Informação Jurídica

Jurisprudência

2018-11-06 | Case of Ramos Nunes v. Portugal (55391/13 - 57728/13 - 74041/13)

Tribunal Europeu dos Direitos Humanos

2018-11-06

CASE OF RAMOS NUNES DE CARVALHO E SÁ v. PORTUGAL

Direito a um processo equitativo, condições de admissibilidade e reparação razoável: artigos 6.º, 35.º e 41.º da CEDH

RAMOS NUNES DE CARVALHO E SÁ v. PORTUGAL (Applications nos. 55391/13, 57728/13 and 74041/13): Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) | Court (Grand Chamber) | 06/11/2018 | ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:1106JUD005539113 | Legal Summary

LA COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME

GRAND CHAMBER

CASE OF RAMOS NUNES DE CARVALHO E SÁ v. PORTUGAL

(Applications nos. 55391/13, 57728/13 and 74041/13)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG, 6 November 2018

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal,

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:

Guido Raimondi, President, Angelika Nußberger, Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, Ganna Yudkivska, Helena Jäderblom, Işıl Karakaş, Nebojša Vučinić, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Erik Møse, Ksenija Turković, Dmitry Dedov, Branko Lubarda, Carlo Ranzoni, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Alena Poláčková, Pauliine Koskelo, Lәtif Hüseynov, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 22 March 2017, 7 February and 4 July 2018,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last‑mentioned date:

PROCEDURE

The case originated in three applications (nos. 55391/13, 57728/13 and 74041/13) against the Portuguese Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Portuguese national, Ms Paula Cristina Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá (“the applicant”), on 16 August and 8 November 2013.
The applicant was represented by Mr. J. Ribeiro, a lawyer practising in Oporto. For the purposes of the Grand Chamber hearing, the applicant was given leave by the President of the Court to present her own case (Rules 71 and 36 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court). The Portuguese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M.F. da Graça Carvalho.
The applicant alleged in particular, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, a breach of her right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal with full jurisdiction and to a public hearing.
Under Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications were allocated to the First Section of the Court and subsequently to the Fourth Section. On 21 June 2016 a Chamber of the Fourth Section composed of András Sajó, President, Vincent A. De Gaetano, Nona Tsotsoria, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Egidijus Kūris, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Section Registrar, decided to join the applications and declared them admissible. It further held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine the complaints to the effect that the applicant had not been informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her and had not had adequate time and facilities for the preparation of her defence, and found that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention. The partly dissenting opinion of Judge Kūris was annexed to the judgment.
On 13 September 2016 the judgment thus adopted was rectified at the Government’s request, under Rule 81.
On 20 September 2016 the Government requested the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 of the Convention. On 17 October 2016 the panel of the Grand Chamber granted that request.
The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined in accordance with Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24.
The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the admissibility and merits of the case (Rule 59 § 1).
A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 22 March 2017 (Rule 59 § 3).

There appeared before the Court:

(a) for the Government: Ms M.F.da Graça Carvalho, Deputy Attorney-General, Agent, MrR. Dias José, judge of the Administrative Supreme Court, MsA. Garcia Marques, lawyer in the Agent’s Office, Advisers;

(b) for the applicant: MsP. Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá, Applicant, Mr J. Ribeiro, lawyer, Counsel, MrP. Rodrigues, interpreter, Adviser.

The Court heard addresses by Ms Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá and Ms da Graça Carvalho, and their replies to judges’ questions.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Barcelos.
The High Council of the Judiciary (Conselho Superior da Magistratura, hereafter “the CSM”) decided to open three sets of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, who at the time was a judge at the Vila Nova de Famalicão Court of First Instance. (…)

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT,

Declares, unanimously, that, as the applicant did not comply with the six-month time-limit, it is unable to examine on the merits the complaint alleging a lack of independence and impartiality on the part of the CSM;
Dismisses, unanimously, the Government’s preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies with regard to the complaints concerning the alleged lack of independence and impartiality of the Judicial Division of the Supreme Court and the extent of its review;
Declares, unanimously, inadmissible the complaint alleging a violation of Article 6 § 3 (a) and (b) on the ground that the applicant was not informed in detail of the accusation against her and therefore did not have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of her defence;
Holds, by eleven votes to six, that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention with regard to the complaint alleging a lack of independence and impartiality on the part of the Judicial Division of the Supreme Court;
Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the shortcomings in the conduct of the proceedings against the applicant;
Dismisses, unanimously, the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 6 November 2018.

Françoise Elens-PassosGuido Raimondi

Deputy RegistrarPresident

In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the following separate opinions are annexed to this judgment:

(a) joint concurring opinion of Judges Raimondi, Nussberger, Jäderblom, Møse, Poláčková and Koskelo;

(b) concurring opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque;

55391/13 57728/13 74041/13 | Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) | Court (Grand Chamber) | 06/11/2018 | Legal Summaries

Document URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-187507

Case Detail

Originating Body

Court (Grand Chamber)

Document Type: Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction)

Language(s): English, French

Title: CASE OF RAMOS NUNES DE CARVALHO E SÁ v. PORTUGAL

App. No(s). 55391/13, 57728/13, 74041/13

Importance Level 1

Represented by RIBEIRO J.

Respondent State(s) Portugal

Judgment Date: 06/11/2018

Applicability: Art. 6 applicable

Article(s): 6, 6-1, 35, 35-1, 35-3-a, 41

Separate Opinion(s)

Yes

Domestic Law

Section 168 of the Status of Judges Act (Law no. 21/85 of 30 July 1985)

Sections 2, 203, 212 § 3, 215 § 4, 216, 217 § 1, 218 §§ 1 and 2, 266 and 268 § 4 of the Constitution

Keywords

(Art. 6) Right to a fair trial

(Art. 6) Administrative proceedings

(Art. 6) Disciplinary proceedings

(Art. 6-1) Civil rights and obligations

(Art. 6-1) Fair hearing

(Art. 6-1) Impartial tribunal

(Art. 6-1) Independent tribunal

(Art. 6-1) Public hearing

(Art. 35) Admissibility criteria

(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:1106JUD005539113