Last Updated on April 24, 2019 by LawEuro
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF OLIVEIRA MODESTO AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL
(Application no. 68445/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29 January 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Oliveira Modesto and Others v. Portugal,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Egidijus Kūris,President,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
IuliaAntoanellaMotoc,judges,
andAndrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 January 2019,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 68445/10) 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”) by 251Portuguese nationals listed in the Annex (“the applicants”), on 17 November 2010.
2. The first applicant represented all the applicants andwas authorised to do so by the President of the former Second Section of the Court, in accordance with Rule 36 § 3 of the Rules of Court. The Portuguese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M.F. da GraçaCarvalho, Deputy Attorney General.
3. On 22 March 2012 the Government were given notice of the application.
4. The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. Having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicants are former employees andheirs of former employees of company F. – C.M.E. S.A. (hereinafter “company F.”), which owned a factory making engines and electric alternators in Aveiro. The company experienced a series of financial problems in 1985, leading to it beingunable to continue paying salaries to its staff.
A. Insolvency and judicial liquidation proceedings
6. On 4 October 1994 the Coimbra Court of Appeal declared company F. insolvent. On 8 May 1995 the case was remitted to the Aveiro Court.
7. By a decision that was made public on 3 July 1995 the Aveiro Court ordered that creditors wishing to declare their claims (reclamação de créditos) should be summoned.
8. Having learnt that a site division and urban development plan (plano de pormenor) encompassing the land of company F. had been drawn up by the municipality of Aveiro, former employees of the company, including some of the applicants, applied to the Aveiro Court on 12 December 1997, requesting that it wait for the plan to be approved before ordering the sale of company F.’s assets. They hoped that the plan would lead to a rise in the land’s value and thus increase the prospects of their recovering what they were owed.
9. On 24 March 2000 the Aveiro Court issued a decision on the classification of the various claims (sentença de graduação de créditos). Some of the creditors appealed against that decision to the Coimbra Court of Appeal.
10. In a decision of 7 November 2000 the AveiroCourt authorised the suspension of the sale (see paragraph 8 above) until the approval of the site division and urban development plan.
11. In a judgment of 23 January 2001 the Coimbra Court of Appeal delivered a judgment on the classification ofthe former employees’claims. On 9 February 2001 the first applicant appealed against that judgmentto the Supreme Court of Justice.
12. On 19 February 2001 the applicant Rosa Rodrigues Casal (applicant no. 199in the appended table) lodged an application with the Aveiro Court, seeking to registera claim against the insolvent company.
13. On 6 December 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice delivered a judgment confirming the classification ofclaims by the Coimbra Court of Appeal (see paragraphs9 and 11 above).
14. On 27 November 2002 the judicial liquidator informed the AveiroCourt that he had suspended his activities following another court’s decision. In a decision of 29 January 2003 the court appointed a new liquidator.
15. On 15 April 2009, as part of a redraft of the court-distribution map (setting out the geographical areas over which courts had jurisdiction), the proceedings were transferred to the Aveiro Commercial Court.
16. On29 July 2009the municipality of Aveiro, the body of creditors and company G. entered into anagreement for the exchange of land between company F., company G., a neighbouring company, and the Aveiro municipality.
17. On an unspecified date a part of the land measuring 17,629.10 sq. m and a separate plot were put up for sale.
18. On 14 July 2011 a session at which offers to purchase could be made took place, and no offers were received. The court ordered the judicial liquidator to submit the documentation concerning that session and the proposal for sale within ten days.
19. On 6 December 2011 the court ordered the judicial liquidator to provide information on the state of the proceedings.
20. Since the judicial liquidator had not replied to the previous request, on 6 March 2012 the court ordered him to urgently provide information on the state of the proceedings, giving him a ten-day time-limit.
21. In the absence of any reply to the two previous requests, on 17 April 2012 the court ordered the judicial liquidator to provide information on the state of the proceedings, and also ordered that he would be fined if he did not provide such a reply.
22. On 23 April 2012 the judicial liquidator informed the court that no offers to purchase had been received, and he proposed to initiate contactwith companies which specialised in the real-estate sector.
23. On 2 May 2012 the court ordered the judicial liquidator to establish contact with real-estate companies, and gave him a ten-day time-limit.
24. On 29 May 2012 the judicial liquidator informed the court that he had contacted some real-estate companies, buthe requested ten more days in order to finalise the task.On 4 June 2012 he was informed that his request had been granted.
25. On 12 June 2012 the judge ordered the judicial liquidator to draw up a report indicating the detailed amounts to be allocated to each creditor in the light of the Supreme Court of Justice’s judgment (see paragraph13 above).
26. Following the AveiroCommercial Court insistingthat the judicial liquidatorprovide information on the progress regarding contact with real-estate companies by way of three notifications(sent to him on 27 September, 19 October and 19 November 2012), on 16 January 2013 he informed the court that only one real-estate company had expressed interest in mediating the sale of the property.
27. On 6 March 2013 the courtinvited the judicial liquidator to initiate new contact with real-estate companies by email, since until then contact with the real-estate companies had been established in person.
28. On 18 December 2013 the judicial liquidatorinformed the court that contact by email had been made with 119 real-estate companies, and offers to acquire the property were to be received until 15 January 2014.In the meantime, the court hadsent him three notifications in that regard – on 21 May, 10 July and 11 November 2013.
29. On 17 June 2014 the judicial liquidator replied to the 12 June 2012 court order (see paragraph 25 above). He informed the court that most former employees had not detailed the origin of their claims, and therefore it was not possible for him to provide a detailed plan on payment.On the same date the judicial liquidator informed the court that only three real-estate companies had replied and that those replieswere negative. He then suggested thata new procedure for a sale by private agreement should be initiated, this time for 50% of the previously requested amount.
30. In reply to the judicial liquidator’s information, on 11 July 2014 the judge ordered him to provide information on the amount already obtained as proceeds of the liquidation (produto da liquidação),by reference to real estate or movable property, in order to assess the practical effects of distributingthose amounts among the creditors.As the judicial liquidator did not reply to that request, on 1 July 2015, 21 April 2016 and 13 June 2016 the court insisted that he do so.
31. Meanwhile, on 30 September and 9 October 2015 the judicial liquidator was summoned in two sets of tax enforcement proceedings against company F.
32. On 23 November 2016 the judicial liquidator informed the court of the twosets of tax enforcement proceedings which were ongoing.
33. On 6 July 2017 the court notified the judicial liquidatorthat he should provide information on the state of the proceedings within ten days.
34. On 1 September 2017 the court insisted that the judicial liquidator provide information on the state of the proceedings.
