5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Rowner Gosport Hants, United Kingdom. 6.  On 3 June 1997 the Split State Attorney's Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo) indicted A.B., D.D., G.A. and E.R. before the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) for participation in an affray (sudjelovanje u tučnjavi) and D.Š. for the murder of the applicant's son on 8 September 1996. The applicant participated in the proceedings as the injured party (oštećenik). 7.  On 19 July 2000 the Split County Court delivered a judgment finding the first four accused guilty while acquitting D.Š. It also instructed the applicant to pursue his claim for non-pecuniary damage against the four accused in separate civil proceedings. 8.  Following an appeal by the State Attorney, on 5 December 2002 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) reversed the lower-instance judgment in the part concerning the first four accused by acquitting them, as their prosecution had become time-barred. It also quashed the judgment in the part concerning D.Š. and remitted the case. 9.  In the resumed proceedings, at the hearing held on 27 November 2003, the applicant stated that he had already instituted civil proceedings for damages concerning the death of his son (see paragraph 15 below). 10.  However, on 10 February 2006 the applicant made a civil claim (imovinskopravni zahtjev) in the criminal proceedings, seeking compensation of non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 300,000 Croatian kunas (HRK). 11.  In the resumed proceedings the court held five of fourteen scheduled hearings, whereas the others were adjourned due to the inability of domestic authorities to locate a witness and the non-attendance of the defendant's lawyer and experts. 12.  On 10 July 2007 the Split County Court delivered a judgment acquitting D.Š. and instructing the applicant to pursue his compensation claim against the accused in separate civil proceedings that he had already instituted. 13.  Following an appeal by the State Attorney, on 22 January 2008 the Supreme Court again quashed the lower-instance judgment and remitted the case. 14.  The proceedings are still pending before the Split County Court. 15.  On 21 July 2003 the applicant brought a civil action in the Kaštel Lukšić Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Kaštel Lukšiću) against D.Š., seeking non-pecuniary damages in connection with the death of his son. 16.  On 7 June 2004 the Municipal Court, at the request of the parties, stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the above-mentioned criminal proceedings. 17.  On 22 March 2004 the applicant brought a civil action in the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu) against the State, also seeking non-pecuniary damages in connection with the death of his son. On 26 April 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant since the defendant had failed to respond to his civil action (presuda zbog ogluhe). 18.  Following the defendant's request, on 9 July 2004 the Municipal Court restored the proceedings to the status quo ante (povrat u prijašnje stanje). 19.  On 21 September 2004 at the applicant's request, the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the above-mentioned criminal proceedings. 20.  On 13 February 2006 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Supreme Court complaining about the length of the above-mentioned criminal proceedings. He argued that due to the length of the criminal proceedings, it was very likely that proceedings against D.Š. could become time-barred, as it was the case against the other four accused. 21.  On 29 June 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed his request, finding that the proceedings complained of did not concern “the determination of the applicant's civil rights and obligations” or “any criminal charge against him”. 22.  On 5 September 2006 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against that decision, arguing that on 10 February 2006 he had submitted a civil claim for damages in the above-mentioned criminal proceedings and that therefore it could not be said that those proceedings had not concerned “the determination of his civil rights and obligations” as the Supreme Court reasoned. 23.  On 17 December 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's constitutional complaint and served its decision on his representative on 23 January 2009. It noted that by initially deciding to pursue his civil claim for damages in the separate civil proceedings, the applicant had lost his right to do so in the above-mentioned criminal proceedings. Therefore, the criminal proceedings indeed did not concern “the determination of his civil rights and obligations” as the Supreme Court had correctly held.