CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 mars 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .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 } .sC34A0A87 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt; color:#474747 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 40239/23 COMUNIDADE ISRAELITA DO PORTO/COMUNIDADE JUDAICA DO PORTO against Portugal   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18   March 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Tim Eicke , President ,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins,   András Jakab , judges , and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   40239/23) 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”) on 7   November 2023 by Comunidade Israelita do Porto/Comunidade Judaica do Porto (Jewish Community of Oporto – “the applicant association”), an association founded in 1923 and based in Oporto, which was represented by Mr H. Katz, a lawyer practising in Jerusalem; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns criminal proceedings brought against D.L, Rabbi of the Oporto Synagogue ( Sinagoga do Porto ) , and the situation of the Jewish community in Portugal. The applicant association invokes Articles 3, 6, 9, 13 and 14 of the Convention. 2.     The applicant association is registered under Portuguese law. It represents the Jewish community in Oporto and manages the city’s synagogue. 3.     On 10 March 2022 D.L. was arrested on suspicion of corruption and money laundering in relation to declarations issued by him recognising the Sephardic Jewish heritage of people applying for Portuguese nationality, provided for by Decree-Law no. 30-A/2015 of 27 February 2015. 4.     On an unknown date an investigating judge at the Lisbon Central Investigation Court (hereinafter “the investigating judge”) ordered D.L.’s release and that he provide information on his identity and place of residence ( termo de identidade e residencia ) and report to a police station three times a week. On 27 September 2022 the Lisbon Court of Appeal allowed an appeal lodged by D.L. against that decision in part. It overturned the obligation for him to report to a police station but maintained the obligation to provide information on his identity and place of residence. 5.     On 14 February 2024 the Prosecutor General’s Office at the Supreme Court discontinued the investigation into a criminal complaint lodged by the applicant association against the investigating judge. 6.     Criminal proceedings against D.L. are still pending at domestic level. 7 .     Relying on Articles 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant association complained that D.L.’s detention had been unlawful, that the investigating judge had not been independent and impartial and that there had been no effective remedy for those complaints. 8 .     Relying on Articles 3, 9, and 14 of the Convention, the applicant association also alleged that the members of its religious community were being targeted, prosecuted and discriminated against in Portugal. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT Complaints under Articles 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention 9.     In order to be able to lodge an application in accordance with Article   34 of the Convention, a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals must be able to show that he, she, it or they have been “directly affected” by the measure complained of or provide a written authority to act under the Rule 45 § 3 of the Rules of Court (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 96, ECHR 2014 ). Only in exceptional circumstances and in cases of allegations of a serious nature should it be open to associations to represent victims, in the absence of a power of attorney and notwithstanding that the victim may have died before the application was lodged under the Convention (ibid.§ 112, and Lambert and Others v. France [GC], no. 46043/14, § 102, ECHR 2015 (extracts)). 10.     In the present case, the application was lodged by the applicant association and not by D.L., the person directly affected by the measure complained of. Moreover, the applicant association did not provide any valid form of authority to show that it had received specific and explicit instructions from him and on whose behalf it purported to act before the Court. 11.     The Court discerns no exceptional circumstances in the present case that would allow the applicant association to act in the name and on behalf of D.L. without a duly signed written authority (compare Isakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 52286/14, §§ 42-43, 5 July 2016 and contrast Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu , cited above, § 103) and concludes that the applicant association does not have standing to lodge the application in the name and on behalf of D.L. 12.     Furthermore, there is nothing in the case file to demonstrate - nor has the applicant association argued - that it was directly affected by the facts complained of (see Nencheva and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 48609/06, §§   90 and 92-93, 18 June 2013). 13.     Accordingly, these complaints are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3   (a) and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4. Remaining complaints 14.     The Court reiterates that the Convention does not provide for the institution of an actio popularis . In other words, it does not permit individuals or groups of individuals to complain about national law and practice in abstracto simply because they consider, without having been directly affected by it, that it may contravene the Convention (see , mutatis mutandis, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland [ GC], no. 53600/20, §§   460-64, 9 April 2024 ). In order to be able to claim victim status, applicants must produce reasonable and convincing evidence of the likelihood that a violation affecting them personally will occur; mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient in this respect (see   Fenech v. Malta , no. 19090/20, §   101, 1   March 2022, and Zambrano   v. France (dec.), no.   41994/21, §   42, 21   September 2021). 15.     In the present case, the applicant association did not provide the Court with any individual particulars, such as the specific domestic law, practice or public acts complained of, to allow the Court to conduct an individual assessment of its situation or that of its members. These complaints are therefore of a rather general nature. 16.     It follows that they relate to an actio popularis and are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 10 April 2025.     Simeon Petrovski   Tim Eicke   Deputy Registrar   President