35. On 20 September 2017 the judicial liquidator informed the court that a new tax issue was an obstacle in the insolvency proceedings.
36. According to the latest information received by the Court on 21 May 2018, the insolvency proceedings were, on that date, still ongoing.
B. Application no. 34422/97
37. On 11 September 1996 the applicants and other individuals (represented in the present case by their heirs) identified by numbers 1 to 131 in the Annex lodged an application with the Court to complain about the duration of the proceedings at issuebefore the Aveiro Court.
38. In a judgment of 8 June 2000, the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the proceedings, awarding each applicant the sum of 900,000 Portuguese escudos (PTE –about EUR 4,489) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and PTE 313,840 (about EUR 1,565) to the first applicant for costs and expenses.
39. The just satisfactionwas paid to the applicants on 11 and 12 December 2000.
40. By Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)149 adopted on 8 June 2016 at the 1259thmeeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers declared that it hadexercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention in respect of application no. 34422/97, and decided to close the examination of its enforcement.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
41. The relevant part of the Portuguese Code on special procedures for the recovery of companies and insolvency (Código dos ProcessosEspeciais de Recuperação da Empresa e de Falência – CPEREF), in the version in force at the material time (Legislative Decree no. 132/93, of 23 April 1993), provided as follows:
Article 128
Decision to declare insolvency
“1. In the decision declaring insolvency, the court shall:
…
(e) Define a time-limit going from 20 to 60 days for the creditors’ declaration of claims.
…”
THE LAW
I. PRELIMINARY ISSUES
The locus standi of the heirs of the deceased applicants
42. Byletters of 3 October 2017 and 21 May 2018 thefirstapplicantinformedthe Courtaboutthedeath of thefollowingapplicants:Mr Rafael Policarpo Neves da Silva, Ms Maria Odete Vieira de Sousa, Ms Isaura Pereira Cortês, Mr António da Costa Santos, Mr Manuel da Loura Gamelas, Mr Arlindo de Sousa Rodrigues da Silva, Mr António Nobre Machado, Mr Carlos Alberto Simões Instrumento, Ms Maria Clara Costa Mesquita, Ms Maria Vitória Branco Rodrigues da Rocha, Ms Maria Carolina Sousa Almeida Neto, Mr João Marques Rodrigues, Ms Lídia Lopes, Ms Fernanda Pais da Cruz Silva, Ms Ana Clara dos Santos Silva Ferreira, Ms Maria da Soledade Freire Pinto Nogueira, andMr Jorge Alberto Pinto Nogueira.
43. The Court takes note of the wish of those applicants’ relatives (identified in the Annex) to pursue the proceedings in their stead. To that end, the first applicant submitted notary inheritance certificates (habilitações de herdeirosnotariais) in respect of all the late applicants except Mr João Marques Rodrigues, certifying that the relatives are their heirs.The first applicant also submitted copies of requests made by the relatives of all the late applicants asking the Aveiro Court to continue the proceedings on their behalf.
44. Regarding the late applicant Mr João Marques Rodrigues, the first applicant also submitted documents (namely the late applicant’s death certificate and his wife’s birth certificate) to show that he had been married to Ms Maria Teresa dos Anjos Aires Rodriguesat the date of his death.
45. The Court reiterates that where applicants die during the examination of a case, their heirs or next-of-kin may in principle pursue the application on their behalf (seeMalhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000‑XII; see alsoJečius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX, where the applicant’s widow had a legitimate interest in pursuing the application). Furthermore, in some cases concerning the length of proceedings, the Court has recognised the right of the applicant’sheirs or close family members to pursue the application (see, for example,Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, §§ 26-27, 17 May 2005).
46. The Court notes that the rights at stake in the present case are very similar to those at the heart of the cases referred to above. Nothing suggests that the rights which the applicants sought to protect through the Convention mechanism were eminently personal and non-transferable (see, mutatis mutandis,Malhous, decision cited above).
47. The Court also notes that the Government have not disputed that the applicants’ relatives are entitled to pursue the application on their behalf and the Court sees no reason to hold otherwise.
48. In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicants’ relatives identified in the Annex have standing to pursue the proceedings in the deceased applicants’ stead.
49. However, for practical reasons, the Court will continue to refer to the initial applicants as “the applicants” (see, mutatis mutandis, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI).
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
50. The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings since 8 June 2000 had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations …, everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal…”
A. Admissibility
1. The Government’s submissions
51. The Government argued that the application was inadmissible as an abuse of the right of petition. According to the Government, by requesting that the proceedings be stayed pending the outcome of the site division and urban development plan, the applicants were themselves responsible for a delay in the proceedings.
52. The Government also argued that the applicant Ms. Rosa Rodrigues Casal was not a party to the proceedings and was therefore not a victim of the alleged violation, as shehad not declared her claims at thestage of the proceedings when she was supposed to. In fact, when she had lodged her requests to have her claims recognised, her claims had not been admissible.
53. The applicants did not reply to these objections.
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) The Government’s objection as to abuse of the right of petition
54. In relation to the Government’s argument that the applicants abused the rights set out in the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a), the Court reiterates that an application may only be rejected as an abuse of process in extraordinary circumstances, notably when there is persistent use of insulting or provocative language by an applicant (see Felbab v. Serbia, no. 14011/07, § 56, 14 April 2009), when the application was knowingly based on untrue facts, or when incomplete and thus misleading information concerning the very core of the case was submitted to the Court (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014).
55. Having regard to its case-law, the Court considers that the applicants’ requests regarding the site division and urban development plan (see paragraph8 above) during the domestic proceedings are not of such a nature as would justify the application being declared inadmissible as an abuse of the right of petition.
56. It follows that the Government’s objection as to the alleged abuse of the right of petition must be rejected.
(b) The Government’s objection regarding the applicant Ms Rosa Rodrigues Casal
57. The Court notes that, while the creditors had been summoned for the purpose of declaring their claims (see paragraph7 above) the applicant Rosa Rodrigues Casal only declared her claims on 19 February 2001 (see paragraph 12 above), long after the time-limitfixed by the domestic law had expired (see paragraph 41 above). As her claims were inadmissible because they had been lodged out of time, she could no longer becomea party to the insolvency proceedings.
58. It follows that this particular applicant cannot claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, and the application should be rejectedin so far as it concerns her, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
(c) Conclusion
59. Having regard to the above, the Court notes that the applicationin respect of all applicants except the applicant Rosa Rodrigues Casal is neither manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention nor inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The period to be taken into consideration
60. The Court notes that the applicants complainedabout the length of the proceedings as of 8 June 2000, the date on which theCourt’s judgment regarding application no. 34422/97 was delivered (see paragraph 38 above). At that time, the case was pending before the Coimbra Court of Appeal and the claims were awaiting classification. The latest information made available to the Court (dated 21 May 2018 – see paragraph 36above), indicated that the insolvency proceedings were still ongoing.
