PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court iv. Continuing Situations The six-month time limit does not start to run if the Convention complaint stems from a continuing situation, a concept recognized early on in the jurisprudence.508 The Court said in the case of Varnava and Others v. Turkey “if there is a situation of on going breach, the time-limit in effect starts afresh each day and it is only once the situation ceases that the final period of six months will run to its end.”509 Examples of continuing situations in Article 3 relevant situations include expulsion orders which have not been enforced while the applicant remains in the country and the state still wishes to remove him or her,510 forced disappearance511 as well as detention.512 Such situations are continuing because of the absence of a domestic remedy capable of putting an end to them or because of the ineffectiveness of existing remedies. It follows, therefore, that the six-month time limit will not start running until the end of the situation. As pointed out earlier, this does not mean that an application cannot be lodged before the situation comes to an end. For example, the case of Assanidze v. Georgia,513 concerning the continuing detention of the applicant despite his acquittal by the Supreme Court of Georgia on 29 January 2001 and the order issued by that court for his immediate release, illustrates how absurd it would be if the Court expected a person to continue to suffer indefinitely before he or she is allowed to introduce an application. In Assanidze, the Grand Chamber of the Court explained that to detain a person for an indefinite and unforeseeable period, without such detention being based on a specific statutory provision or judicial decision, is incompatible with the principle of legal certainty […] and arbitrary, and runs counter to the fundamental aspects of the rule of law. Considering that the applicant was still in prison when the Court adopted its judgment on 24 March 2004 and “having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and the urgent need to put an end to the violation,”514 the Court considered that the respondent State must secure the applicant’s release at the earliest possible date. 508 See e.g. Agrotexim Hellas S.A. and Others v. Greece, no. 14807/89, Commission decision of 12 February 1992; Cone v. Romania, no. 35935/02, 24 June 2008, § 22. 509 Varnava and Others v. Turkey, nos. 16064/90, 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90,16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, 10 January 2008, §159. 510 P.Z. and Others v. Sweden (dec.), no 68194/19, 29 May 2012, § 34. 511 Varnava and Others v. Turkey, nos. 16064/90, 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90,16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, 10 January 2008, §§ 116–118. 512 Mitev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 40063/98, 30 January 2003. 513 Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, 8 April 2004, § 175. 514 Ibid., § 203. 139