CASE OF RAMOS NUNES DE CARVALHO E SÁ v. PORTUGAL
Hearing: Ramos Nunes De Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal (no. 55391/13) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2017-03-22 00:00:00)
Application no.: 55391/13
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2018-11-06 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:1106JUD005539113
Respondent state: PRT
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;35;35-1;35-3-a;41
Judges: Alena Poláčková;András Sajó;Angelika Nußberger;Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus Kūris;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Helena Jäderblom;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Nebojša Vučinić;Nona Tsotsoria;Pauliine Koskelo;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Ksenija Turković
Represented by: RIBEIRO J.
Issue: 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
Strasbourg case-law cited: A. v. Finland (dec.), no 44998/98, 8 January 2004;A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. v. Italy, no 43509/08, §§ 63-64, 27 September 2011;Abuyeva and Others v. Russia, no 27065/05, § 222, 2 December 2010;Adam and Others v. Germany (dec.), no 290/03, 1 September 2005;Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, Series A no 58;Allan v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no 48539/99, 28 August 2001;Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no 2), 19 February 1998, § 49, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 I;Andersson v. Sweden, no 17202/04, 7 December 2010;Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no 56679/00, § 32, ECHR 2004-III;Baka v. Hungary [GC], no 20261/12, ECHR 2016;Batur v. Turkey, (dec.), no 38604/97, 4 July 2000;Biagioli v. San Marino (dec.), no 64735/14, §§ 51-57, 13 September 2016;Bistrović v. Croatia, no 25774/05, §§ 51-53, 31 May 2007;Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no 59532/00, ECHR 2006-III;Brown v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no 38644/97, 24 November 1998;Bryan v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, § 45, Series A no 335-A;Buterlevičiūtė v. Lithuania, no 42139/08, §§ 52-54, 12 January 2016;Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no 23755/07, § 70, ECHR 2016 (extracts);Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no 49429/99, §§ 99-108, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts);Castillo Algar v. Spain, 28 October 1998, § 45, Reports 1998-VIII;Chevrol v. France, no 49636/99, ECHR 2003 III;Costa v. Portugal (dec.), no 44135/98, 9 December 1999;Di Giovanni v. Italy, no 51160/06, § 35, 9 July 2013;Diennet v. France, 26 September 1995, Series A no 325-A;Döry v. Sweden, no 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002;Družstevní záložna Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic, no 72034/01, § 112, 31 July 2008;Duran and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no 38925/97, 4 July 2000;Durand v. France (dec.), no 10212/07, 31 January 2012;Durgun v. Turkey (dec.), no 40751/98, 4 July 2007;Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no 47092/99, 3 March 2005;Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, Series A no 22;Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39665/98 and 40086/98, § 82, ECHR 2003-X;Fábián v. Hungary [GC], no 78117/13, 5 September 2017;Fazia Ali v. the United Kingdom, no 40378/10, § 84, 20 October 2015;Fazliyski v. Bulgaria, no 40908/05, § 59, 16 April 2013;Findlay v. the United Kingdom, 25 February 1997, § 73, Reports 1997-I;Fredin v. Sweden (no 2), 23 February 1994, § 22, Series A no 283 A;Galina Kostova v. Bulgaria, no 36181/05, 12 November 2013;García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999‐I;Gautrin and Others v. France, 20 May 1998, § 42, Reports 1998-III;Göç v. Turkey [GC], no 36590/97, ECHR 2002-V;Gökden and Karacol v. Turkey, (dec.), no 40535/98, 4 July 2000;Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy, nos. 18640/10 and 4 others, 4 March 2014;Helmut Blum v. Austria, no 33060/10, § 59, 5 April 2016;I.D. v. Bulgaria, no 43578/98, 28 April 2005;J.L. v. France (dec.), no 17055/90, 5 April 1995;Jussila v. Finland [GC], no 73053/01, ECHR 