PEREIRA SANTOS v. PORTUGAL - 30532/12 - Committee Judgment [2014] ECHR 110 (04 February 2014)

In the case of Pereira Santos v. Portugal,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Dragoljub Popović, President,
          Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
          Helen Keller, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 14 January 2014,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 30532/12) against the Portuguese Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Portuguese national, Mr César Manuel Pereira Santos (“the applicant”), on 16 May 2012.

2. The applicant was represented by Mr B. Reis, a lawyer practising in Lisbonne. The Portuguese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs. M. F. Graça de Carvalho, Deputy-Attorney General.

3. On 17 October 2012 the application was communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4. The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Mem Martins (Portugal).

5. The applicant is a former employee of G.N., a media company which entailed a collective dismissal in 2009. The applicant was dismissed on 4 May 2009.

6. On 27 October 2009 he brought an action against the company before the Labour Court of Lisbon (ação especial de impugnação do despedimento colectivo), seeking his reintegration and the payment of extra workload, (domestic proceedings no. 2150/09.9TTLSB-A).

7. On 16 March 2010 his case was joint to others related to the same collective dismissal.

8. On 25 October 2010 the applicant sent a letter to the court drawing its attention to the existence of a delay in the proceedings. The court replied on 26 October 2010 saying that some parties in the proceedings still had to be summoned.

9. Between 4 February 2011 and 9 May 2011 the labour court and the parties in the proceedings appointed experts to give technical assistance in the proceedings, as established by law.

10. On 6 September 2011 the experts presented their report.

11. On 31 October 2011 a preliminary hearing took place.

12. On 15 November 2011 the applicant contested the expert’s report. On 2 December 2012 the court notified the experts and on 9 February 2012 granted more 30 days for the submission of their observations.

13. On 27 March the applicant was notified of the experts’ reply and submitted his observations on 26 April 2012.

14. On 11 October 2012 the applicant informed the labour court that he had reached an agreement with the company. On 22 October 2012 the labour court endorsed the agreement.

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6§ 1 OF THE CONVENTION

15. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been excessive, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal ...”

A. Admissibility

16. The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

17. The period to be taken into consideration began on 27 October 2009 and ended on 22 October 2012. The overall length of the proceedings lasted two years, eleven months and twenty-six for one level of jurisdiction.

18. The Government submitted that the proceedings had been complex and, therefore, the delay in the proceedings had been justified. Consequently, the application was manifestly ill-founded.

19. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). The Court further stresses that special diligence is necessary in employment disputes (Ruotolo v. Italy, § 17, judgment of 27 February 1992, Series A no. 230-D, p. 39,).

20. The Court observes that the subject matter of the dispute concerned an ordinary labour law dispute in which the applicant’s employment or important features thereof were at stake. In this connection, taking into account the nature of labour proceedings, the Court considers that the total length of the proceedings cannot be regarded as reasonable.

21. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

22. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A. Damage

23. The applicant claimed 43,663.63 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 5,996.94 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

24. The Government contested the claims.

25. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage

B. Costs and expenses

26. The applicant also claimed EUR 4,640.66 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and before the Court.

27. The Government contested the claim.

28. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings and considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,000 for the proceedings before the Court.

C. Default interest

29. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the application admissible;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

3. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 February 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Fatoş Aracı Dragoljub Popović
Acting Deputy Registrar President

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> PEREIRA SANTOS v. PORTUGAL - 30532/12 - Committee Judgment [2014] ECHR 110 (04 February 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2014/110.html Cite as: [2014] ECHR 110