4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Varaždin. 5.  On 12 April 1999 R.M. and A.P. brought a civil action against the applicant in the Pula Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Puli), seeking a possession order in relation to a house and a plot of land in Pula. The claim was allowed on 17 October 2001 but the Pula County Court (Županijski sud u Puli), acting as the court of appeal, on 14 December 2004 quashed the first-instance judgment and ordered a retrial. 6.  The Pula Municipal Court on 16 September 2005 again allowed R.M. and A.P.’s claim. This judgment was upheld by the second-instance judgment of the Pula County Court of 19 November 2007. On the same day, the Pula County Court issued a separate decision by which the applicant’s appeal concerning the courts’ fees was dismissed. The Pula County Court’s judgment and the decision were forwarded to the Pula Municipal Court on 23 November 2007. 7.  On 10 December 2007 the Pula Municipal Court served the above decision of the Pula County Court, by which the applicant’s appeal concerning the courts’ fees was dismissed, on the applicant’s representative, B.Č. a lawyer from Varaždin. The applicant’s representative was also served with a warning-letter concerning the payment of the courts’ fees. The service note reads:
“Case file no.: X-P-214/05
Act to be served: II-instance decision of 23 November 2007
Number of attachments: warning-letter
On address: B.Č., ..., Varaždin
Served on: tenth-December 2007
Served to: [stamp of lawyer B.Č. and a handwritten signature]” 8.  The Pula Municipal Court dismissed further the applicant’s objection concerning an order for payment of the courts’ fees on 19 February 2008. Against this decision the applicant lodged an appeal with the Pula County Court and on 7 April 2008 the Pula County Court issued a decision by which it dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 9.  On 12 September 2008 the Pula Municipal Court served the second-instance judgment of the Pula County Court of 19 November 2007 on the applicant’s representative. It appears from the service note of 12 September 2008 that together with the second-instance judgment, the Pula Municipal Court served a second-instance decision of the Pula County Court.
“Case file no.: X-P-214/05
Act to be served: II-instance judgment
 II-instance decision
On address: B.Č., ..., Varaždin
Served on: twelfth-September 2008
Served to: [stamp of lawyer B.Č. and a handwritten signature]” 10.  Against the second-instance judgment of the Pula County Court, by which the judgment of the Pula Municipal Court of 16 September 2005 was upheld, the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) on 11 October 2008. 11.  In his constitutional complaint the applicant complained about the interpretation of the relevant domestic law by the lower courts which he considered arbitrary and which had therefore deprived him of the right to a fair trial. He argued in particular that the Pula Municipal Court had not had jurisdiction in the matter; that the operative part of the judgment of that court could not be enforced since it was vague; that the part of the plot of land at dispute had been used for public purposes and as such could not be an object of private ownership; and that he had used the plot of land as its owner for specific purposes which had excluded any possibility of his dispossession. The applicant asked the Constitutional Court to quash the judgments of the lower courts and to order a retrial. 12.  On 18 December 2008 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaint inadmissible as lodged out of time. It found that the appeal judgment of 19 November 2007 had been served on the applicant’s counsel on 10 December 2007 and that the applicant’s constitutional complaint had therefore been lodged after the thirty-day time-limit. The relevant part of this decision reads:
“The judgment of the Pula County Court of 19 November 2007 was served on the applicant, through his representative B.Č., lawyer from Varaždin, on 10 December 2007, as noted in the service note from the case file of the Pula Municipal Court.
The constitutional complaint was lodged on 11 October 2008, namely out of the thirty-day time-limit. The time-limit for lodging a constitutional complaint in the present case expired on Wednesday, 9 January 2008.” 13.  The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 30 January 2009. 14.  On the same date the applicant sent a letter to the Constitutional Court enclosing the acknowledgment of receipt of the judgment of 19 November 2007 by his counsel, showing that counsel had received that judgment on 12 September 2008. The applicant also asked the Constitutional Court to rectify its error by setting its decision aside and examining his complaints on the merits. The relevant part of his letter reads:
“I hereby return the decision of the Constitutional Court no. U-III-4389/2008 since it is obvious that the judgment of the Pula County Court of 19 November 2007 could not have been served on my counsel B.Č., lawyer from Varaždin, on 10 December 2007 ...
... I submit a copy of a post envelope which shows that the second-instance judgment was sent from the post office in Pula on 11 September 2008 ... and therefore it was served on 12 September 2008, and the time-limit for lodging a constitutional complaint was running until 12 October 2008 ... “ 15.  Since he received no reply, the applicant sent another letter on 2 February 2009, again pointing out that there had been an obvious error in calculation of the time-limit and asking that the error be rectified. 16.  The applicant received a reply from the President of the Constitutional Court on 2 December 2009, stating that that court was not in a position to rectify its decision of 18 December 2008 and that it was open to the applicant to lodge an application with the European Court of Human Rights. The relevant part of this letter reads:
“As regards your constitutional complaint, we would like to point out that against the decision of this court there is no available remedy in the domestic legal system of the Republic of Croatia, under the provisions of [the Constitutional Court Act], but it is possible, under the conditions set out in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to complain before the European Court of Human Rights of the Council of Europe.
Therefore, and after having examined your submission, it was found that there are no procedural grounds, under the Constitution and the relevant law, for this court to decide as you requested.
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia considers that hereby it has fulfilled all its legal obligations in your case and it would like to point out that all your further submissions concerning this case will not be taken into account and accordingly they will not be replied.” 17.  On 20 July 2010 the applicant requested the Pula Municipal Court to forward him a copy of the service note of 10 December 2007. His request reads:
“In the finally terminated case of your court no. P-214/05, concerning a civil action of the plaintiff R.M. against me, I need a copy of the service note of 10 December 2007, based on which the Constitutional Court, by its decision ..., declared my constitutional complaint inadmissible as being lodged out of time.
... “ 18.  On 28 September 2010 the applicant obtained a copy of the service note of 10 December 2007. In its letter forwarding him the service note, the Pula Municipal Court noted:
“As to your request of 20 July 2010 we hereby forward you the service note from the case file no. P-214/05, which concerns the service of the II [instance] decision of 23 November 2007 and the warning letter.” 19.  On 9 October 2010 the applicant requested the Pula Municipal Court a copy of the service note by which the Pula County Court’s second-instance judgment of 19 November 2007 had been served on him. His letter reads:
“I have received your letter of 28 September 2010 and a copy of the service note of 10 December 2007.
The copy of the service note shows that it concerned service of the second-instance decision of 23 November 2007 on my representative B.Č. together with a warning letter. It follows that it did not concern service of the Pula County Court’s judgment of 19 November 2007 ...
Therefore I ask for a copy of the service note which will show [the date] when my representative B.Č. received the judgment of the Pula County Court ... of 19 November 2007.
... ” 20.  Concerning his above request, on 14 October 2010 the applicant received a letter from the Pula Municipal Court by which a copy of the service note of 12 September 2008 was forwarded to him. This letter reads:
“As to your request of 9 October 2010 we hereby forward you a certified copy of the service note from the case file no. P-214/05, concerning the service of the second-instance judgment to B.Č., lawyer from Varaždin.
This shows that the said [lawyer] was served with the second-instance ruling of the Pula County Court on 12 September 2008.”