CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 10 mai 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .sF2BC4CC3 { width:192.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sBA1DA037 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s560FF069 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       FOURTH SECTION                 CASE OF MARTINS SOUSA AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL   (Applications nos. 23741/13, 45190/13, 63611/13, 3157/14 and 28637/14)                   JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   10 May 2016           This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Martins Sousa and Others v. Portugal, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 19 April 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in five applications against Portugal lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Portuguese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. F. da Graça Carvalho, Deputy-Attorney General. 3.     The applications were communicated to the Portuguese Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5.     The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy with regard to it. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 6.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles   6 §   1 and 13 of the Convention, which read as follows: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” Article 13 “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” A.     Admissibility 8.     The Government argued that the applications were inadmissible on non-exhaustion grounds. 9.     The Court notes that prior to 27 May 2014, Portuguese practice did not provide for an effective legal remedy allowing a claimant to obtain compensation in a situation concerning length of proceedings ( Martins Castro and Alves Correia de Castro v. Portugal , no. 33729/06, §   50, 10   June 2008; and Valada Matos das Neves v. Portugal , no.   73798/13, §   106, 29 October 2015). It further notes that the five applications were lodged before the Court between 28 October and 30 December 2013. 10 .     It follows that the applications are neither manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention nor inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 1.     Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 11.     The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no.   30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 12.     The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Frydlender , cited above). 13.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject ( Martins Castro and Alves Correia de Castro v. Portugal , cited above), the Court considers that in the instant cases the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 14.     Accordingly, the complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 2.     Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention 15.     The Court recalls that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 for a case to be heard within a reasonable time ( Kudła v.   Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI). 16.     The Court notes that prior to 27 May 2014 the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy by which to submit their length-of-proceedings complaints (see paragraph 9 above). 17.     Having regard to its case-law on the subject applicable to the present cases ( Martins Casto and Alves Correia de Castro , cited above; Garcia Franco and Others v. Portugal , no. 9273/07, § 50, 22 June 2010), the Court considers that the applicant had had no effective remedy against the excessive length of proceedings. III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 18.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 19.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 20.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares the applications admissible;   3.     Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy with regard to it;   4.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.   Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 May 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Fatoş Aracı   Boštjan M. Zupančič Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth Representative name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant / household (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2]     23741/13 28/03/2013 Fernando Jorge Martins Sousa 27/04/1954 Jorge J. F. Alves Matosinhos 28/03/1996 21/02/2013 16 years, 10   months, 29   days 1 level of jurisdiction EUR 12,740 (twelve thousand seven hundred and forty euros) Jointly awarded EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) Jointly awarded     45190/13 01/07/2013 Clarisse Hermínia Abreu e Sousa 30/12/1948     63611/13 02/10/2013 João Henriques Lopes de Carvalho 30/08/1948 Jorge J. F. Alves Matosinhos 28/04/2004 Still pending (according to information received by the Court on 15/04/2015 11 years, 10   months, 14   days 1 level of jurisdiction EUR 11,700 (eleven thousand seven hundred euros) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)     3157/14 13/12/2013 Maria Luísa Henriques Costa 10/10/1941 Jorge J. F. Alves Matosinhos 01/09/2002 13/11/2014 12 years, 2   months, 15   days 1 level of jurisdiction EUR 8,190 (eight thousand one hundred and ninety euros) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)     28637/14 07/04/2014 Maria das Dores Silva de Azevedo 28/09/1969 Micaela Palhares Porto 14/09/2006 07/10/2013 7 years, 25 days 2 levels of jurisdiction EUR 2,730 (two thousand seven hundred and thirty euros) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)   [1] P lus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] P lus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.