DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES RAIMONDI, KARAKAÅž AND LORENZEN

We do not agree with the majority that the complaint concerning Article 10 is admissible and that there has been a violation of that Article.

According to our case-law, the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism. It normally requires that the complaints intended to be made subsequently at the international level should have been aired before the domestic courts at least in substance, and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, for example, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I).

In the instant case the second applicant did not at any time submit, rely on or raise any arguments in respect of its freedom of expression. It maintained, in its observations dated 24 March 2010, that since it had not been duly informed about the proceedings before the first-instance court, it had been prevented from asserting its rights under Article 10 of the Convention. However, it was able to appeal against the first ‑ instance judgment and submit both procedural and substantive grounds of appeal to the Court of Cassation.

We note that the second applicant did not rely on Article 10 of the Convention or the corresponding provision of the Turkish Constitution. Nor did it complain in substance that its dissolution had infringed its rights because the activities on which the first-instance court had relied in order to dissolve the company fell within the scope of its freedom of expression. The second applicant ’ s defence was confined at all times to the argument that the incidents on which the first ‑ instance court relied had never resulted in criminal convictions and that therefore they could not form the basis of a decision to dissolve it for breach of public order.

We think that the second applicant did not provide the national courts with the opportunity which is in principle intended to be afforded to a Contracting State by Article 35 of the Convention, namely the opportunity of addressing, and thereby preventing or putting right, the particular Convention violation alleged against it (see, for example Lazerevic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 61435/08, 30 September 2010, and Çakar v. Turkey , no. 42741/98, §§ 30-33, 23 October 2003 ).

In our view, the second applicant failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies and the application must be rejected as inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 of the Convention.

Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.