CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 21 juin 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s20FDDAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCA1147F8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sEF8F76C5 { width:20.87pt; display:inline-block } .s93B30DFA { width:207.46pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION   DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 43779/98 by Zygmunt MĄCZYŃSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   June 2001 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   G. Ress , President ,   Mr   A. Pastor Ridruejo ,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mr   J. Makarczyk ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova , judges [Note1] , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6 April 1998 and registered on 8 October 1998, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1921 and living in Michałowice, Poland. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In 1976 the applicant’s former wife lodged with the Pruszków District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) an action against the applicant in which she sought distribution of the property acquired together with the applicant during their marriage. The proceedings are still pending before the Pruszków District Court. THE LAW 1.     The Government raised a preliminary objection based on an abuse of the right to petition, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. They submitted that certain statements in the applicant’s observations concerning the Polish judicial system and the Agent of the respondent Government were offensive and amounted to an abuse of the right to petition. The Court recalls that while the use of offensive language in proceedings before it is undoubtedly inappropriate, except in extraordinary cases, an application may only be rejected as abusive if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria , no.   31365/96, 5.10.2000, §   36). The Court considers that although some of the applicant’s statements were inappropriate, they did not give rise to extraordinary circumstances justifying the decision to declare the application inadmissible as an abuse of the right of petition. The Court further notes that the Government’s preliminary objection is not based on the lack of veracity of the applicant’s submissions. It follows that the preliminary objection must be dismissed.   2.     The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began in 1976 and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted twenty five years out of which about eight years are within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis . According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government reject the allegation. The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.   Vincent Berger   Georg Ress   Registrar   President [Note1]   Judges names are to be followed by a COMMA and a MANUAL LINE BREAK (Shift+Enter). When inserting names via Alt+S please remove the substitute judge’s name, if necessary, and the extra paragraph return(s). (There is to be no extra space between the judges’ names and that of the Registrar.)