61. The period to be taken into consideration within the framework of the examination of the present application thus extends over approximately seventeen years and eleven months.
2. The reasonableness of the length of the proceedings
62. The Government argued that the length of the proceedings was mostly due to the fact that the Aveiro Court had accepted to act in the applicants’ interest at their request. They also argued that the insolvency proceedings had been delayed by the tax enforcement proceedings, as they were an obstacle to the sale procedure (see paragraphs31 and 35 above).
63. At the outset, 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 applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII, and Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 19, ECHR 2000-IV).
64. In the present case, the Court notes that the stage of the proceedings concerning the classification of the former employees’ claims was conducted in a speedy and efficient way. Indeed, on 23 January 2001 the Coimbra Court of Appeal delivered a judgment on that issue (see paragraph 11 above), and on 6 December 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice ruled on the first applicant’s appeal (see paragraph 13 above). As far as this stage of the proceedings is concerned, the Court is unable to detect any significant delays imputable to the authorities.
65. Turning to the proceedings to liquidate the assets of company F., the Court observes that on 12 December 1997 former employees of company F., including some of the applicants, requested that the Aveiro Court wait for the approval of a site division and urban development plan that had been drawn up by the municipality of Aveiro before ordering the sale of company F.’s assets, hoping that the plan would lead to a rise in the value of the land and thus increase their prospects of recovering their debts (see paragraph 8 above). That request led the Aveiro Court to authorise the suspension of the sale of company F.’s assets on 7 November 2000 (see paragraph10 above). The proceedings could not be resumed until 29 July 2009, when the body of creditors, including the applicants, concluded an agreement with the Aveiro municipality and companies F. and G. (see paragraph 16 above).
66. The Court reiterates that only delays attributable to the State may justify a finding of failure to comply with the “reasonable time” requirement (see, among other authorities, Humen v. Poland [GC], no. 26614/95, § 66, 15 October 1999, and Proszak v. Poland, 16 December 1997, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII).
67. In the instant case, the period between 8 June 2000 and 29 July 2009 consisted of a protraction of the case requestedby the applicants and accepted by the court for their own benefit. That protraction cannot be imputed to the respondent Government. It remains to be ascertained whether there has been a breach of the “reasonable time” requirement in respect of the subsequent eight years, nine months and twenty-two days that elapsed between 30 July 2009 and 21 May 2018.
68. The Court accepts that this stage of the proceedings was of some complexity,owing to the number of parties involved. However, the Court considers that this element alone cannot explain the length of the proceedings.
69. In respect of the applicants’ conduct, the Court considers that they cannot be deemed responsible for any delays encountered since 30 July 2009.
70. Turning to the conduct of the national authorities, the Court notes that there were some periods of inactivity on the part of the judicial liquidator for which the Government have provided no explanation, notably:
– it took almost four months (from 27 September 2012 until 16 January 2013) for the judicial liquidator to reply to the court order on establishing contact with real-estate companies (see paragraph26 above);
– it took him more than nine months (from 6 March 2013 until 18 December 2013) to reply to the court order onestablishing new contact with real-estate companies by email (see paragraphs27 and28 above);
– it took him two years (from 12 June 2012 until 17 June 2014) to reply to the court order on the report indicating the detailed amounts to be allocated to each creditor in the light of the Supreme Court of Justice’s judgment (see paragraphs25and29 above);
– it took him more than one year (from 30 September 2015 until 23 November 2016) to inform the Aveiro Commercial Court that he had been summoned in two sets of tax enforcement proceedings against company F. (see paragraphs31and 32above).
71. Even assuming that the liquidator enjoyed a considerable amount of operational and institutional independence and did not act as a State agent, thus not rendering the respondent State directly responsible for his acts (see, mutatis mutandis, Kotov v. Russia [GC], no. 54522/00, §§ 91-107, 3 April 2012), it cannot be overlooked that the domestic courts were responsible for ensuring that he complied with the relevant rules (ibid., § 107). Indeed, the liquidator was working in thecontext of judicial proceedings, supervised by a court which remained responsible for the preparation and speedy conduct of the trial (see, mutatis mutandis, and with respect to court-appointed experts, Billi v. Italy, 26 February 1993, § 19, Series A no. 257-G, and Scopelliti v. Italy, 23 November 1993, § 23, Series A no. 278; see also Terebus v. Portugal, no.5238/10, § 49, 10 April 2014).
72. The Court understands from the facts as submitted by the parties that another main reason for the delay in the proceedings was the existence of two sets of tax enforcement proceedings which also concerned company F.’s assets. The Court notes, however, that the Government have not explained exactly how those proceedingsconstituted an obstacle to the insolvency proceedings, nor have they shown that the tax enforcement proceedings, which were allegedly decisive as regards the protractedness of the insolvency proceedings, were conducted diligently by the courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Jama v. Slovenia, no. 48163/08, § 36, 19 July 2012). In any event, the Aveiro Commercial Court was informed of the tax proceedings only on 23 November 2016 (see paragraph 32 above).
73. The Court reiterates that it is for the State to organise its judicial system in such a way as to enable its courts to comply with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Tusa v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 17, Series A no. 231‑D, andJama v. Slovenia, cited above, § 36), and the Court finds that no convincing arguments have been adduced by the Government to show that the length of the proceedings complained of was reasonable as required by that provision.
74. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State authorities bear primary responsibility for the excessive length of the proceedings in questionfrom 30 July 2009until 21 May 2018. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that, in the instant case, the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
75. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
76. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
77. In respect of pecuniary damage, the applicants claimed the same amounts they had claimed in the domestic proceedings and which they have not yet received. In addition, the applicants claimed an amount going from 4,500 euros (EUR) to EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
78. The Government contested these claims.
79. The Court notes that the amounts claimed in respect of pecuniary damage can only be paid in the context of the domestic proceedings; it therefore rejects this claim.
80. As far as non-pecuniary damage is concerned, the Court notes that all the applicants, former employees of company F., were parties to the same domestic proceedings which concerned the liquidation of the assets of the company in question. In connection with this, the Court reiterates that where common proceedings have been found to be excessively long, it must take account of the manner in which the number of participants in such proceedings may influence the level of distress, inconvenience and uncertainty affecting each of them. Thus, a high number of participants will very probably have an impact on the amount of just satisfaction to be awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Such an approach is based on the fact that the number of individuals participating in common proceedings before the domestic courts is not neutral from the perspective of the non-pecuniary damage that may be sustained by each of them as a result of the length of those proceedings when compared with the non-pecuniary damage that would be sustained by an individual who had brought identical proceedings on an individual basis. Membership of a group of people who have resolved to apply to a court on the same factual or legal basis means that both the advantages and disadvantages of common proceedings will be shared (see Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 27278/03, § 29, 15 February 2008).
