Portugal

This group of cases concerns the excessive length of the proceedings in the civil courts of first instance, including enforcement proceedings, and in the administrative courts (violations of Article 6). The domestic proceedings were conducted at various periods between 2003 and the present day.

The last examination by the Committee of Ministers took place in September 2021. The Committee noted with concern the worsening of the situation as regards the length of administrative and tax proceedings; in this context, noted with interest the recent promising additional measures adopted by authorities, invited the authorities to provide their assessment of underlying reasons for the difficulties, invited them to closely monitor and provide specific information on the impact of the measures adopted, including on the actual increase of the overall number of judgments, prosecutors or auxiliary staff dealing with civil enforcement cases or administrative and tax cases, and take additional action required to ensure a durable decrease in the overall duration of the proceedings and to consider all useful measures to reduce the backlog in the area of administrative and tax proceedings.

The authorities submitted a revised action plan on 19 October 2022.

Excessive formalism on the part of the Constitutional Court in declaring constitutional appeals lodged in the context of administrative disputes inadmissible for failure to comply with the legal requirements, thus depriving the applicants of their right of access to a court (violation of Article 6§1). An action review was submitted on February 26, 2021 (DH-DD(2021)273).
The authorities point out that the problem in the present case arises from the way in which two specific cases were examined by the Constitutional Court. In addition, they point out that the European Court itself accepted in a recent case that the conditions of access to the Constitutional Court could be stringent, considering it to be the highest judicial body. They cite the Court’s decision in Albuquerque Fernandes v. Portugal, No. 50160/13, which states: “Having regard to the specific nature of appeals to the Constitutional Court, the Court accepts that the conditions of access to that court may be stringent in order to guarantee legal certainty and the proper administration of constitutional justice at the highest level of the judicial hierarchy”.
The ruling has been published and distributed to the magistrates of the Constitutional Court.

The case concerns three sets of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, who was a judge at the time. The High Council of Justice ordered her to pay a fine and suspended her from her duties. The Litigation Division of the Supreme Court upheld the Council’s decisions, ruling in particular that it was not for it to reassess the facts, but rather to examine whether the Council’s establishment of the facts had been reasonable. The European Court found that the inadequacy of the control exercised by the Supreme Court, as regards the re-examination of the facts, as well as the absence of a hearing (either before the Council or before the same Supreme Court), constituted a violation of Article 6 § 1, but rejected the applicant’s allegations concerning the Supreme Court’s lack of independence and impartiality.
A revised action statement was submitted by the authorities on January 16, 2020 (DH-DD (2020)52). The authorities provided updated information on 20/11/2023 (DH-DD (2023)1428).
The ruling has been published, communicated to the High Council of Justice, the Attorney General of the Republic, the President of the Supreme Administrative Court and the President of the Supreme Court of Justice for dissemination. It will also be included in the magistrates’ training program.
The Statute of Judicial Magistrates came into force on January 1, 2020 (Law n. 67/2019). With regard to disciplinary proceedings before the Council, the new Statute contains a provision allowing for the possibility of holding a public hearing already in the administrative phase before the Council, regardless of the seriousness of the case (article 120).
On the other hand, it will also be possible to hold a hearing and produce evidence on the facts at the jurisdictional stage before the Supreme Court (litigation section).

This case concerns the excessive length of expropriation proceedings, between 1983 and 2010, and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violations of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention), as well as the subsequent violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their property, due to the unreasonable level of compensation awarded following the expropriation of land that had belonged to their mother (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The Court held that the Court of Appeal, which was competent to examine both the facts and the law, had before it a number of questions relating to the facts of the case and to the applicant’s person, which it could not resolve without a new and full hearing of the applicant. It concluded that a public hearing before the appeal court was therefore necessary (violation of Article 6 § 1).
The authorities provided an updated action statement on July 17, 2019. Subsequently, the authorities clarified that additional measures, of a legislative nature, were under consideration, to ensure non-repetition of the violation.

The case concerns the conviction of the applicants in the context of a criminal investigation into a pedophile ring. The Lisbon Court sentenced them to prison sentences ranging from 5 to 7 years. The Court of Appeal, which upheld the judgment, refused to admit evidence in favour of the first applicant, Mr Pereira Cruz, in the proceedings before it. It also refused the applicant’s request that other of the defendants be heard (violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)).

An updated action plan was submitted by the authorities on 21 January 2022 (DH-DD(2022)111).
General measures: The judgment was published, translated and disseminated, in particular to the High Judicial Council and the Attorney General of the Republic. It was also sent to the Centre for Judicial Studies for inclusion in the training programmes for magistrates.
As regards the question of the failure of the court of appeal to hear other of the defendants in person, the authorities refer to the general measures under examination in the case of Moreira Ferreira (no. 19808/08).