CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 juillet 2000

.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 20 July 2000 Moura Carreira and Lourenço Carreira v. Portugal (dec.) - 41237/98 Decision 6.7.2000 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Proceedings concerning an action against a court decision imposing a interlocutory measure: Article 6 inapplicable In 1978 the courts made an interim order against the applicants prohibiting them from disposing of their shares in a limited company following a protective application by members of the same company. The latter claimed that the applicants had failed to honour a promise to sell their shares. The applicants appealed against that decision and also claimed damages from their fellow-members. Their claim for damages was dismissed. In June 1997 their appeal was dismissed; the decision was notified to them in July 1997. In November 1997 the courts decided to terminate the objection to the protective order in view of the outcome of the main proceedings. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: The present application was out of time in so far as it related to the main proceedings, namely the claim for damages. As regards the proceedings to have the protective decision set aside, Article 6 does not apply to protective proceedings in respect of an interim order. Such proceedings seek to govern a temporary situation pending a decision on the main issue and therefore do not resolve civil rights and obligations. The proceedings in question could only lead to the confirmation or annulment of the protective measure or a change in the form in which the latter measure should to be pronounced. The question of the failure to honour the promise to sell was only resolved in the main proceedings. The outcome of the objection proceedings was therefore not decisive for a civil right and Article 6 § 1 therefore does not apply: incompatible ratione materiae .   © 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