81. It should also be reiterated that the Court enjoys a certain discretion in the exercise of the power conferred by Article 41, as is borne out by the adjective “just” and the phrase “if necessary” (see Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 114, Series A no. 39). That being the case, and unless it concludes that the finding of a violation provides sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained, the Court must ensure that the amount awarded is reasonable in terms of the seriousness of the violation that is found. In particular, in its assessment, it must take account of the amounts already awarded in similar cases, and, in the event of common proceedings, account of the number of applicants and the total sum awarded to them (see Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others, cited above, § 32). Given the Court’s principal task, namely securing respect for human rights, rather than compensating applicants’ losses minutely and exhaustively, in cases involving a significant number of victims placed in a similar situation, a uniform approach is to be adopted (see Gaglione and Others v. Italy, nos. 45867/07 and 474 others, §§ 67-68, 21 December 2010).
82. The Court notes that in the ambit of the domestic proceedings, the applicants were all pursuing the same objective, namely obtaining a rise in the value of the land of company F. and thus increasing the prospects of their recovering what they were owed (see paragraph 8 above). The shared objective of the impugned proceedings was such as to alleviate the inconvenience and uncertainty experienced on account of their delay(see, mutatis mutandis, Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others, cited above, § 34, and, a contrario,Belev and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 16354/02 and 40 others, § 112, 2 April 2009, where the applicants were not parties in common proceedings, but had lodged distinct and separate judicial claims).
83. At the same time, the present case should be distinguished from those in which, instead of acting on their own behalf in judicial proceedings, affected individuals establish a legal entity to do so, a fact which can justify not taking into account the interests of individual members of the association when determining the amount of just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage caused by the excessive length of civil proceedings (see, a contrario, DruštvoZaVarstvoUpnikov v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 66433/13, §§ 54-64, 21 November 2017, where an association, and not individual creditors, brought an action against a company which had failed to meet its contractual obligations). Moreover, what was at stake for the applicants in the impugned proceedings, namely the recovery of what they were owed in respect of their work, was such as to exacerbate the prejudice sustained by them on account of the protracted nature of the proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others, cited above, § 35).
84. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that the extension of the impugned proceedings beyond a “reasonable time” undoubtedly caused the applicants non-pecuniary damage which would justify an award. It also takes into consideration the number of applicants, the nature of the violation found, and the need to determine the amount in such a way that the overall sum is compatible with the relevant case-law and is reasonable in the light of what was at stake in the proceedings in question(see, mutatis mutandis, Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others, cited above, § 36). On the basis of the above considerations, and ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards EUR 500 to each of the applicants under this head (see, mutatis mutandis, Gaglione and Others, cited above, §§ 69-70),as detailed in the appended table (account being taken of the fact that when several heirs are continuing an application on behalf of a deceased applicant, the amount shall be paid jointly).
B. Costs and expenses
85. The first applicant,Ms Maria de Lurdes Ferreira de Matos Oliveira Modesto, also claimed EUR 2,011.14 for costs and expenses incurred in presenting the applicants’ case before the Court.
86. The Government contested the claim.
87. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum.
88. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers that the sum claimed should be awarded in full.
C. Default interest
89. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Holds that the applicants’ heirs identified in the appended table have standing to continue the present proceedings in the stead of the deceased applicants;
2. Declares the application inadmissible in so far as it has been lodged by Ms Rosa Rodrigues Casal;
3. Declares the remainder of the application admissible;
4. Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 500 (fivehundredeuros)to each of the applicants, or EUR 500 (five hundred euros) jointly to the heirs of the late applicants who continued the proceedings before the Court in their stead, as detailed in the appended table,plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage:
(ii) EUR 2,011.14 (two thousand eleven euros and fourteen cents) to the first applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the first applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
6. Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 January 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Andrea Tamietti Egidijus Kūris
Deputy Registrar President
ANNEX
| No. | Applicant reference number | Applicantname | Date of birth and
Residence |
Notes | Non-pecuniary damage award |
| 1 | 1 | Maria de Lurdes Ferreira de Matos Oliveira Modesto | 26/01/1952
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 2 | 2 | Maria Clara Morgado Guerra Soares | 27/10/1959
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 3 | 3 | Fernanda Geraldo Fernandes de Carvalho | 03/01/1951
CARREGAL |
EUR 500 | |
| 4 | 4 | Manuel Oliveira da Costa | 16/04/1948
CACIA |
EUR 500 | |
| 5 | 5 | Olinda da GraçaCarvalho | 28/01/1958
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 6 | 6 | Emanuel Lopes Lobo | 04/10/1938
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 7 | 7 | Rafael Policarpo Neves da Silva | 17/04/1941
EIXO |
Ms Gisela Matzen Neves da Silva, Ms Daniela Matzen Neves da Silva Nogueira, Ms Ana Catarina Neves da Silva, and Ms Joana Rafael Neves da Silva, heirs of the applicant, pursue the application in his stead. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 8 | 8 | Maria Leonor Rodrigues da Silva | 07/09/1953
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 9 | 9 | Joaquim AntónioTeles Machado | 10/04/1949
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 10 | 10 | Ana Maria Rodrigues da Cruz | 30/07/1958
