government raised an objection alleging lack of victim status in respect of the second and third applicants. As the first applicant was the only one who had filed a criminal complaint – and later an appeal against the public prosecutor’s order archiving the case file – the Government argued that the second and third applicants lacked victim status. 43. The applicants contested the Government’s submissions. They submitted that their application had already been declared admissible. Furthermore, they argued that pursuant to Articles 43 §§ 5 and 57 of the