CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 octobre 2003

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 57 October 2003 Roseiro Bento v. Portugal (dec.) - 29288/02 Decision 23.10.2003 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Limitation on the right of appeal with regard to the value of the claim: inadmissible The applicant was prosecuted for remarks made, in the exercise of his functions as mayor, towards a municipal councillor at a municipal council meeting. The applicant granted amnesty with regard to the criminal charge against him. The proceedings were pursued so that the plaintiff’s claim for damages could be examined. The court found that the remarks complained of could be construed as insults which had caused injury, justifying payment to the plaintiff of 200,000 Portuguese escudos (about 1,000 euros). The applicant lodged an appeal. The Court of Appeal declared the appeal inadmissible, holding that under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, appeals against the section of a judgment dealing with damages could be declared admissible only if the sum due in this regard was above a certain threshold. Subsequent appeals lodged by the applicant were unsuccessful.   Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: The applicant complained under Article 13 about the inadmissibility of his appeals, but the complaint fell to be examined under Article 6. That Article did not preclude a national system for regulating access to the appeal courts. Accordingly, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, the State could limit access to the appeal courts, so as to avoid the latter becoming overloaded with cases of lesser importance: manifestly ill-founded. Communicated under Article 10.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes