I.  THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

B.  The Court’s assessment

.  The Court also notes, contrary to what the Government have asserted, that in his appeal before the Supreme Court (see paragraph 70 above) and his constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 75 above) the applicant complained that the secret surveillance of him had been contrary to the relevant domestic law (compare Dragojević, cited above, §§ 72-73). Moreover, in his constitutional complaint the applicant explicitly relied on the relevant provisions of the Constitution and Article 8 of the Convention. In these circumstances, the Court finds that the applicant properly exhausted the domestic remedies. The Government’s objection should therefore be dismissed.

.  With regard to the Government’s submission concerning the alleged abusive conduct of the applicant’s representative in submitting forged documents to the Court, the Court refers to its case-law concerning the concept of “abuse”, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, as recently set out in the Gross judgment (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; see also Petrović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 56551/11 et al., 18 October 2011).

.  The Court notes that the document in question, purportedly showing that J.K. had previously worked as a police officer, was submitted to the Court by the applicant’s representative Ms Boji

as an annex to her submission of 31 December 2013. The same document seems to originate from the office of another lawyer, A.P.; that document had been submitted by the applicant’s legal representative at the domestic level, I.F., in support of an application for the reopening of the criminal proceedings before the Zagreb County Court (see paragraph 78 above). Indeed, as the applicant pointed out, the Zagreb County Court did not go into the question of the validity of the document at issue but, taking note of its substance, dismissed the applicant’s application for the reopening of the proceedings on different grounds (see paragraph 79 above). The Government, however, subsequently obtained a letter of the Ministry of the Interior, dated 27 January 2014, indicating that the document at issue was a forgery.

.  In these circumstances, the Court notes that the true nature of the document at issue became known only through the Ministry of the Interior’s letter of 27 January 2014 and that neither the applicant’s lawyer at the domestic level nor the competent domestic courts had previously had any doubt as to the authenticity of the document in question. In these circumstances, the Court cannot establish that the applicant’s representative before it, Ms Boji

, knowingly based the applicant’s submission on untrue facts. Nor does it find that she made other misleading or inappropriate submissions before it. The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s objection of abuse by the applicant’s representative.

.  Lastly, with regard to the Government’s submission that the applicant’s complaints are premature because of the pending application for the reopening of the criminal proceedings, the Court refers to its well-established case-law according to which Article 35 does not normally require resort to extraordinary remedies, such as an application for retrial or other means of reopening judicial proceedings in a case (see, amongst many other authorities, Martynets v. Russia (dec.), no. 29612/09, 5 November 2009, and the cases cited therein). Accordingly, as such extraordinary procedures are outside the normal chain of domestic remedies, the Court cannot find that the applicant’s complaints are premature because of the pending proceedings for the reopening of the criminal proceedings. The Government’s objection should therefore be rejected.