Published on 14 November 2022
FOURTH SECTION
Applications nos. 34876/17 and 49317/17
Ana Maria XAVIER TRINDADE against Portugal
and Alda da Conceição COSTA FONTES against Portugal
lodged on 26 April 2017 and 28 June 2017 respectively
communicated on 27 October 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicants are public prosecutors who, on 15 September 2003, were admitted to a special training course for judges and public prosecutors and on 26 January 2004 were selected as trainees. From this date their salary was paid under remuneration index no. 100 of the chart appended to the Public Prosecutor’s Statute.
On 12 July 2004 they were appointed as public prosecutors. They remained on their trainees’ salary until they reached 3 years’ seniority on 15 September 2006.
The applicants lodged administrative actions submitting that their salaries should be paid in accordance with index no. 135 from the date of their appointment as public prosecutors.
On 3 November 2016 and 11 January 2017 respectively, the proceedings ended with the Administrative Supreme Court’s judgments ruling against them.
The application concerns the difference in salaries of the applicants who were recruited trough a special training course of judges and public prosecutors as compared to 1) magistrates recruited through a special training course for judges and public prosecutors of the administrative and tax courts and 2) magistrates recruited through the general training courses for judges and public prosecutors, whose salaries were paid in accordance with index no. 135 from the date of their appointment.
Relying on Articles 4 and 14 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, the applicants complained of the unjustified difference in their salaries from the date they were appointed as public prosecutors until they reached 3 years’ seniority, in comparison with magistrates recruited through the special training course for judges and public prosecutors of the administrative and tax courts. They submitted that this situation amounted to forced labour and discrimination.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Have the applicants suffered discrimination on the grounds of their recruitment through the a special training course for judges and public prosecutors, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
1. In particular, were the applicants subjected to a difference in treatment during the period when their salaries were paid in accordance with index no. 100 of the chart appended to the Public Prosecutor’s Statute, when compared to the public prosecutors recruited through the special training course for judges and public prosecutors of the administrative and tax courts and the magistrates recruited through the general training courses for judges and public prosecutors (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 a 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)?