PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court irrespective of whether the judgment concerned, or parts thereof, were previously pronounced orally.489 As seen above, one of the principles underlying the rule is to allow a prospective applicant to refer to the full reasoning set out in the domestic court decision when formulating the complaints he or she wishes to lodge with the Court in Strasbourg. An applicant will obviously be better able to do so when he or she has been provided with the written copy of the judgment. If domestic law does not provide for oral pronouncement or service – or if it is not the practice of the domestic courts to serve their decisions notwithstanding legislation to the contrary490 – the Court will take as the starting point the date on which the decision was finalised and signed, that being the date when the parties or their legal representatives were definitely able to discover its content.491 ii. Where There are no Domestic Remedies In cases where there are no domestic remedies, an applicant will be expected to introduce his or her application within six (four) months from the date of the incident or act of which the applicant complains. The Court has said: “Where it is clear from the outset however that no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of knowledge of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant.” 492 For example, an applicant who complains about the excessive length of his or her pre-trial detention which is lawful under domestic legislation, will be expected to lodge an application, at the latest, within six (four) months from the date of release, if he or she cannot challenge the lawfulness of the detention before the domestic authorities.493 Obviously, it is open to an applicant in such a situation to bring the application before he or she is released. Similarly, where an applicant argues that existing domestic remedies are ineffective or that there are special circumstances which absolve him or her from the obligation to exhaust those remedies, he or she will be expected to introduce the application within six (four) months of the date of the incident complained of, or of the date when he or she first became aware of the ineffectiveness of the remedy or the special circumstances in question. 489 Worm v. Austria, no. 22714/93, Commission decision of 27 November 1995. 490 As is the situation in Turkey where decisions of the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation are not served on defendants despite the clear wording of the domestic legislation requiring the Court of Cassation to serve them; see Caralan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 27529/95, 14 November 2002. 491 Papachelas v. Greece [GC], no. 31423/96, 25 March 1999, § 30. 492 Dennis and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76573/01, 2 July 2002. 493 See, e.g. Vayiç v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18078/02, 28 June 2005. See also “Continuing Situations” in section iv below. 135