2006-XIV;K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no 25702/94, ECHR 2001-VII;Kamenos v. Cyprus, no 147/07, §§ 50-53, 31 October 2017;Kaplan and Karaca v. Turkey (dec.), no 40536/98, 4 July 2000;Kingsley v. the United Kingdom [GC] no 35605/97, ECHR 2002 IV;Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98 and 3 others, ECHR 2003-VI;Kudeshkina v. Russia, no 29492/05, § 86, 26 February 2009;Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no 26828/06, § 382, ECHR 2012 (extracts);Kurnaz and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no 36672/97, 7 December 2004;Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no 73797/01, ECHR 2005-XIII;Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, Series A no 43;Letinčić v. Croatia, no 7183/11, §§ 46 and 55-67, 3 May 2016;Linde Falero v. Spain (dec.), no 51535/99, 22 June 2000;Lundevall v. Sweden, no 38629/97, § 39, 12 November 2002;Majski v. Croatia, no 33593/03, § 34, 1 June 2006;Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no 33071/96, 12 July 2001;Margaretić v. Croatia, no 16115/13, 5 June 2014;Martinie v. France [GC], no 58675/00, ECHR 2006-VI;Mehmet Emin Şimşek v. Turkey, no 5488/05, §§ 29-31, 28 February 2012;Mérigaud v. France, no 32976/04, § 69, 24 September 2009;Messochoritis v. Greece (dec.), no 41867/98, 15 June 2000;Micallef v. Malta [GC], no 17056/06, ECHR 2009;Miller v. Sweden, no 55853/00, 8 February 2005;Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 385, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Morice v. France [GC], no 29369/10, 23 April 2015;Moullet v. France (dec.), no 27521/04, 13 September 2007;Müller-Hartburg v. Austria, no 47195/06, 19 February 2013;Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no 13279/05, § 49, 20 October 2011;Nicoleta Gheorghe v. Romania, no 23470/05, § 26, 3 April 2012;Nikolova and Vandova v. Bulgaria, no 20688/04, § 59, 17 December 2013;Obermeier v. Austria, 28 June 1990, §§ 66-70, Series A no 179;Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no 21722/11, 9 January 2013, ECHR 2013;Olujić v. Croatia, no 22330/05, § 55, 5 February 2009;Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no 48939/99, §§ 141 and 149, ECHR 2004-XII;Ouendeno v. France (dec.), no 18441/91, 2 March 1994;Paluda v. Slovakia, no 33392/12, §§ 33-34, 23 May 2017;Paroisse gréco-catholique Sâmbăta Bihor v. Romania (dec.), no 48107/99, 25 May 2004;Pereira da Silva v. Portugal, no 77050/11, §§ 59-60, 22 March 2016;Perna v. Italy [GC], no 48898/99, §§ 23-24, ECHR 2003-V;Potocka and Others v. Poland, no 33776/96, 4 October 2001, ECHR 2001-X;Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 34, Series A no 313;Pullar v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, § 32, Reports 1996-III;Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, ECHR 2018;Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, §§ 29-30, Series A no 303 A;Sabri Güneş v. Turkey [GC], no 27396/06, 29 June 2012;Saccoccia v. Austria, no 69917/01, § 73, 18 December 2008;Sacilor-Lormines v. France, no 65411/01, 9 November 2006, ECHR 2006 XIII;Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, Series A no 263;Sigma Radio Television Ltd v. Cyprus, nos. 32181/04 and 35122/05, 21 July 2011;Speil v. Austria (dec.), no 42057/98, 5 September 2002;Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 46295/99, ECHR 2002-IV;Sturua v. Georgia, no 45729/05, § 28, 28 March 2017;Terra Woningen B.V. v. the Netherlands, 17 December 1996, Reports 1996 VI;Tsanova-Gecheva v. Bulgaria, no 43800/12, §§ 90, 105 106 and 109, 15 September 2015;Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, no 60860/00, 14 November 2006;V.M. and Others v. Belgium (striking out) [GC], no 60125/11, § 39, 17 November 2016;Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.), no 64336/01, 25 April 2002;Vilho Eskelinen others v. Finland, [GC], no 63235/00, § 62, ECHR 2007 II;Yildirim v. Turkey (dec.), no 40800/98, 4 July 2000
Conclusion: Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Disciplinary proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Disciplinary proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Public hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE