DRAGOJEVIĆ v. CROATIA JUDGMENT 20 “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” A. Admissibility 1. The parties’ submissions 68. The Government pointed out that the applicant had been under secret surveillance between 23 March and 7 August 2007 and subsequently from 17 September 2007, and that he had learnt this when the indictment had been lodged on 10 March 2009. Accordingly, in the Government’s view, the six-month time-limit had started running from that time and there had been no reason for the applicant to wait for the outcome of the criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the Government pointed out that in his constitutional complaint the applicant had not expressly relied on the provisions of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 35 of the Constitution. He had only complained about the alleged unlawfulness of the secret surveillance orders and the use of their results in the criminal proceedings against him. 69. The applicant stressed that throughout the criminal proceedings at the domestic level he had argued before all levels of domestic jurisdiction that his secret surveillance had been unlawful. That had been the only way of allowing him to raise the complaint before the Constitutional Court. Thus, by complaining in substance of a violation of his rights guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention before the Constitutional Court, and by waiting for a decision of that court, he had properly exhausted the domestic remedies and brought his complaint before the Court within the six-month time-limit. 2. The Court’s assessment 70. The Court reiterates that the requirements contained in Article 35 § 1 concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated, since not only are they combined in the same Article, but they are also expressed in a single sentence whose grammatical construction implies such a correlation (see Hatjianastasiou v. Greece, no. 12945/87, Commission decision of 4 April 1990, and Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts)). 71. As a rule, the six-month period runs from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies. Article 35 § 1 cannot be interpreted in a manner which would require an applicant to