FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 739/21
Jaime Jacinto NEVES MARQUES
against Portugal
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 September 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. 739/21) 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 22 December 2020 by a Portuguese national, Mr Jaime Jacinto Neves Marques (“the applicant”), who was born in 1967 and at the time of the application was detained in Vale de Judeus Prison;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. At the time the application was submitted, the applicant had been held in Vale de Judeus Prison since 2 November 2005.
2. On 23 December 2019 and 19 January 2021, the Lisbon Sentence‑Supervision Court (Tribunal de Execução das Penas - “the TEP”) rejected the applicant’s requests for parole. The applicant appealed to the Lisbon Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeals on 25 January 2020 and 4 March 2021.
3. In the meantime, in a decision dated 28 April 2020, and notified to the applicant on 13 May 2020, the TEP denied his request for special administrative leave (licença de saída administrativa especial) from prison.
4. On 1 February 2022 the TEP granted the applicant parole and determined the conditions for his release. In its decision, the TEP relied on the opinion of the Parole Board. The applicant was released on 2 March 2022.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
5. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the proceedings before the TEP regarding his requests for parole had been unfair (see paragraph 2 above). Also relying on Article 6 § 1, the applicant alleged that he had been unfairly denied special administrative leave (see paragraph 3 above). Under Article 14, the applicant complained he had been discriminated against, in terms of the right of access to the pardon instituted by Law 9/2020 of 10 April 2020, on the ground of the nature of the crime for which he had been convicted.
6. As regards the applicant’s complaint concerning the dismissal of his first request for parole and his request for special administrative leave, it appears that the decisions in this respect were notified to the applicant on 23 December 2019 and 13 May 2020 (see paragraphs 2- 3 above), thus more than six months prior to the introduction of the application before the Court. Therefore, these complaints were introduced out of time and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
7. Regarding the proceedings concerning the second request for parole lodged by the applicant, of which he complained under Article 6 § 1, the Court does not find it necessary to determine whether Article 6 is applicable to this type of proceedings (in this connection, see Boulois v. Luxembourg [GC], no. 37575/04, §§ 90-94, ECHR 2012) as the case is any case manifestly ill‑founded for the following reasons. The Court notes that pursuant to Article 180 of the Code on the Execution of Prison Sentences (“the CEP”) the evaluation of a prisoner for parole is renewed annually and a negative decision may be appealed against under Article 179 § 1 of that Code. The applicant was given the opportunity to raise his factual and legal arguments before the TEP and the Lisbon Court of Appeal. Those arguments were examined by the courts, which provided reasons in their judgments which were pertinent to the grounds on which the claims were dismissed. It does not appear that the courts’ findings were arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable to the point of prejudicing the fairness of the proceedings. In such circumstances, the Court is not in a position to assume the role of a fourth‑instance body by reviewing any particular error of law allegedly made by the domestic courts. Furthermore, the Court notes that the applicant was eventually released on parole on 2 March 2022, after completing five-sixths of his sentence. It follows that this complaint must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
8. As to the applicant’s complaint under Article 14 of the Convention, the Court notes that it is unsubstantiated and not supported by any evidence. Accordingly, the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 28 September 2023.
Crina Kaufman Tim Eicke
Acting Deputy Registrar President