FIRST SECTION
CASE OF MENDES v. PORTUGAL
(Application no. 49185/13)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 October 2014
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mendes v. Portugal,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, President,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Ksenija Turković, judges,
and Søren Prebensen, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 October 2014,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 49185/13) 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 Abílio Correia Mendes (“the applicant”), on 30 July 2013.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr A. Alves, a lawyer practising in Braga (Portugal). The Portuguese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. F. da Graça Carvalho, Deputy-Attorney General.
3. On 1 October 2013 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Barcelos (Portugal).
5. On 21 September 2007 the applicant lodged a request to be granted permanent disability with respect to work before the Public Prosecutor of the Barcelos Labour Court as a consequence of a labour accident that he had suffered (domestic proceedings no. 697/07.0TTBCL).
6. Following the applicant’s request, the Public Prosecutor initiated the conciliatory stage of the proceedings with a view to an agreement between the parties.
7. On 12 February 2008 the applicant was submitted to a medical examination in accordance with a Public Prosecutor’s order. After the examination, other medical specialty exams were requested by the Public Prosecutor.
8. The hearing with a view to the agreement took place on 19 January and continued on 26 February 2009. On this date the conciliatory stage ended without an agreement between the parties.
9. On 18 March 2009 the applicant requested the Barcelos Labour Court to continue with the judicial stage of the proceedings against the insurance company and his employer.
10. Between 12 May 2009 and 18 April 2010 several procedural steps took place, mostly notifications, a preliminary hearing, medical examinations and provision of information from the parties and others to the Labour Court.
11. The hearing started on 7 May 2010 and continued on 11 and 18 October 2010.
12. On 16 November 2010 the Barcelos Labour Court delivered its decision, which was challenged by the applicant’s employer.
13. On 30 January 2012 the Court of Appeal adopted its decision. The applicant appealed against it.
14. On 30 January 2013 the proceedings ended with the judgement of the Supreme Court of Justice.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
15. At the material time, Article 26 of the Code of Labour Procedure provided:
“Actions emerging from labour accidents and from occupational diseases are of an urgent nature (...)”
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
16. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which 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...”
17. The Government contested that argument.
18. The period to be taken into consideration began on 21 September 2007 and ended on 31 January 2013. It thus lasted five years and four months for three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
19. 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
20. The Government argued that the proceedings had not been subject to a delay and that their length had not exceeded what would legitimately be expected.
21. 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 many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). The Court further reiterates that special diligence is necessary in labour disputes (Ruotolo v. Italy, judgment of 27 February 1992, Series A no. 230-D, p. 39, § 17).
22. The Court firstly notes that the proceedings lasted one year and five months at the conciliatory stage. It also observes that the global length of the proceedings lasted five years and three months for three levels of jurisdiction. It further notes that the case was not particularly complex and it points out the particular urgent nature of the proceedings, which required a speedy resolution of the applicant’s case.
23. In this regard, the Court observes that the Government did not supply any justification for the duration of the conciliatory stage, which seems manifestly excessive since it aimed at a possible agreement between the parties.
24. In these circumstances, the Court considers that in the instant case the global length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
25. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
26. 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
27. The applicant claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
28. The Government contested the claim.
29. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non‑pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards award him EUR 975 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
30. The applicant also claimed EUR 1,230 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
31. The Government left the matter to the Court’s discretion.
32. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers that the sum claimed should be awarded in full.
C. Default interest
33. 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:
(i) EUR 975 (nine hundred and seventy five euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,230 (one thousand two hundred and thirty 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 30 October 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren PrebensenMirjana Lazarova Trajkovska
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy