CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sC15B9494 { width:135.04%; border-collapse:collapse } .s78792F9F { width:7.14%; 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 } .sDC175EC3 { width:21.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3DC33046 { width:41.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3A138DC3 { width:30%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE60CA728 { width:7.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1733C187 { width:21.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8E93697E { width:41.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s74DABE7C { width:30%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 14 November 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 56456/17 Ana Paula SALGUEIRO FERREIRA and Others against Portugal and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 27 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are public prosecutors who held positions at Lisbon Civil Court and Lisbon Family Court at the material time. Following an order emanating from their hierarchy, from 20   September 2001 to 30 June 2010, 14 September 2000 to 30 June 2010, 12 May 2003 to 29   October 2008 (first, second and third applicant of application no.   56456/17), 19 September 2000 to 30 June 2010 (application no.   57755/17) and 15 January 1999 to 1 July 2010 (application no.   25919/21), in addition to their functions, they were in charge of part of the criminal investigations attributed to the Public Prosecution Office. The applicants lodged administrative actions claiming that they were accumulating functions and that consequently their salaries should include the payment of compensation provided for in sections 79 § 1 in conjunction with 136 § 1 of the Public Prosecutor’s Statute. On 6 June 2016, 18 July 2016 and 23 June 2020, respectively, the Central Administrative Court ruled against them. On 1 February 2017 (application no. 56456/17), 6 February 2017 (application no. 57755/17) and 14   January 2021 (application no 25919/21) respectively, the Administrative Supreme Court rejected their appeals for judicial review. Relying on Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   12 to the Convention, the applicants claimed they were cumulating functions within the meaning of Section 79 § 1 of the Public Prosecutor’s Statute without being paid for it as established in section 63 of the Public Prosecutor’s Statute. Therefore they complained of the unjustified difference between their salaries and those of other public prosecutors who were considered to be cumulating functions and were paid accordingly. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Have the applicants suffered discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?   1.     In particular, have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment, when compared to other public prosecutors who were considered to have been attributed additional functions within the meaning of Section 79 §   1 of the Public Prosecutor’s Statute and therefore paid under section 63 of the Public Prosecutor’s Statute (see Biao v. Denmark [GC], no. 38590/10, §   89, 24 May 2016; Fábián v. Hungary [GC], no. 78117/13, §§ 113 and 121, 5 September 2017; Prigent v. France (dec.), no. 20817/02, 10 May 2005 and   7   June 2005; and Beeckman and Others v. Belgium (dec.), no. 34952/07, §   24, 18   September 2018)?   2.     If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and did it have reasonable justification (see Biao , cited above, §§   90-93; Fábián , cited above, §§ 65 and 127, Graziani-Weiss v. Austria , no. 31950/06, §§   56-57, 18   October 2011; Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal , no.   17484/15, §   47, 25 July 2017; and Beeckman and Others , cited above, §§   27-28)? No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Representative’s name Location 1. 56456/17 Salgueiro Ferreira and Others v.   Portugal 24/07/2017 Ana Paula SALGUEIRO FERREIRA 1961 Lisbon Portuguese José António VAZ PIRES 1968 Lisbon Portuguese Ana Paula MORAIS DE AMARAL FRANCO 1956 Lisbon Portuguese Joana MAGALHÃES   SILVA Lisbon 2. 57755/17 Neves Nobre Hipólito v.   Portugal 31/07/2017 Lídia Esmeralda NEVES NOBRE HIPÓLITO 1964 Lisbon Portuguese Joana MAGALHÃES   SILVA Lisbon 3. 25919/21 Vieira Alves Janeiro v.   Portugal 14/05/2021 Cristina Maria VIEIRA ALVES JANEIRO 1958 Lisbon Portuguese Joana MAGALHÃES   SILVA Lisbon