CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 avril 2023

.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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; 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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s42FEB1BD { width:30.88pt; display:inline-block } .s31EC7B5B { width:133.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sFA6A4DF3 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.4pt 2.85pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sA05D2921 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.4pt 2.85pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s87D973DC { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.03pt 2.85pt 5.4pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEFE2FACD { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:2.48pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 43553/21 José Manuel ARAÚJO RAMOS against Portugal and 14 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11   April 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan, President,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Crina Kaufman, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications 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 the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The applicants were municipal firefighters working for the municipality of Viana do Castelo at the material time. 2.     At that time national legislation, in particular Law no. 106/2002, provided for two types of firefighters: municipal firefighters ( bombeiros municipais ) and “sapper” firefighters ( bombeiros sapadores ), the latter receiving a higher salary. 3.     In 2020 the applicants lodged an administrative liability action with the Braga Administrative Court against the municipality of Viana do Castelo, arguing that their professional tasks were materially the same as those of the “sapper” firefighters, who were paid according to a higher salary scale, and that they should be compensated for the difference in remuneration. 4.     On 29 May 2020 the Braga Administrative Court ruled against the applicants. 5 .     On 27 November 2020, following an appeal by the applicants, the North Central Administrative Court upheld that decision. The judgment was notified to the applicants on 29 January 2021. 6 .     Under Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention, the applicants complained that the proceedings had been unfair, asserting that they had been discriminated against owing to the difference in salaries between the two professional paths for firefighters. Stating that their representative’s work had been impeded by a health issue and relying on Article   140 of the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure, the applicants submitted that their applications should not be rejected as out of time. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 7.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 8.     The Court reiterates that in assessing whether an applicant has complied with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it is important to bear in mind that the requirements contained in that Article concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated (see Jeronovičs v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 75, 5 July 2016). Thus, as a rule, the six-month period runs from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §   106, 23 March 2016). The Court also reiterates that compliance with the six-month time-limit must satisfy the Convention criteria and not the arrangements laid down by the domestic law of each respondent State (see Sabri Güneş v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, § 49, 29 June 2012). Application by the Court of its own criteria in calculating time-limits, independently of domestic rules, tends to ensure legal certainty, proper administration of justice and thus, the practical and effective functioning of the Convention mechanism (ibid., § 56). The Court sees no reason to deviate from this rule, as requested by the applicants, in the instant case (see paragraph 6 above). 9.     The Court notes that the judgment of the North Central Administrative Court of 27 November 2020 was notified to the applicants on 29 January 2021 (see paragraph 5 above), while the present applications were lodged with the Court on 24 August 2021 (see the appended table). The final domestic decision within the meaning of Article   35 §   1 of the Convention, as applicable before the entry into force of Article 4 of Protocol No. 15, was thus taken more than six months before the date on which the complaints were submitted to the Court. Accordingly, the applications have been submitted out of time. 10.     It follows that they must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 11 May 2023.     Crina Kaufman   Armen Harutyunyan   Acting Deputy Registrar   President Appendix List of cases     Application no. Applicant Year of birth Date of Submission Representative 43553/21 Araújo Ramos 1961 24/08/2021   Joana Miranda   43577/21 Alves Nascimento 1961 43654/21 Da Cruz Caneja 1974 43679/21 Correia dos Santos 1987 43686/21 Fernandes Lima 1976 43691/21 Dias Esteves 1978 43740/21 da Silva Rodrigues 1963 43748/21 Outeiro Pinto 1974 43750/21 Pereira Varajão 1991 43752/21 Ribeiro Matos 1969 43754/21 Vieira Afonso Bamba 1972 43759/21 Pedra Bento Alves 1967 43761/21 Carvalho Silva 1987 43763/21 Lima Silva 1972 43768/21 Mota Gomes Miranda 1986