CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 janvier 2024

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 29 January 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 4656/19 Carlos Alexandre CORREIA CARTAGENO against Portugal lodged on 11 January 2019 communicated on 10 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was a member of the Guarda Nacional Republicana police force (GNR) at the material time. On 14 March 2008, during a traffic control operation, he arrested a Brazilian woman because she failed to present a valid residence permit. He took her to the GNR headquarters and later on released her without drawing up any file or communicating the incident to the Foreigners and Borders Service (the Serviço de Estrangeiros e Fronteiras - SEF). These circumstances eventually gave rise to investigation proceedings initiated by the Public Prosecution Office and disciplinary proceedings instructed by the GNR, which were stayed while the criminal investigation was pending. On 30 June 2010, by a decision of the Criminal Court of Mafra, the applicant was convicted of prevarication and thus sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment, commuted to a fine in the amount of EUR 1,890. An ancillary penalty of prohibition of performance of duties ( proibição do exercício de funções ) was not imposed on the applicant. On 23 March 2011, following an appeal by the applicant, the Lisbon Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. On 11 July 2011 the disciplinary proceedings were resumed and by a decision of the Minister for Home Affairs of 12 March 2012, relying on the facts established in the criminal proceedings, a sanction of compulsory retirement was imposed on the applicant for having compromised the prestige and reputation of the GNR. On 31 May 2016 the Porto Administrative and Tax Court upheld the decision. On 22 September 2017 the Central Administrative Court of the North dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant. On 5 July 2018 the Administrative Supreme Court dismissed a further appeal lodged by the applicant. The applicant was notified of the judgment on 13 July 2018. The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention about the disciplinary proceedings against him. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention   1.1.     Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the applicant? In particular, did the proceedings concern a dispute over a right which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law and which is civil in nature (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no.   76639/11, § 44 and §§ 51-52, 25 September 2018)?   1.2.     If so, did the applicant have a fair determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the right to a fair hearing respected as regards the decision’s reasoning and the proportionality of the sanction (see Perez v. France [GC], no.   47287/99, §§ 80-81, ECHR 2004-I; and Carmel Saliba v. Malta , no.   24221/13, §§ 65-66 and 73, 29 November 2016)?   2.     Complaint under Article 8 of the Convention   2.1.     Is Article 8 of the Convention applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the reasons for the applicant’s dismissal and the consequences of that dismissal for his private life ( see Denisov , cited above, §§   115-117 ; and, mutatis mutandis , Pişkin v Turkey , no. 33399/18, §§   172-178, 15   December 2020)?   2.2.     In the affirmative, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention on account of the disciplinary proceedings conducted against him? Was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 in view of the disciplinary sanction imposed on the applicant?