PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court with the Commission concerning the same complaint all of which had been declared inadmissible. Apart from finding that the latest application constituted an abuse of the right of application, the Commission added: It cannot be the task of the Commission, a body set up under the Convention to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the present Convention, to deal with a succession of ill-founded and querulous complaints, creating unnecessary work which is incompatible with its real functions, and which hinders it in carrying them out.558 In a number of cases the Court has examined whether the use of offensive language in the proceedings before the Court – language that was directed either against the respondent Government or its agents,559 the regime in the respondent Contracting Party,560 or the Court and its Registry,561 constituted an abuse of the right of application.562 Finding that the use of offensive language in proceedings is undoubtedly inappropriate, the Court also held that, except in extraordinary cases, an application may only be rejected as abusive if it was knowingly based on untrue facts.563 Finally, in a number of cases the Commission and the Court have rejected claims made by respondent Governments that applications constituted an abuse of the right of application because they had been made for political purposes. For example, in the case of Aslan v. Turkey, the respondent Government argued that the application, being devoid of any sound legal basis, had been lodged for purposes of political propaganda against the Turkish Government. The Commission concluded that the Government’s argument could only be accepted if it was clear that the application was based on untrue facts. However, as this was far from clear at that stage of the proceedings, the Commission found it impossible to reject the application on this ground.564 In extreme cases, the Court can either ban an applicant or attorney from submitting cases to it, or inform the national bar association of misconduct.565 Philis v. Greece, no. 28970/95, Commission decision of 17 October 1996. See Manoussos v. the Czech Republic and Germany (dec.), no. 46468/99, 9 July 2002. See Iordachi and Others v. Moldova (dec.) no. 25198/02, 5 April 2005. See Řehák v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004. See also Rule 44D of the Rules of Court according to which, “[i]f the representative of a party makes abusive, frivolous, vexatious, misleading or prolix submissions, the President of the Chamber may exclude that representative from the proceedings, refuse to accept all or part of the submissions or make any other order which he or she considers it appropriate to make, without prejudice to Article 35 § 3 of the Convention”. 563 See Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, 5 October 2000, § 36. 564 Aslan v. Turkey, no. 22497/93, Commission decision of 20 February 1995. 565 Petrović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 56551/11, 18 October 2011, “the President of the Second Section decided to ban the applicant, a licensed lawyer, from representing clients before the Court, at that time and in the future.” 558 559 560 561 562 149