Published on 14 November 2022
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 56456/17
Ana Paula SALGUEIRO FERREIRA and Others against Portugal
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 27 October 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicants are public prosecutors who held positions at Lisbon Civil Court and Lisbon Family Court at the material time.
Following an order emanating from their hierarchy, from 20 September 2001 to 30 June 2010, 14 September 2000 to 30 June 2010, 12 May 2003 to 29 October 2008 (first, second and third applicant of application no. 56456/17), 19 September 2000 to 30 June 2010 (application no. 57755/17) and 15 January 1999 to 1 July 2010 (application no. 25919/21), in addition to their functions, they were in charge of part of the criminal investigations attributed to the Public Prosecution Office.
The applicants lodged administrative actions claiming that they were accumulating functions and that consequently their salaries should include the payment of compensation provided for in sections 79 § 1 in conjunction with 136 § 1 of the Public Prosecutor’s Statute. On 6 June 2016, 18 July 2016 and 23 June 2020, respectively, the Central Administrative Court ruled against them.
On 1 February 2017 (application no. 56456/17), 6 February 2017 (application no. 57755/17) and 14 January 2021 (application no 25919/21) respectively, the Administrative Supreme Court rejected their appeals for judicial review.
Relying on Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, the applicants claimed they were cumulating functions within the meaning of Section 79 § 1 of the Public Prosecutor’s Statute without being paid for it as established in section 63 of the Public Prosecutor’s Statute. Therefore they complained of the unjustified difference between their salaries and those of other public prosecutors who were considered to be cumulating functions and were paid accordingly.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Have the applicants suffered discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
1. In particular, have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment, when compared to other public prosecutors who were considered to have been attributed additional functions within the meaning of Section 79 § 1 of the Public Prosecutor’s Statute and therefore paid under section 63 of the Public Prosecutor’s Statute (see Biao v. Denmark [GC], no. 38590/10, § 89, 24 May 2016; Fábián v. Hungary [GC], no. 78117/13, §§ 113 and 121, 5 September 2017; Prigent v. France (dec.), no. 20817/02, 10 May 2005 and 7 June 2005; and Beeckman and Others v. Belgium (dec.), no. 34952/07, § 24, 18 September 2018)?
2. If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and did it have reasonable justification (see Biao, cited above, §§ 90-93; Fábián, cited above, §§ 65 and 127, Graziani-Weiss v. Austria, no. 31950/06, §§ 56-57, 18 October 2011; Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal, no. 17484/15, § 47, 25 July 2017; and Beeckman and Others, cited above, §§ 27-28)?
No.
Application no.
Case name
Introduction date
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Place of residence
Nationality
Representative’s name
Location
1.
56456/17
Salgueiro Ferreira and Others v. Portugal
24/07/2017
Ana Paula SALGUEIRO FERREIRA
1961
Lisbon
Portuguese
José António VAZ PIRES
1968
Lisbon
Portuguese
Ana Paula MORAIS DE AMARAL FRANCO
1956
Lisbon
Portuguese
Joana MAGALHÃES SILVA
Lisbon
2.
57755/17
Neves Nobre Hipólito v. Portugal
31/07/2017
Lídia Esmeralda NEVES NOBRE HIPÓLITO
1964
Lisbon
Portuguese
Joana MAGALHÃES SILVA
Lisbon
3.
25919/21
Vieira Alves Janeiro v. Portugal
14/05/2021
Cristina Maria VIEIRA ALVES JANEIRO
1958
Lisbon
Portuguese
Joana MAGALHÃES SILVA
Lisbon