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 11 | 11 | Maria AscençãoGonçalvesMaio | 03/10/1940
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 12 | 12 | José Ferreira da Rocha | 28/07/1932
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 13 | 13 | Maria José da Costa Ferreira | 18/01/1955
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 14 | 14 | Benilde Catarina Peralta | 05/05/1938
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 15 | 15 | Maria Isabel Nunes da Silva Valente | 28/06/1954
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 16 | 16 | Maria Odete Vieira de Sousa | 20/08/1950
S. BERNARDO |
Mr António Fernando de Lemos, Mr Nuno Filipe Vieira de Sousa Lemos, and Mr Renato Emanuel Vieira de Sousa Lemos, heirs of the applicant, pursue the application in her stead. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 17 | 17 | José Fernando dos Santos Martins | 27/04/1947
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 18 | 18 | Zícia do Céu Benedita Peralta | 10/04/1955
COSTA DO VALADO |
EUR 500 | |
| 19 | 19 | Celeste Glória Benedita Peralta Dias | 14/10/1957
ESTARREJA |
EUR 500 | |
| 20 | 20 | Maria Fernanda dos Santos Saraiva | 31/08/1959
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 21 | 21 | Maria dos Anjos Pereira Ribães Rodrigues | 10/03/1955
CACIA |
EUR 500 | |
| 22 | 22 | Isaura Pereira Cortez | 28/08/1948
AVEIRO |
Mr António Dias Ribeiro and Nelson Renato Cortez Ribeiro, heirs of the applicant, pursue the application in her stead. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 23 | 23 | Maria Pereira Cortês | 23/03/1947
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 24 | 24 | Olinda Rosa Pereira Cortês | 14/08/1950
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 25 | 26 | Maria Luisa dos Santos Oliveira | 19/04/1941
SANTA JOANA |
EUR 500 | |
| 26 | 27 | Florinda dos Santos Oliveira Campos | 02/05/1950
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 27 | 28 | Maria Isabel Vizinho Freitas Brites | 08/11/1952
ILHAVO |
EUR 500 | |
| 28 | 29 | António José Brites | 15/06/1950
ILHAVO |
EUR 500 | |
| 29 | 30 | António Pedro Nunes de Carvalho | 25/03/1945
ANGEJA |
EUR 500 | |
| 30 | 31 | Palmira NascimentoFernandes Almeida | 07/02/1958
CACIA |
EUR 500 | |
| 31 | 32 | Maria Helena Rodrigues dos Santos Garrido | 29/05/1959
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 32 | 33 | Maria Helena Morais Vaia Duarte | 12/09/1959
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 33 | 34 | Maria Preciosa Marques de Araújo Santos | 16/08/1954
CACIA |
EUR 500 | |
| 34 | 35 | Virgílio Ferreira SoutoRatola | 12/03/1957
MAMODEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 35 | 36 | Maria Fernanda Santos de Carvalho Ratola | 05/03/1950
MAMODEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 36 | 37 | José MárioGonçalvesCarvalho | 09/02/1944
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 37 | 38 | Luis Manuel dos Reis Vinagre | 25/12/1948
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 38 | 39 | AntónioRufino Marques Ferreira | 03/04/1949
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 39 | 40 | Maria Alegria Branco Neves Ferreira | 10/08/1949
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 40 | 41 | Rosa Dias Nunes | 27/01/1948
LUXEMBOURG |
EUR 500 | |
| 41 | 42 | Noémia Ferreira Dias Marques | 28/02/1956
CACIA |
EUR 500 | |
| 42 | 43 | Maria Augusta Ferreira Monteiro | 21/07/1954
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 43 | 44 | Fernanda Augusta Pereira Monteiro Silva | 30/11/1957
CACIA |
EUR 500 | |
| 44 | 45 | Maria de Fátima Marinho Teixeira Dinis | 13/05/1952
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 45 | 46 | Maria da Graça de Almeida Roque | 12/02/1953
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 46 | 47 | Maria Luísa Leal Bessa Frazão | 01/07/1958
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 47 | 48 | Maria Luísa Ferreira Vieira Morgado | 12/10/1957
CACIA |
EUR 500 | |
| 48 | 49 | Aldina Maria Fonseca de Pinho | 09/04/1955
GAFANHA DA NAZARÉ |
EUR 500 | |
| 49 | 50 | Manuel Soares Ferreira | 01/12/1943
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 50 | 51 | António da Costa Santos | 23/08/1946
AVEIRO |
Ms Maria da Conceição da Silva Dias Santos and Mr Emanuel da Silva Santos, heirs of the applicant, pursue the application in his stead. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 51 | 52 | Américo Pereira GalvãoSeco | 02/04/1946
EIXO |
EUR 500 | |
| 52 | 53 | Maria Isabel Pereira Oliveira Santos | 25/01/1951
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 53 | 54 | GuilherminaConceição Almeida Oliveira | 16/01/1960
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 54 | 55 | Luísa da Silva Pereira | 22/06/1954
CACIA |
EUR 500 | |
| 55 | 56 | José Maia Gonçalves | 07/09/1941
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 56 | 57 | Ermosa Maria Dunas Figueira Russo | 18/06/1960
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 57 | 58 | Armando Henrique da Silva Vinagre | 21/08/1946
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 58 | 59 | Maria José Pereira Coutinho | 01/04/1953
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 59 | 60 | Manuel Soares Reis Santos | 11/10/1940
ÓIS DA RIBEIRA |
EUR 500 | |
| 60 | 61 | Ana Paula Santos Rodrigues Bartolomeu | 04/01/1959
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 61 | 63 | Rosa Maria Almeida Gonçalves Brandão | 31/08/1956
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 62 | 64 | Manuel da LouraGamelas | 13/01/1941
AVEIRO |
Mr José Manuel TeixeiraGamelas, heir of the applicant, pursues the application in his stead. | EUR 500 |
| 63 | 65 | Maria de Lurdes Maia Dias | 18/03/1952
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 64 | 66 | Maria de Lurdes Sousa Lopes Garcia | 09/02/1936
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 65 | 67 | Maria Henriqueta Calado Nunes Oliveira | 11/06/1955
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 66 | 68 | Rosa Maria Duarte Ramalho | 20/11/1955
OLIVEIRINHA |
EUR 500 | |
| 67 | 69 | Maria Margarida Pereira Leiroz Guimarães | 12/05/1943
ILHAVO |
EUR 500 | |
| 68 | 70 | Ana Luisa Fernanda Almeida Rosa | 10/06/1956
EIXO |
EUR 500 | |
| 69 | 71 | Maria de Fátima de Oliveira Dinis Silva | 17/10/1957
OVAR |
EUR 500 | |
| 70 | 73 | Maria Helena Nunes Videira da Cruz | 04/09/1954
LOURE |
EUR 500 | |
| 71 | 74 | Maria Aldina Ferreira Monteiro Moreira | 07/09/1952
ÁGUEDA |
EUR 500 | |
| 72 | 76 | Maria RosáliaGonçalvesGenrinho | 25/08/1940
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 73 | 78 | Belarmino de Ornelas Resende | 03/04/1930
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 74 | 79 | António Rodrigues Ferreira | 02/01/1935
OIÃ |
EUR 500 | |
| 75 | 80 | Maria Ascenção Barros Naia Fortes | 01/02/1955
