4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Vodnjan. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.  On 9 July 2010 the applicant was indicted before the Pula-Pola Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Puli-Pola) on charges of indecent behaviour. 7.  He was tried in summary proceedings (skraćeni postupak). During the proceedings before the first- and the second-instance courts he was represented by a lawyer, M.K. 8.  On 11 October 2011 the Pula-Pola Municipal Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. 9.  On 7 November 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Pula‑Pola County Court (Županijski sud u Puli-Pola), challenging the factual and legal grounds for his conviction and sentence. He did not ask that he or his lawyer be invited to the session of the appeal panel. 10.  On an unspecified date in 2011, the Pula-Pola County Court, acting as the court of appeal, forwarded the applicant’s appeal and the Pula-Pola Municipal Court’s case file to the Pula‑Pola County State Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Puli-Pola) for their examination and opinion. 11.  On 7 December 2011 the Pula-Pola County State Attorney’s Office returned the case file to Pula-Pola County Court accompanied by a submission which read as follows:
“In the criminal case against Slobodan Kliba, accused of the criminal offence referred to in Article 193 § 2 in conjunction with Article 192 § 1 of the Criminal Code, the defence lodged an appeal against the judgment of the Pula Municipal Court No. K-344/10 of 11 October 2011 complaining about errors of facts, alleging that the Criminal Code had been violated and challenging the sanction as well as the decision concerning costs and expenses.
I consider the appeal unfounded, therefore I propose that it be dismissed as in my opinion the facts in the criminal proceedings in question were duly established. The Criminal Code was not violated and the sanction inflicted is appropriate, considering the type and seriousness of the criminal offence of which the accused was found guilty. The costs of proceedings were properly estimated and can be borne by the accused, regard being had to his financial status.”
The submission in question was not forwarded to the defence. 12.  On 20 January 2012 the Pula-Pola County Court held a session which the parties did not attend. On the same day it dismissed the appeal as unfounded and upheld the first-instance judgment. 13.  On 13 March 2012 the applicant, represented by lawyer V.D.L., lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining, inter alia, that his right to a fair trial had been violated because the submission of the Pula-Pola County State Attorney’s Office had not been communicated to the defence. 14.  On 14 January 2016 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint as unfounded. It held that the fact that the Pula-Pola County State Attorney’s Office submission of 12 July 2013 had not been forwarded to the applicant had not breached his constitutional rights, having regard to the content of the submission, the fact that he had been tried in summary proceedings and that he had not asked that he or his lawyer be invited to the session of the appeal panel. 15.  The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 2 February 2016.