FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 53694/17
Ramesh Manuel MEGGI CALA
against Portugal
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7 February 2023 as a Committee composed of:
Tim Eicke, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Crina Kaufman, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 53694/17) 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 20 July 2017 by a Portuguese national, Mr Ramesh Manuel Meggi Cala (“the applicant”), who was born in 1970, is detained in Belas Prison and was represented by Mr V. Carreto, a lawyer practising in Torres Vedras;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. On 2 February 2016, in the case of Meggi Cala v. Portugal (no. 24086/11), the Court found a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of a decision of the Supreme Court of 17 February 2011 declaring his appeal on points of law against his conviction and sentence of fourteen years’ imprisonment inadmissible as being out of time (ibid., §§ 17 and 49-50). In its judgment the Court held that it could not speculate as to what the outcome of the criminal proceedings might have been if the appeal on points of law had not been declared inadmissible. However, it awarded 3,250 euros to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (ibid., § 54).
2. On 24 June 2016, relying on Article 449 § 1 (g) of the Portuguese Criminal Code, the applicant lodged an application for review (recurso extraordinário de revisão) with the Supreme Court. He submitted that, in view of the judgment adopted by the Court on 2 February 2016, he had a right to have the aforementioned appeal on points of law examined.
3. On 13 October 2016 the Supreme Court refused to grant a review, finding, inter alia, that it was within the Portuguese State’s margin of appreciation to decide whether to reopen the proceedings or not in view of the reasoning given by the Court in its judgment.
4. The applicant appealed against that decision to the Constitutional Court. On 23 May 2017 that court rejected the applicant’s appeal in a summary decision on the ground that he had not argued before the Supreme Court that the legal provision at issue was unconstitutional. On 8 June 2017 that decision was upheld by a three-judge bench (Conferência) of the Constitutional Court.
5. Under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant submitted that the dismissal of his application for review of his conviction was in contradiction with the Court’s judgment in his previous case (Meggi Cala, cited above).
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
6. The Court notes 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).
7. In the instant case, the constitutional appeal did not have any prospect of success since the applicant had not complied with one of the formal requirements for such an appeal (see paragraph 4 above; see also in this respect Dos Santos Calado and Others v. Portugal, nos. 55997/14 and 3 others, § 80, 31 March 2020). For that reason, the Constitutional Court was not able to address the applicant’s complaints before it. The constitutional appeal was thus not an adequate and effective remedy for the purpose of the instant application.
8. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court’s decision of 8 June 2017 (see paragraph 4 above) cannot be taken into account for the calculation of the six-month period (see, mutatis mutandis, Traina v. Portugal (dec.), no. 59431/11, §§ 29‑30, 21 March 2017). Hence the final domestic decision within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention is the judgment given by the Supreme Court on 13 October 2016 (see paragraph 3 above), more than six months before the date on which the present application was lodged with the Court (20 July 2017).
9. The Court therefore considers that the application was lodged out of time and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (see Traina, cited above, §§ 25-30; Dos Santos Calado, cited above, § 78; and Albuquerque Fernandes v. Portugal, no. 50160/13, § 78, 12 January 2021).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 9 March 2023.
Crina Kaufman Tim Eicke
Acting Deputy Registrar President