[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> OLIVEIRA NEVES v. PORTUGAL - 11612/85 [1989] ECHR 8 (25 May 1989) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1989/8.html Cite as: [1989] ECHR 8, (1991) 13 EHRR 576

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

In the Oliveira Neves case*,

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with

Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and the

relevant provisions of the Rules of Court, as a Chamber composed

of the following judges:

Mr R. Ryssdal, President,

Mr J. Cremona,

Mrs D. Bindschedler-Robert,

Mr F. Gölcüklü,

Mr J. Pinheiro Farinha,

Mr A. Spielmann,

Mr S.K. Martens,

and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr H. Petzold, Deputy

Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 23 May 1989,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the

last- mentioned date:

_______________

* Note by the Registrar. The case is numbered 5/1989/165/221.

The first number is the case's position on the list of cases

referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number). The

last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of

cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of

the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

_______________

PROCEDURE

1. The case was referred to the Court by the European

Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 16 March 1989,

within the three-month period laid down in Article 32 para. 1 and

Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated

in an application (no. 11612/85) against the Republic of Portugal

lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by

Mrs Maria de Conceiçao Oliveira Neves, a Portuguese national, on

11 June 1985.

The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44,

art. 48) of the Convention and to the declaration whereby

Portugal recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court

(Article 46) (art. 46). The object of the request was to obtain

a decision from the Court as to whether there had been a breach

by the respondent State of its obligations under

Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).

2. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio

Mr J. Pinheiro Farinha, the elected judge of Portuguese

nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and

Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b) of

the Rules of Court). On 30 March 1989, in the presence of the

Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other five

members, namely Mr J. Cremona, Mrs D. Bindschedler-Robert,

Mr F. Gölcüklü, Mr A. Spielmann and Mr S.K. Martens (Article 43

in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).

3. By a letter of 30 March 1989, the Agent of the Government

communicated to the Registrar the terms of a friendly settlement

reached with the applicant (see paragraph 10 below). At the same

time he asked the Court whether it could accept this arrangement

and, accordingly, strike the case out of its list pursuant to

Rule 48 para. 2.

On 3 April 1989 the applicant's lawyer confirmed the agreement in

question.

The Delegate of the Commission was consulted and stated, on

17 April, that he did not wish to make any observations.

AS TO THE FACTS

4. Mrs Maria de Conceiçao Oliveira Neves, a Portuguese

national born in 1932, is a poultry dealer and resides at Vila

Nova de Gaia (Portugal).

5. On 13 March 1979 she dismissed an employee whom she had

engaged in October 1976, Mrs Maria Rosa Silva.

On 25 March 1980 her former employee instituted proceedings

against her in the fifth chamber (juizo) of the Oporto Labour

Court, composed of a single judge. She alleged that her

dismissal was void because there had been no prior disciplinary

procedure. In addition, she claimed 201,200 escudos in arrears

of salary and various amounts payable in compensation.

6. On 10 April 1980 the judge ordered that the applicant be

summonsed. She submitted her observations in reply within the

time-limit laid down.

On 2 May 1980 the registrar of the Labour Court transmitted the

file to the judge in preparation for the preliminary decision

(despacho saneador) and in order to determine the facts to be

clarified at the hearing (questionàrio).

7. On 10 April 1982 the judge informed the parties that, in

view of the amount claimed, the case could be dealt with under a

summary procedure. He gave them eight days to submit their lists

of witnesses.

On 14 March 1985 he set down the hearing for 11 April. On that

date he gave his decision, finding for Mrs Silva; at the same

time he ruled that certain of the sums awarded should be

calculated in subsequent proceedings.

The defendant did not lodge an appeal.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

8. In her application of 11 June 1985 to the Commission

(no. 11612/85), Mrs Oliveira Neves complained of the length of

the proceedings instituted against her in the Oporto Labour

Court. She relied on Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the

Convention.

9. The Commission declared the application admissible on

17 December 1987. In its report of 15 December 1988 (Article 31)

(art. 31), it expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been

a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). The full text of

its opinion is reproduced as an annex to this judgment1.

_______________

1 Note by the Registrar: For technical reasons this annex will

appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume

153-B of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy

of the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.

_______________

AS TO THE LAW

10. The Government and the applicant have reached the

following friendly settlement (see paragraph 3 above):

"... Article 1 - Mrs Oliveira Neves agrees to accept the sum of

1,300,000 (one million three hundred thousand) escudos as

compensation from the Portuguese Government, constituting full

and final reparation for all the material and non-material damage

alleged in this case and also covering all the lawyers' fees and

other costs incurred.

Article 2 - Mrs Oliveira Neves undertakes, subject to the payment

of the aforementioned sum, not to proceed with the case pending

before the Court and not to institute any subsequent proceedings

in this connection against the Portuguese State, in the domestic

or international courts.

Article 3 - Mrs Oliveira Neves accepts that this sum of 1,300,000

(one million three hundred thousand) escudos will be paid by the

Portuguese Government immediately following the decision of the

European Court of Human Rights to strike the case out of its list

pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 of the Rules of Court."

The Government invited the Court to approve this settlement in

accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 of the Rules of Court, which

provides as follows:

"When the Chamber is informed of a friendly settlement ... it

may, after consulting, if necessary, ... the Delegates of the

Commission ..., strike the case out of the list."

The Commission's Delegate has been consulted and has raised no

objection (see paragraph 3 above).

11. The Court takes formal note of the friendly settlement

reached by the Government and the applicant. It would

nevertheless be open to the Court, having regard to its

responsibilities under Article 19 (art. 19) of the Convention, to

decide to continue its examination of the case if a reason of

public policy appeared to necessitate such a course (Rule 48

para. 4). However, it finds no such reason.

In this connection, the Court notes that it has had to review the

"reasonableness" of the length of "civil" proceedings, in

Portugal (see the following judgments, Guincho, 10 July 1984;

Baraona, 8 July 1987; Martins Moreira, 26 October 1988 and

Neves e Silva, 27 April 1989; Series A nos. 81, 122, 143 and

153-A respectively), and in other countries (see the following

judgments, König, 28 June 1978; Buchholz, 6 May 1981; Zimmermann

and Steiner, 13 July 1983; Pretto and Others, 8 December 1983;

Deumeland, 29 May 1986; Erkner and Hofauer, 23 April 1987; Poiss,

23 April 1987; Lechner and Hess, 23 April 1987; Capuano,

25 June 1987; H. v. United Kingdom, 8 July 1987 and Bock,

29 March 1989; Series A nos. 27, 42, 66, 71, 100, 117-B, 117-C,

118, 119-A, 120-B and 150). In so doing, it clarified the nature

and extent of the obligations undertaken in this area by the

Contracting States.

Accordingly, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the

list.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

Decides to strike the case out of the list.

Done in English and in French, and notified in writing under

Rule 54 para. 2, second sub-paragraph, of the Rules of Court, on

25 May 1989.

Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL

President

Signed: Marc-André EISSEN

Registrar