8 WĘGRZYNOWSKI AND SMOLCZEWSKI v. POLAND JUDGMENT reputation, because the infringement of their rights had already been redressed by the judgments given in 2002 and 2003. 33. The applicants submitted that they had obtained redress as a result of the first set of civil proceedings concerning the publication of the article in the print edition of the newspaper, but they had not in respect of the second breach arising out of the continued presence of the same article on the newspaper’s website. 34. In so far as the Government argued that the applicants could not claim to be victims in respect of the first set of civil proceedings, the Court acknowledges that this argument is correct. Their claim brought in respect of the article published in December 2000 was allowed in its entirety. Nonetheless, the substance of the present case before the Court does not relate to the first set of proceedings and their impact on the applicants’ right to respect for their private life. It falls to the Court to examine the complaint that the applicants were unsuccessful in the second set of proceedings concerning the continued presence of the article on the newspaper’s website. The Court notes in this connection that the domestic court refused to order that the article be removed from the newspaper’s website. Hence, this objection of the Government must fail. 3. The six-month time-limit and exhaustion of domestic remedies by the first applicant, Mr Węgrzynowski 35. The Government argued that the first applicant had failed to comply with the six-month time-limit and to exhaust domestic remedies. The final decision in his case had been given by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 17 November 2006 and served on the applicants’ lawyer on 4 December 2006, more than six months before they had brought their case before the Court on 7 August 2007. 36. The applicants did not address this aspect of the case. 37. The Court notes that on 3 November 2006 the Warsaw Court of Appeal asked the applicants to clarify whether the cassation appeal against the appellate judgment had been brought before that court on behalf of one or both of the applicants. In reply, the applicants’ lawyer averred that the appeal had been made on behalf of the second applicant. On 17 November 2006 the court therefore rejected the appeal in so far as it related to the first applicant. This decision was served on the applicants’ lawyer on 4 December 2006. 38. Therefore, the six-month period within which to lodge an application with the Court, as defined by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, expired on 5 June 2007, while the application was lodged with the Court on 7 August 2007. The application in respect of the first applicant must therefore be declared inadmissible for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit and, in any event, also for failure to exhaust domestic remedies as he had failed to file a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.