Abstract

The problem of excessive duration of proceedings is frequently analysed in judicature. The theses arising therefrom are not always accurate, which is also the case in this instance. The facts of the case lead to conclusions which are totally diverse from those arrived at by the appellate court. In particular, this refers to the defective scope of substantive assessment of procedures in connection with the examination of material jurisdiction of the court. The appellate court also failed to assess the conduct of the attorney representing a party as a factor contributing to the delay in judicial proceedings. The gloss discusses those issues and presents arguments opposite to those put forward by the appellate court.