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 76 | 81 | Francelina Marques Silva Alvarez | 30/01/1954
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 77 | 82 | Carlos Manuel Padre Fitorra | 27/03/1952
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 78 | 83 | Maria Augusta Pereira Pinto Fitorra | 11/05/1958
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 79 | 84 | Júlia Maria Ferreira da Cunha Matos | 16/10/1958
S. BERNARDO |
EUR 500 | |
| 80 | 85 | Maria Carolina Pereira Coutinho Camarão | 22/03/1955
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 81 | 86 | Maria Helena AmaroBonifácio | 08/08/1957
ANGEJA |
EUR 500 | |
| 82 | 87 | Maria José Silva Nunes Ferreira | 16/10/1958
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 83 | 88 | Ilda Maria Calisto de Lima | 25/09/1958
ILHAVO |
EUR 500 | |
| 84 | 89 | Ana Maria Calisto de Lima | 28/10/1957
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 85 | 90 | Rosa Maria Branco das Neves Ribeiro | 18/11/1951
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 86 | 91 | Adélia Pereira Brandão | 20/05/1950
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 87 | 92 | Maria Isabel SimõesSequeira | 04/03/1953
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 88 | 93 | Arlindo de Sousa Rodrigues da Silva | 22/03/1938
ALBERGARIA-A-VELHA |
Ms Rosa Maria Rodrigues da Silva, Ms Anabela Rodrigues da Silva, andMs Ana Alexandra Rodrigues da Silva Sachse, heirs of theapplicant, pursuetheapplication in hisstead. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 89 | 95 | AntónioNobre Machado | 04/02/1924
AVEIRO |
Ms Noémia Maria Diniz Teles Machado, Mr Joaquim António Dinis Teles Machado, Mr Raul Diniz Teles Machado, Mr José Carlos Diniz Teles Machado, andMs Ana Paula Diniz Teles Machado Pimenta, heirs of theapplicant, pursuetheapplication in hisstead. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 90 | 96 | Manuel Silva Costa Malafaia | 26/08/1957
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 91 | 97 | Ana Maria Almeida Dias Santos | 11/01/1953
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 92 | 98 | Rodrigo da Silva Ferreira | 05/06/1944
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 93 | 99 | Maria Fernanda da Costa | 13/04/1951
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 94 | 100 | Alfredo Ferraz Leal | 28/12/1935
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 95 | 101 | Carlos Alberto SimõesInstrumento | 13/05/1925
AVEIRO |
Mr João Francisco RasoiloSimões, Mr Carlos Alberto Simões, and Mr Óscar Manuel Simões, heirs of the applicant, pursue the application in his stead. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 96 | 102 | Jaime de Oliveira Fernandes Dias | 21/02/1943
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 97 | 103 | Alda Maria dos Santos Marques | 20/02/1957
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 98 | 104 | Irene Amarante de Jesus Romão | 04/07/1958
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 99 | 105 | Maria Adoração Oliveira Neto Carnaz | 10/11/1946
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 100 | 106 | Odelta Maria Dias da Silva Patinha | 17/02/1957
ALBERGARIA-A-VELHA |
EUR 500 | |
| 101 | 107 | Maria ConceiçãoGonçalvesBranco | 28/06/1945
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 102 | 109 | Maria Clara da Costa Mesquita | 16/03/1960
AVEIRO |
Mr Carlos Manuel Marques Rosa, Ms Cláudia Susana Costa Marques, and Ms Cátia Daniela Costa Marques, heirs of the applicant, pursue the application in her stead. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 103 | 110 | Maria EmíliaSoaresCorreia | 16/11/1955
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 104 | 111 | Emília Augusta Maia Soares Diogo | 18/10/1956
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 105 | 112 | Maria Vitória O. Marques Couras | 27/02/1958
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 106 | 113 | Maria Júlia Ferreira Monteiro | 23/04/1958
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 107 | 114 | Maria Irene Costa Ferreira | 12/02/1951
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 108 | 115 | Ana Maria Robalo Martins Abelho | 05/08/1950
AZURVA |
EUR 500 | |
| 109 | 116 | José Maria Pereira Póvoa | 02/01/1949
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 110 | 118 | Fernanda SimõesSequeira Marques | 01/03/1957
CACIA |
EUR 500 | |
| 111 | 119 | Maria Manuela Marques de Almeida | 15/09/1959
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 112 | 120 | Maria de Fátima Rodrigues Pinto | 27/04/1939
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 113 | 121 | Maria de Ascenção Dias Simões Gregório | 28/04/1944
S. BERNARDO |
EUR 500 | |
| 114 | 25 | António Liberto dos Santos Oliveira | 08/03/1956
AVEIRO |
The applicant intervenes in his capacity as heir of Ms Adoração dos Santos Oliveira, who died on 23 May 2002. | EUR 500 |
| 115 | 62 | Lídia Batista Neves | 19/08/1932
FERMELÃ |
The applicants intervene in their capacity as heirs of Mr AntónioDomingues Andrade Júnior, who died on 17 August 2009. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 116 | Maria do Céu Neves de Andrade | 19/10/1958
FERMELÃ |
|||
| 117 | Carlos Manuel Neves de Andrade | 21/07/1968
FERMELÃ |
|||
| 118 | 72 | Celeste da Conceição Azevedo Gonçalves Amaro | 06/12/1939
AVEIRO |
The applicants intervene in their capacity as heirs of Mr Adriano Pereira Amaro, who died on 27 June 2004. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 119 | José Carlos GonçalvesAmaro | 30/01/1968
AVEIRO |
|||
| 120 | Célia Maria GonçalvesAmaro | 30/06/1969
AVEIRO |
|||
| 121 | 75 | Júlio de Campos Soares | 30/10/1953
AVEIRO |
The applicants intervene in their capacity as heirs of MsMaria Isabel Ferreira Soares, who died on 21 May 2001. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 122 | Sílvia Raquel Ferreira Soares | 15/08/1977
AVEIRO |
|||
| 123 | 77 | Georgina Maria Rodrigues dos Santos | 23/04/1928
AVEIRO |
The applicants intervene in their capacity as heirs of Mr Olegário Filipe dos Santos, who died on 1 February 2008. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 124 | José Francisco Rodrigues dos Santos | 23/06/1948
AVEIRO |
|||
| 125 | Jorge Manuel Rodrigues dos Santos | 22/08/1952
AVEIRO |
|||
| 126 | Maria do Rosário Rodrigues Santos Nunes Campos | 04/06/1958
AVEIRO |
|||
| 127 | 94 | Rosa Maria Gomes Adrêgo Martins | 24/07/1947
AVEIRO |
The applicants intervene in their capacity as heirs of Mr Manuel Martins Pinho, who died on 31 August 2008.
|
EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 128 | Vitor Manuel Adrêgo Martins | 08/09/1969
AVEIRO |
|||
| 129 | Helena Maria Adrêgo Martins Bandeira | 22/09/1974
AVEIRO |
|||
| 130 | 108 | Maria Vitória Branco Rodrigues da Rocha | 15/03/1941
AVEIRO |
The initial applicants intervened in their capacity as heirs of Mr António Tavares Teixeira, who died on 18 December 2009.
