CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 juin 2024

.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 } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s3E39F0D2 { width:24.22pt; display:inline-block } .sED722BC { width:153.78pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s24042D6D { width:96.74%; border-collapse:collapse } .s8B79EBE5 { width:7.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s4C194055 { width:24.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3BFFF931 { width:39.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7FED21F9 { width:28.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s92272973 { width:7.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s895F2355 { width:24.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1E7BBBD { width:39.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC9C42B9E { width:28.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBA32C63A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 34876/17 and 49317/17 Ana Maria XAVIER TRINDADE against Portugal and Alda da Conceição COSTA FONTES against Portugal   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18   June 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Tim Eicke , President ,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Simeon Petrovski, 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 dates indicated therein; the decision to give notice of the applications to the Portuguese Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Ms   M.F.   da   Graça Carvalho, Deputy Attorney General, and, after 1   September 2022, Mr Ricardo Bragança de Matos, Public Prosecutor; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1 .     The case concerns the difference in salaries of the applicants, two public prosecutors recruited through a special training course for public prosecutors, compared to salaries of magistrates recruited through a special training course for judges in administrative and tax courts and to those of judges and public prosecutors recruited through the general training course. Relying on Articles 4 and 14 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No.   12 to the Convention, the applicants allege that the difference complained of was unjustified and amounted to discrimination. 2 .     In order to reduce the shortage of magistrates, on 9   May 2003 Law no.   7-A/2003 (“the Law”) entered into force introducing a transitional regime from 10 May 2003 to 31 December 2004. Section 2 of the Law provided for an exceptional recruitment procedure without aptitude tests, which was open, inter alia , to lawyers who had worked as substitute public prosecutors for at least a year. Section 4 § 2 of the Law prescribed that the special training course would last nine months. On 13 May 2003, under that provision, the General Prosecutor’s Office published announcements for seventy posts of magistrates in the Public Prosecution’s Office under that special training course. 3 .     On 15 September 2003 the applicants were admitted to the mentioned special training course and from that date onwards, they obtained a scholarship equivalent to 50% of the remuneration index no. 100 of the chart appended to the Public Prosecutor’s Statute (hereinafter “index no.   100”), as prescribed in section 3 of the Law. 4.     On 26 January 2004 they were appointed as trainee deputy public prosecutors and their salary was paid under the index no. 100, the first and lowest index of the chart, corresponding to the step “admission”. 5 .     With a decision of 12 July 2004, they were appointed deputy public prosecutors with full competence, and were assigned to different public prosecutors’ offices. They continued to be remunerated under the index no.   100 until 15 September 2006, the date when they obtained three years of working experience and had their salary paid under remuneration index no.   135 of the chart appended to the Public Prosecutor’s Statute (hereinafter “index no.   135”) applicable to judges and public prosecutors recruited through the general training course as well as to magistrates recruited through the special training course for judges of the administrative and tax courts. 6.     On 27 May 2008 both applicants lodged administrative actions with the Administrative and Tax Courts of Mirandela and Porto, respectively, submitting that their salary should have been paid in accordance with index no.   135 from 12 July 2004, the date of their appointment as deputy public prosecutors with full competence (see paragraph 5 above). The applicants also submitted that they had been treated differently in relation to other magistrates who received salary under index no. 135 from the date of their appointment with full competence. 7 .     On 26 September 2011 and 22 October 2015 both the Administrative and Tax Court of Porto and the North Central Administrative Court ruled in favour of the second applicant. 8 .     On 27 February 2013 the Administrative and Tax Court of Mirandela dismissed the first applicant’s claim. On 17 April 2015, following an appeal by the first applicant, the North Central Administrative Court overturned the lower court’s judgment and accepted her claim. 9 .     On 3 November 2016 and 11 January 2017 respectively, the Administrative Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the public prosecutor and dismissed the applicants’ claims. It observed that index no.   100 corresponded to salary scale at “admission” level, while index no.   135 was applicable after “three years of working experience”. It further noted that no legal provision provided for an automatic inclusion of recently appointed deputy public prosecutors in the category “three years of working experience – index no. 135”. It also held that access to the public prosecution’s service did not entail an automatic salary increase and that “trainee deputy public prosecutor” was not an autonomous career step within that service. 10 .     The applicants complained that the salary which they had received from 12 July 2004 (see paragraph 5 above) until they had three years of working experience, was lower than the salary that judges, public prosecutors and magistrates received under index no. 135 from the date of their appointment in office with full competence (see paragraph 5 above). They submitted that such situation amounted to forced labour and discrimination in breach of Articles 4 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   12. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 11.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 12.     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), will examine the applicants’ complaints solely from the standpoint of Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention ( see, mutatis mutandis , Fábián v. Hungary [GC], no.   78117/13, §   100, 5 September 2017, and Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, §§   81-83, ECHR 2011). 13 .     The Court must first determine whether Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is applicable in the instant case. In this connection it reiterates that a claim may be regarded as an “asset” and enjoy the protection of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention only where it has a sufficient basis in national law, for example where there is settled case-law of the domestic courts confirming its existence (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 52, ECHR 2004-IX; Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 65, ECHR 2007-I; and Saumier v. France , no. 74734/14, § 45, 12 January 2017). 14.     However, no legitimate expectation can be said to arise where there is a dispute as to the correct interpretation and application of domestic law and the applicant’s submissions are subsequently rejected by the national courts (see Kopecký , cited above, § 50, and Anheuser-Busch Inc , cited above, § 65). 15.     The Supreme Administrative Court found that no legal provision provided for an automatic inclusion of recently appointed deputy public prosecutors, such as the applicants, in the category “three years of working experience – index no. 135”. It also held that access to the public prosecution’s service did not entail an automatic salary increase (see paragraph 9 above). 16.     The Court reiterates that the interpretation of domestic law is a matter for the domestic courts, which are the best placed to interpret and apply domestic law. The Court’s supervisory jurisdiction is limited to ensuring that that application and interpretation are compatible with the requirements of the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, §§   28-29, ECHR 1999-I, and Pla and Puncernau v. Andorra , no. 69498/01, §   46, 13   July 2004). In the present case it does not find that the interpretation made by the domestic courts is unreasonable, arbitrary or blatantly inconsistent with the principles underlying the Convention (see, a contrario, Glor v.   Switzerland , no. 13444/04, § 91, ECHR 2009). 17.     In view of the above, the Court concludes that the applicants did not have a “legitimate expectation” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention to receive the increment sought, since their claim did not have a sufficient basis in national law or domestic case-law. Accordingly, the facts of the case do not fall within the ambit of this provision. 18.     In view of this conclusion and noting that Article 14 of the Convention has no independent existence, the Court considers that Article   14 cannot apply in the instant case. 19.     It follows that the complaint under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §   4 of the Convention (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no.   39794/98, §§ 68 et 76, ECHR 2002 VII, and Dobrowolski and Others v.   Poland (dec.) nos. 45651/11, 68650/11 and others, § 31, 13 March 2018). For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 11 July 2024.     Simeon Petrovski   Tim Eicke   Deputy Registrar   President Appendix List of cases No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality   Representative’s name Location 1. 34876/17 Xavier Trindade v.   Portugal 26/04/2017 Ana Maria XAVIER TRINDADE 1970 Vila Real Portuguese   Catarina BOTELHO Coimbra 2. 49317/17 Costa Fontes v.   Portugal 28/06/2017 Alda da Conceição COSTA FONTES 1968 Porto Portuguese   Catarina BOTELHO Coimbra