DRAGOJEVIĆ v. CROATIA JUDGMENT 21 inform the Court of his complaint before his position in connection with the matter has been finally settled at the domestic level. In this regard, the Court has already held that in order to comply with the principle of subsidiarity, before bringing complaints against Croatia to the Court applicants are in principle required to afford the Croatian Constitutional Court the opportunity to remedy their situation (see Orlić v. Croatia, no. 48833/07, § 46, 21 June 2011; Čamovski v. Croatia, no. 38280/10, § 27, 23 October 2012; Bajić v. Croatia, no. 41108/10, § 66, 13 November 2012; Remetin v. Croatia, no. 29525/10, § 81, 11 December 2012; Tarbuk v. Croatia, no. 31360/10, § 29, 11 December 2012; Damjanac v. Croatia, no. 52943/10, § 70, 24 October 2013; and Šimecki v. Croatia, no. 15253/10, § 29, 30 April 2014). 72. The Court notes that the use of secret surveillance measures giving rise to the case in issue was ordered in the context of the criminal investigation which eventually led to the applicant’s criminal prosecution in the competent courts. Throughout the criminal proceedings before the competent courts the applicant argued that his secret surveillance had been contrary to the relevant domestic law (see paragraphs 35, 42 and 47 above) and he raised the same complaint before the Constitutional Court in his constitutional complaint against the final judgment of the criminal courts (see paragraph 49 above). Indeed, the Court notes, given the Constitutional Court’s practice of declaring any constitutional complaint against an indictment inadmissible (see paragraph 61 above), that it was the only way for the applicant to bring his complaints about the alleged unlawful use of secret surveillance before the Constitutional Court, as required under the Court’s case-law (see paragraph 71 above; and Blaj v. Romania, no. 36259/04, § 118, 8 April 2014). The Court cannot therefore accept the Government’s argument that the six-month time-limit started running from the moment when the applicant learned that the indictment had been lodged. 73. Furthermore, the Court considers that the applicant, having raised the issue in substance in his constitutional complaint, did raise before the domestic courts the complaint which he has submitted to the Court (see, by contrast, Mađer v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 137, 21 June 2011, and Merot d.o.o. and Storitve Tir d.o.o. v. Croatia (dec.), nos. 29426/08 and 29737/08, §§ 35 and 36 10 December 2013). The applicant thereby provided the national authorities with the opportunity which is in principle intended to be afforded to Contracting States by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, namely of putting right the violations alleged against them (see Lelas, cited above, § 51; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 144-46, ECHR 2010; Karapanagiotou and Others v. Greece, no. 1571/08, § 29, 28 October 2010; Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, § 48, 29 May 2012; and Tarbuk v. Croatia, no. 31360/10, § 32, 11 December 2012). The Court also notes that the decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s