Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook First, and as mentioned earlier, if the application is declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of a domestic remedy, after exhausting that particular domestic remedy, the applicant may submit a new application based on the same complaints. Exhaustion of the domestic remedy will result in a new domestic decision, which is regarded as “relevant new information” within the meaning of Article 35 § 2 (b). This happens rarely in practice because by the time the Court examines the application and declares it inadmissible, the applicant will most likely have missed the time limit prescribed in national legislation within which to make use of the necessary domestic remedy. As explained above, applicants are expected to comply with domestic rules of procedure when exhausting domestic remedies. Where an action instituted by an applicant is dismissed because of his or her non-compliance with a procedural requirement this will be regarded by the Court as a failure to exhaust the domestic remedy. The rationale for this is that, as a result of the applicant’s non-compliance, he or she has not afforded the national authorities an opportunity to deal with the substance of the complaints. The second possibility for the Court to re-examine an application occurs pursuant to the operation of Article 37 § 2 of the Convention. According to that provision, “[t]he Court may decide to restore an application to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course.” However, this possibility should by no means be perceived as an opportunity to appeal against a decision of inadmissibility. The Court will only restore an inadmissible case to its list of cases if its decision on the admissibility was based on a factual error which is relevant to the conclusion or where new circumstances have arisen justifying the Court’s resumption of the examination of the case. Such factual errors may include overlooking a letter introducing the application which affected the calculation of the six-month time limit or where the Court relied on a fact that was not correct.97 2.1.10 Communication of Application and Examination by a Chamber If the judge rapporteur deems an application admissible but not “manifestly well-founded”, he or she assigns the case to a Chamber. On the basis of the report prepared by the judge rapporteur, the seven judges of a Chamber consider the application.98 The Chamber can also declare a case inadmissible. If the application is not declared inadmissible, the President of the Chamber will communicate the case to the respondent Government.99 In so doing, the Court invites the Government to 97 98 99 52 Karen Reid, A Practitioner’s Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights, 4th ed., Sweet and Maxwell, 2011, p. 52. Rule 49 § 3 (c) of the Rules of Court. Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court.