ROSA PEREIRA v. PORTUGAL

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 51224/20
Filipa Andreia ROSA PEREIRA
against Portugal

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 June 2024 as a Committee composed of:

 Tim Eicke, President,
 Armen Harutyunyan,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Crina Kaufman, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 51224/20) 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 11 November 2020 by a Portuguese national, Ms Filipa Andreia Rosa Pereira (“the applicant”), who was born in 1984 and lives in Sardoal and was represented by Mr J.J. Ferreira Alves, a lawyer practising in Matosinhos;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The case concerns enforcement proceedings brought by the applicant against her former employer before the Labour Court of Abrantes in respect of salary and other benefits in arrears. Relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the length of these proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that she had not been afforded an effective remedy in that respect.

2.  On 15 January 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings with the Labour Court of Abrantes in order to enforce a judgment of 16 December 2003 of the same court which had ordered her former employer to pay her the sum of 5,518.04 Euros (EUR) for salary and other benefits in arrears. On a non-specified date, the proceedings were transferred to the Labour Court of Tomar.

3.  On 19 January 2004 a judicial enforcement officer (agente de execução) was appointed. On 3 March 2004 he was replaced by a new judicial enforcement officer.

4.  On 21 April 2005 the judicial enforcement officer informed the applicant that he had not been able to locate any property in the debtor’s name.

5.  On 23 January 2006 the applicant requested the Labour Court to locate, including through Social Security, as well as the Tax Authority, attachable assets belonging to the debtor.

6.  On 9 June 2006 the applicant indicated in the proceedings half of a residential property owned by the debtor. On 14 September 2006 its attachment (penhora) was ordered. On 8 February 2007 the applicant requested that the property be placed on the market for EUR 7,500.

7.  Between February 2007 and March 2009, in reply to several requests, the judicial enforcement officer informed the Labour Court about the difficulties in locating the debtor or assets.

8.  On 6 March and 10 November 2009, the judicial enforcement officer informed the applicant and the Labour Court that it had not been possible to sell the attached property. On 17 January 2010 the applicant requested the judicial enforcement officer to send her a list of the assets which had been attached with the aim of finding interested buyers.

9.  On 24 February 2011, 7 April 2011, 7 August 2012, and 28 January 2013 the judicial enforcement officer informed both the applicant and the Labour Court of Tomar that it had not been possible to sell the attached property.

10.  On 6 July 2013 the judicial enforcement officer informed the Labour Court of Tomar that the half of a residential property owned by the debtor had been sold on an unknown date pursuant to tax enforcement proceedings.

11.  On 13 March 2015 the Labour Court of Tomar ordered the judicial enforcement officer to terminate the proceedings.

12.  On 29 October 2015 the judicial enforcement officer terminated the proceedings. The applicant and the debtor were notified.

13.  On an unknown date in 2016 the applicant instituted non-contractual civil liability proceedings against the State with the Administrative Court of Leiria for the excessive length of the enforcement proceedings mentioned above (see paragraphs 2-12).

14.  By a judgment of 3 June 2019 the Administrative Court of Leiria dismissed the action on the grounds that the length of proceedings was not attributable to the Labour Courts, but rather the judicial enforcement officer who is responsible for the attachment and the sale of the assets.

15.  On 21 November 2019 the Central Administrative Court of the South confirmed the lower Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal. The former relied on the Court’s case-law and added that the delays had essentially been caused by the difficulties in the identification of assets, their attachment and sale.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

16.  The applicant complained about the excessive length of the enforcement proceedings brought before the Labour Court of Abrantes (see paragraph 2 above) and about the lack of an effective remedy in this regard. She relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.

17.  The Government acknowledged that the length of the proceedings had exceeded what would legitimately be expected. Nevertheless, the Government were of the view that it had been caused by the applicant’s lack of procedural initiative to help the judicial enforcement officer move the proceedings forward.

18.  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 applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII).

19.  In the current case, it is noted that the proceedings started on 15 January 2004 and ended on 29 October 2015. They thus lasted eleven years, nine months and sixteen days at one level of jurisdiction (see paragraphs 2 and 12 above).

20.  Concerning the complexity of the case, there is evidence that the length of proceedings was in part due to an objective difficulty to firstly locate and then sell attachable assets. Between the institution of the proceedings on 15 January 2004 and the attachment of half of a residential property in the debtor’s name on 9 June 2006, two and a half years had passed. Most significantly, the seized property was placed on the market on 8 February 2007 (see paragraph 6 above), however, no bidders were found.

21.  As regards the conduct of the Labour Court, it is noted that it regularly notified the judicial enforcement officer requesting information on the state of the proceedings with the aim of supervising his activity (see paragraphs 7‑12 above).

22.  As to the conduct of the applicant, the Court finds that she was not actively involved in the proceedings and she was not in contact with the judicial enforcement officer. For example, it took her several months to inform the Labour Court of Tomar about how to proceed regarding the attached residential property, on 14 September 2006, and its consequent placement on the market on 8 February 2007 (see paragraph 6 above). Although the applicant was informed on 6 July 2013 (see paragraph 10 above) that the attached property had been sold, she did not request that new efforts be made in order to find new attachable assets. It is also to be noted that the last instruction the applicant gave the judicial enforcement officer was on 17 January 2010, which was years before the closing of the proceedings on 29 October 2015. Finally, the Court observes that according to Article 720 § 4 of the Code of Civil Proceedings the applicant could have requested the replacement of the judicial enforcement officer had she considered that he was failing to conduct the proceedings speedily, but she did not. It does not appear either that she informed the disciplinary body of the judicial enforcement officers about any failing on his part.

23.  In view of the above observations, the Court concludes that the applicant’s complaint in respect of the length of the enforcement proceedings is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

24.  The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. According to the Court’s established case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131). Having regard to the findings above (paragraph 23 above), the Court concludes that the applicant did not have an “arguable claim”, and that therefore Article 13 is not applicable. It follows that this part of the application must also 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 4 July 2024.

 Crina Kaufman Tim Eicke
 Acting Deputy Registrar President