SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 60419/09
Jorge de Jesus FERREIRA ALVES
against Portugal
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Helen Keller, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 November 2009,
Having regard to the comments submitted by the Portuguese Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Jorge de Jesus Ferreira Alves, is a Portuguese national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Matosinhos (Portugal). He was represented before the Court by Ms F. Mota, a lawyer practising in Matosinhos.
2. The Portuguese Government (“The Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. F. Graça de Carvalho, Deputy Attorney General.
The circumstances of the case
1) Disciplinary proceedings no. 36/2004
3. On 6 February 2004 the Ethics Council of Porto (Conselho Deontológico do Porto) of the Portuguese Bar Association (Ordem dos Advogados) instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant following a complaint introduced against him by a client for breach of professional secrecy on 16 September 2002.
4. On 24 July 2009 the case was dismissed because it had become time-barred.
2) Application no. 30316/09 before the Court
5. On 5 June 2009 the applicant had lodged an application with the Court in which he also complained about the length of disciplinary proceedings no. 36/2004 before the Portuguese Bar Association.
6. On 23 February 2010 the Court, having regard to the friendly-settlement reached by the applicant and the Government, decided to strike out the application out of its list of cases. The Court’s decision reads, in so far as relevant:
“(...) Par ces déclarations, le Gouvernement s’est engagé à verser au requérant les sommes de 3 800 (trois mille huit cents) euros pour dommage moral et 1 500 (mille cinq cents) euros pour frais et dépens ; le requérant a renoncé à toute autre prétention à l’encontre du Portugal à propos des faits à l’origine de sa requête. (...)”
COMPLAINTS
7. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the disciplinary proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. He also complained, under Article 13 of the Convention, that he had not had an effective remedy in this respect.
8. The applicant raised other complaints under Articles 6 § 2, 7 and 8 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. These complaints are linked to the same proceedings in respect of which he complains about the excessive length.
THE LAW
A. Alleged violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention
9. The Government raised a preliminary objection based on an abuse of the right of petition, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. They submitted that the applicant had already lodged application no. 30316/09 with the Court concerning the same disciplinary proceedings. In that regard, they further alleged that the applicant had signed a friendly-settlement in which he had agreed to waive any further claims in respect of the facts concerned.
10. The Court reiterates that any conduct of an applicant that is manifestly contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application as provided for in the Convention and impedes the proper functioning of the Court or the proper conduct of the proceedings before it constitutes an abuse of the right of application (see Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, no. 798/05, §§ 62 and 65, 15 September 2009).
11. An applicant abuses the right of application where he or she repeatedly lodges vexatious and manifestly ill-founded applications with the Court that are similar to an application that he or she has lodged in the past that has already been declared inadmissible (M. v. United Kingdom, no 13284/87, Commission decision of 15 October 1987, Decisions and Reports 54, and Philis v. Greece, no 28970/95, Commission decision of 17 October 1996).
12. The Court also recalls that an application may be rejected as abusive if incomplete and therefore misleading information was submitted to the Court (see, among others, Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006; and Basileo v. Italy, (dec.) no. 11303/02, 23 August 2011). Similarly, an application can be rejected as abusive if applicants – despite their obligation under Article 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court – fail to inform the Court about new important developments regarding their pending applications given that such conduct prevents the Court from ruling on the matter in full knowledge of the facts (see Bekauri v. Georgia, (dec.) no. 14102/02, §§ 21-23, 10 April 2012).
13. Further, the Court underlines that according to Rule 44 A of the Rules of Court: “The parties have a duty to cooperate fully in the conduct of the proceedings and, in particular, to take such action within their power as the Court considers necessary for the proper administration of justice...”.
14. In the present application, the Court notes that the applicant lodged with the Court, at different times, two separate applications complaining about the length of the same disciplinary proceedings (see above §§ 2 and 4). The Court also observes that the applicant, while lodging the present application, omitted to inform it that application no. 30316/09 was pending before the Court and, later, that it had been struck out of the list of cases following a friendly settlement with the Government.
15. The Court considers that the applicant and his representative submitted incomplete and therefore misleading information to it and that such conduct impeded the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court.
16. Furthermore, the Court recalls that when the applicant signed the declaration for a friendly settlement, he agreed to waive any further claims against Portugal in respect of the facts giving rise to application no. 30316/09 (see above § 6). In addition, by comparison with his previous application, the applicant has not submitted to the Court in the context of his complaint under Article 6 § 1 in the present application any evidence that would constitute a new fact within the meaning of Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention.
17. Having regard to the above considerations and its case-law (see Aníbal Vieira & Filhos, Lda v. Portugal: and Ferreira da Costa v. Portugal (dec.), nos. 980/12 and 28385/12, 13 November 2012), the Court concludes that the applicant has abused the right of petition and finds it appropriate to reject the application pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
18. The Court stresses that applicants must cooperate with the Court by avoiding the lodging of unmeritorious complaints. Otherwise, in case of systematic abuse they may be excluded from the proceedings.
19. The Court notes that the Government raised other objections in respect of the admissibility of the application. However, the above findings make it unnecessary to examine other objections to the admissibility of the application.
B. Other complaints
20. Relying on various other Articles of the Convention and its Protocols, the applicant also presented other complaints. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
21. It follows that these parts of the application are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Stanley Naismith Dragoljub Popović
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy