FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF CARRETO RIBEIRO v. PORTUGAL
(Application no. 20075/21)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
25 April 2024
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Carreto Ribeiro v. Portugal,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Branko Lubarda, President,
 Anne Louise Bormann,
 Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 April 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Portugal lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 5 April 2021. 2. The Portuguese Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
3. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 4. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained of the excessive length of the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him by the Portuguese Bar Association. The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLEs 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
5. The applicant complained principally that the length of disciplinary proceedings brought against him by the Portuguese Bar Association in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. He also complained about the lack of a domestic remedy in this respect. He relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. Admissibility
6. The Government argued that the applicant had not suffered a significant disadvantage as he had not been prevented from exercising his profession during the disciplinary proceedings at issue; he had not proven to have suffered damages or losses caused by the proceedings; and his reputation or image had not been affected by the proceedings or suffered stigma on account of their secrecy. In this regard, it is noted that the fact that it took five years and seven months for the Portuguese Bar Association to decide on the above disciplinary proceedings, during which period the applicant did not know which disciplinary penalty would be applied to him, must have had a negative effect on his personal situation (see, Ferreira Alves v. Portugal, no. 25861/11, § 17, 18 February 2014). With respect to the argument that the applicant did not suffer any stigma or interference with his reputation or image, the Court reiterates that disciplinary proceedings liable to result in expulsion carry a significant degree of stigma (see, mutatis mutandis, Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, § 196, 6 November 2018). Thus, it cannot be said that he did not suffer a significant disadvantage as a result of the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government’s objection in this regard must therefore be rejected. 7. The Government further submitted that the applicant was no longer a “victim”, as he had eventually benefited from the delay considering that the disciplinary proceedings at issue had been discontinued as time barred. According to the well-established case-law in length-of-proceedings cases, a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged a violation, either expressly or in substance, and afforded redress for it (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V, and Gil Leal Pereira v. Portugal (dec.), no. 48956/99, 15 November 2001). In the present case, the applicant claimed compensation for the breach of the “reasonable time” requirement and the administrative courts nevertheless dismissed his claim. The applicant can thus still claim to be a “victim”. Therefore, the Government’s objection in this respect must be rejected. 8. The Court reiterates that it has constantly held that disciplinary proceedings in which the right to continue to exercise a profession is at stake give rise to “contestations” (disputes) over civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In the present case, with the institution of the disciplinary proceedings, the applicant’s right to continue to practice as a lawyer was at stake. Article 6 § 1 is therefore applicable under its civil head to the disciplinary proceedings at issue (see Ferreira Alves v. Portugal, no. 78165/12, §§ 13-16, 18 February 2014, and Reczkowicz v. Poland, no. 43447/19, §§ 183-185, 22 July 2021). 9. It further notes that the complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation