FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43683/21
Tania Vanessa MACIEL DA SILVA
against Portugal
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 April 2023 as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Anja Seibert-Fohr,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Crina Kaufman, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 43683/21) 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”) on 24 August 2021 by a Portuguese national, Ms Tania Vanessa Maciel da Silva (“the applicant”), who was born in 1992, lives in Ponte de Lima and was represented by Ms J. Miranda, a lawyer practising in Lisbon;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. At the material time the applicant was a municipal firefighter working for the municipality of Viana do Castelo.
2. At that time national legislation, in particular Law no. 106/2002, provided for two types of firefighters: municipal firefighters (bombeiros municipais) and “sapper” firefighters (bombeiros sapadores), the latter receiving a higher salary.
3. In 2020 the applicant lodged an administrative liability action against the municipality of Viana do Castelo with the Braga Administrative Court, claiming that her professional tasks were materially the same as those of the firefighters who were paid according to a higher salary scale and that she should be compensated for the difference in remuneration.
4. On 29 May 2020 the Braga Administrative Court ruled against the applicant.
5. On 27 November 2020, following an appeal by the applicant, the North Central Administrative Court upheld that decision. The judgment was notified to the applicant on 29 January 2021.
6. The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention that the proceedings had been unfair and that she had been discriminated against owing to the difference in salaries between the two professional paths for firefighters.
The applicant submitted, citing Article 140 of the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure, that her application should not be rejected as out of time, as it had been delayed owing to a health issue which had affected her legal representative.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
7. The Court reiterates that in assessing whether an applicant has complied with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it is important to bear in mind that the requirements contained in that Article concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated (see Jeronovičs v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 75, 5 July 2016). Thus, as a rule, the six-month period runs from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 106, 23 March 2016). The Court also reiterates that compliance with the six-month time-limit must satisfy the Convention criteria and not the arrangements laid down by the domestic law of each respondent State (see Sabri Güneş v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, § 49, 29 June 2012). Application by the Court of its own criteria in calculating time-limits, independently of domestic rules, tends to ensure legal certainty, proper administration of justice and thus, the practical and effective functioning of the Convention mechanism (ibid., § 56). The Court sees no reasons to deviate from this rule, as requested by the applicant, in the instant case (see paragraph 6 above).
8. The Court notes that the judgment of the North Central Administrative Court of 27 November 2020 was notified to the applicant on 29 January 2021 (see paragraph 5 above), while the present application was lodged with the Court on 24 August 2021. The final domestic decision within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, as applicable before the entry into force of Article 4 of Protocol No. 15, was thus taken more than six months before the date on which the complaint was submitted to the Court. Accordingly, the application has been submitted out of time.
9. It follows that it must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 May 2023.
Crina Kaufman Armen Harutyunyan
Acting Deputy Registrar President