The applicant Ms Maria VitóriaBranco Rodrigues da Rocha (no. 130) died while the application was pending before the Court. Mr António Manuel da Rocha Tavares Teixeira (applicant no. 131) isheronlyheir.
TheapplicantMr António Manuel da Rocha Tavares Teixeira thereforeintervenes in hisowncapacity as heir of Mr António Tavares Teixeira andpursuestheapplication in thestead of Ms Maria Vitória Branco Rodrigues da Rocha. |
EUR 500 |
| 131 | António Manuel da Rocha Tavares Teixeira | 05/01/1964
AVEIRO |
|||
| 132 | 122 | Rosa Maria Branco Ferreira Tavares | 31/07/1955
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 133 | 123 | Rosa Maria Pinho de Almeida Ferreira | 26/04/1959
ANGEJA |
EUR 500 | |
| 134 | 124 | Virgínia Maria GonçalvesRuela | 05/10/1958
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 135 | 126 | Maria Leonor Marques Pereira | 31/08/1953
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 136 | 127 | Maria Lúcia da Graça Marinho | 15/04/1954
GERMANY |
EUR 500 | |
| 137 | 128 | Maria Lúcia Ferreira dos Santos Nobre | 06/09/1958
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 138 | 129 | Maria Regina Barros Pereira Castro | 22/01/1957
ESTARREJA |
EUR 500 | |
| 139 | 130 | Mário João Dias da Conceição Pedro | 09/04/1939
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 140 | 131 | Matilde Jesus Marques | 06/12/1956
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 141 | 132 | NazaréGlóriaGonçalvesMorgado | 29/09/1958
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 142 | 133 | Maria Filomena Lima Calisto | 28/10/1958
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 143 | 134 | Maria Graciela da Costa Pereira | 23/08/1955
ESTARREJA |
EUR 500 | |
| 144 | 135 | Maria Helena Barros Silva | 30/06/1960
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 145 | 137 | António Carlos Almeida Andias | 22/05/1951
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 146 | 138 | Maria Helena Oliveira da Silva Santos | 19/06/1953
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 147 | 139 | Belarmino Alves Santos Abreu | 23/03/1954
FERMELÃ |
EUR 500 | |
| 148 | 140 | Rosa Maria Antunes Silva Jorge Ferreira | 06/09/1960
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 149 | 145 | Adília Pereira | 13/02/1945
ANDORRE |
EUR 500 | |
| 150 | 146 | Amaro Fernando de Jesus Silveira | 03/07/1949
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 151 | 147 | Maria Silvina Romão Gonçalves da Loura Couto | 11/03/1954
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 152 | 148 | Maria Margarida Andrade Neves | 10/08/1958
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 153 | 151 | José Manuel dos Santos Figueiras | 14/01/1957
CACIA |
EUR 500 | |
| 154 | 154 | Guilherme Augusto Freire Nunes Ribeiro | 23/05/1948
GAFANHA DA NAZARÉ |
EUR 500 | |
| 155 | 155 | João Manuel Teixeira Rodrigues Carita | 25/09/1951
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 156 | 156 | Manuel Simões Neves | 01/11/1937
GAFANHA DA NAZARÉ |
EUR 500 | |
| 157 | 158 | Francisco José da Silva Vinagre | 01/09/1954
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 158 | 159 | João Dias Fernandes | 03/06/1929
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 159 | 160 | Maria Fátima Santos Pereira | 29/03/1959
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 160 | 161 | Gertrudes Maria Rosado Grilo | 26/01/1948
AZURVA |
EUR 500 | |
| 161 | 162 | Manuel Souto Silva | 10/10/1957
ANGEJA |
EUR 500 | |
| 162 | 163 | Lavínia Maria Jesus Gouveia Costa | 24/09/1948
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 163 | 164 | Maria Armanda Cunha Silva Pereira | 22/06/1956
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 164 | 165 | Cristina Maria de Araújo Peixinho Rosas | 02/11/1956
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 165 | 167 | Maria Filomena Freire Nunes Ribeiro | 04/12/1950
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 166 | 169 | Maria Carolina de Sousa Almeida Neto | 24/05/1957
AVEIRO |
Mr JoãoMário da GraçaAzevedoNeto and Mr Fernando Miguel de Sousa AzevedoNeto, heirs of the applicant, pursue the application in her stead. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 167 | 170 | Fernando Tavares Xavier | 24/06/1944
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 168 | 171 | Maria Joaquina Amorosa dos Reis | 18/01/1946
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 169 | 172 | Orlando Silva Matos | 28/08/1942
CACIA |
EUR 500 | |
| 170 | 173 | Rosa Santos Nogueira Almeida | 20/02/1945
CANADÁ |
EUR 500 | |
| 171 | 174 | Vitor Manuel Costa Domingues de Sá | 20/10/1957
FERMELÃ |
EUR 500 | |
| 172 | 176 | Jaime Semedo | 03/07/1948
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 173 | 178 | João Marques Rodrigues | 22/05/1952
ESTARREJA |
Ms Maria Teresa dos Anjos Aires Rodrigues, heir of the applicant, pursues the application in his stead. | EUR 500 |
| 174 | 179 | Manuel Fernandes das Bichas | 26/08/1950
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 175 | 180 | Luis Alberto Oliveira da Silva | 29/07/1949
ILHAVO |
EUR 500 | |
| 176 | 182 | João de Oliveira Azevedo | 07/07/1946
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 177 | 185 | Armando de Pinho | 24/05/1955
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 178 | 186 | Maria Isabel Igreja Pereira Caldeira | 01/03/1960
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 179 | 187 | Brilhantina Simões da Silva Freire | 14/06/1955
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 180 | 188 | Eduardo José Sacramento Rocha | 04/08/1946
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 181 | 189 | Maria Luz dos Santos Tavares | 22/12/1956
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 182 | 190 | Maria PurificaçãoEgreja Pereira | 15/02/1958
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 183 | 191 | Maria Fátima Marques Simão Madeira | 29/08/1954
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 184 | 192 | Maria Rosário Gonçalves de Carvalho Peralta | 05/06/1957
