CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 avril 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s51D49AA3 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD61D3655 { width:22.7pt; display:inline-block } .sD7E732C3 { width:153.64pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s2F4F8D4 { width:170.63pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 36490/17 Dina Maria CALÇADO CORDEIRO against Portugal   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13   April 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan, President,   Jolien Schukking,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges, and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 May 2017, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Ms Dina Maria Calçado Cordeiro, is a Portuguese national, who was born in 1959 and lives in Santarém. The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     Between 2006 and 2013 the applicant was represented by a lawyer,   P.G., in civil and criminal proceedings initiated by her against the builders of her house. 4.     On 30 October 2013 the applicant lodged a complaint against P.G. with the Ethics Council of Évora of the Portuguese Bar Association. 5 .     In order to bring liability proceedings against P.G., the applicant applied for legal aid to the Social Security services ( Segurança Social ), requesting an exemption from court fees and the appointment of a lawyer. Legal aid was granted to her in August 2015. 6 .     Between 2015 and 2017, the Portuguese Bar Association appointed the lawyers M.M., M.C, C.A, F.I., C.N., J.R., M.L., A.R., V.A, F.M., O.F., and R.L. to the applicant in these civil proceedings. All these lawyers requested to be relieved from their duties ( pedido de escusa ) in accordance with Section 34 of the Legal Aid Act (paragraph 10 below). All requests were granted by the Bar Association and not challenged by the applicant. 7.     On an unknown day in March 2016 the applicant instituted civil liability proceedings against P.G. before the Court of Santarém. She was then represented by a lawyer of her own choice, A.B.. 8 .     On an unknown date, the Portuguese Bar Association appointed the lawyer J.R. who, on 11 December 2017, agreed to represent the applicant in her civil proceeding case against P.G. before the Court of Santarém. Relevant domestic law 9 .     The relevant domestic law and practice have been summarised in António Pereira Órfão v. Portugal (dec.), nos. 34725/09 and 36682/09, §§   15-23, 14 January 2014. 10 .     The relevant provision of the Legal Aid Act governed by Law no.   34/2004 of 29 July 2004, reads as follows: Section 34. Request to be excused from duty ( Pedido de escusa ) “1 – The appointed lawyer may request to be excused from a duty, through a requirement directed at the Bar Association or the Solicitors Chambers, alleging the relevant motives.” COMPLAINTS 11.     The applicant complained under Articles 6, 8, 13 and 17 of the Convention of the lack of access to a court. In particular, she claimed that the Portuguese Bar Association took excessively long to assign her a lawyer. THE LAW 12.     Under Articles 6, 8, 13, and 17 of the Convention the applicant complained that the Portuguese Bar Association failed to grant her access to a lawyer in a reasonable time. 13.     The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos.   37685/10 and 22768/12, §§   114 and 126, 20 March 2018), considers that the applicant’s complaints should be analysed from the standpoint of Article 6 of the Convention alone which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: « In the determination of his civil rights and obligations (...), everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. » 14.     The Court notes that, after the Social Security services granted the applicant legal aid in August 2015 for the purpose of brining liability proceedings, at least twelve of the appointed lawyers requested to be relieved from their duties until one lawyer accepted to represent her in December 2017 (see paragraph 5 and 6 above). The Court further observes that the applicant did not challenge the decisions of the Bar Association granting the lawyers’ requests to be relieved from their duties and neither did she complain about the delay in having a lawyer appointed to her (see paragraph 6 and 9 above and António Pereira Órfão , decision cited above, §§   23 and 31 and Cardoso Oliveira v. Portugal , no. 21217/09, §   48, 4   February 2014). 15.     Accordingly, the Court considers that the applicant has failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to her and that the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 20 May 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Ilse Freiwirth   Armen Harutyunyan   Deputy Registrar   President