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 185 | 193 | Ana Rosa Jesus Oliveira | 26/10/1953
ALBERGARIA-A-VELHA |
EUR 500 | |
| 186 | 194 | Abel Rocha Simões | 09/06/1951
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 187 | 195 | António Marques Tavares | 26/04/1946
SEVER DO VOUGA |
EUR 500 | |
| 188 | 196 | Carminda Maria de Castro Vieira Mendes | 21/08/1956
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 189 | 197 | Deolinda Maria Peixoto Rodrigues Oliveira | 13/03/1957
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 190 | 198 | Fernando Miranda Gonçalves | 29/06/1944
MIRA |
EUR 500 | |
| 191 | 199 | Maria Fátima Silva Valente | 16/09/1958
SUISSE |
EUR 500 | |
| 192 | 200 | António Francisco Laranjeira | 28/12/1953
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 193 | 201 | Ricardo Jorge FinoFigueiredo | 18/06/1953
ILHAVO |
EUR 500 | |
| 194 | 202 | José Piedade Ferreira | 16/10/1927
S. JOÃO DO ESTORIL |
EUR 500 | |
| 195 | 203 | José Luis Ferreira Bio | 15/10/1947
ILHAVO |
EUR 500 | |
| 196 | 204 | João Rodrigues Pereira | 15/08/1927
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 197 | 205 | Armando Emílio Coelho Regala | 06/05/1943
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 198 | 206 | Maria Graça Dias Rodrigues Pereira | 28/02/1955
CACIA |
EUR 500 | |
| 199 | 207 | Rosa Rodrigues Casal | 09/09/1926
AVEIRO |
EUR 500 | |
| 200 | 125 | Márcio Filipe Soares Oliveira | 04/01/1979
CACIA |
The applicant intervenes in his capacity as heir of Ms Maria Leonor Silva Soares Oliveira, who died on 18 September 2005. | EUR 500 |
| 201 | 136 | Ermelando João de Almeida Vidal | 27/09/1972
OLIVEIRINHA |
The applicants intervene in their capacity as heirs of MsMaria Helena Almeida Andias, who died on 14 January 2004. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 202 | Bruno Daniel de Almeida | 28/02/1982
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
|||
| 203 | 141 | Maria de Fátima Rodrigues Pinto | 27/04/1939
AVEIRO |
The applicants intervene in their capacity as heirs of Mr Henrique Ferreira Teixeira, who died on 29 April 1988. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 204 | Isabel Cristina Pinto Teixeira | 06/03/1965
AVEIRO |
|||
| 205 | 142 | Maria Teresa Silva Grilo dos Anjos | 12/09/1949
ILHAVO |
The applicants intervene in their capacity as heirs of Mr Armando Manuel Matias dos Anjos, who died on 17 October 1989. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 206 | Ricardo Manuel Silva dos Anjos | 05/01/1971
ILHAVO |
|||
| 207 | João Henrique Silva dos Anjos | 30/06/1975
ILHAVO |
|||
| 208 | Susana Catarina Silva dos Anjos | 19/08/1976
ILHAVO |
|||
| 209 | 143 | Dorinda Rosa Ferreira | 24/02/1927
AVEIRO |
The applicants intervene in their capacity as heirs of Mr Manuel Alves Ribeiro Pinho, who died on 28 May 1987. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 210 | Joaquim Ferreira de Pinho | 15/01/1949
AVEIRO |
|||
| 211 | Marília Ferreira de Pinho | 01/01/1951
AVEIRO |
|||
| 212 | José Manuel Ferreira de Pinho | 10/08/1952
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
|||
| 213 | João Manuel Ferreira de Pinho | 31/01/1958
AVEIRO |
|||
| 214 | António Manuel Ferreira de Pinho | 14/02/1961
ALBERGARIA-A-VELHA |
|||
| 215 | 144 | Maria Adelaide Dias Abrunhosa | 07/12/1923
OLIVEIRINHA |
The applicant intervenes in her capacity as heir of Mr VitorinoHenriques da Silva, who died on 21 December 1992. | EUR 500 |
| 216 | 149 | Manuel Simões das Neves | 01/11/1937
GAFANHA DA NAZARÉ |
The applicants intervene in their capacity as heirs of Mr MárioRuiSimões Neves, who died on 28 May 2007. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 217 | Carlos Simões das Neves | 28/03/1935
GAFANHA DA NAZARÉ |
|||
| 218 | 150 | Maria Luísa dos Santos Oliveira | 19/04/1941
AVEIRO |
The applicants intervene in their capacity as heirs of Mr Jorge de PinhoBranco, who died on 10 February 1993. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 219 | Jorge Virgílio de Oliveira Branco | 17/01/1963
SÃO BERNARDO |
|||
| 220 | Rui Miguel Oliveira Branco | 23/06/1971
SÃO BERNARDO |
|||
| 221 | 152 | Maria do Rosário Garcia de Oliveira Moutinho | 21/08/1936
AVEIRO |
The applicants intervene in their capacity as heirs of Mr Abel LimasSimões, who died on 2 December 1997. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 222 | Ernesto de Oliveira Simões | 10/06/1957
AVEIRO |
|||
| 223 | Deolinda Maria de Oliveira Simões | 11/01/1961
AVEIRO |
|||
| 224 | 153 | Lucília Maria da Trindade Sarabando | 21/09/1942
VAGOS |
The applicants intervene in their capacity as heirs of Mr Adérito Ramos Gonçalves, who died on 5 December 2000. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 225 | Adérito Manuel da Trindade Gonçalves | 29/01/1962
VAGOS |
|||
| 226 | 157 | Lídia Lopes | 15/01/1943
ILHAVO |
The initial applicants intervened in their capacity as heirs of Mr Carlos António Lopes Bastos, who died on 22 March 1998.
The applicant Ms Lídia Lopes (no. 226) died while the application was pending before the Court. Mr Jorge Manuel Lopes Bastos and Ms Olga Maria Lopes Bastos (applicants nos. 227 and 228) are her only heirs.
The applicants Mr Jorge Manuel Lopes Bastos and Ms Olga Maria Lopes Bastos therefore intervene in their own capacity as heirs of Mr Carlos António Lopes Bastos and pursue the application in the stead of Ms Lídia Lopes. |
EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 227 | Jorge Manuel Lopes Bastos | 25/08/1967
ILHAVO |
|||
| 228 | Olga Maria Lopes Bastos | 17/03/1969
OIÃ |
|||
| 229 | 166 | Fernanda Pais da Cruz Silva | 02/12/1943
AVEIRO |
The initial applicants intervened in their capacity as heirs of Mr José Silva Brilhante, who died on 3 July 1997. However, they died while the application was pending before the Court.
Mr Júlio José da Cruz Simões, Ms Maria José da Cruz Simões Ventura, Mr João José das Neves Ferreira, Ms Joana Silva Ferreira, andMr João Pedro Silva Ferreira, heirs of theapplicants, pursuetheapplication in theirstead. |
EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 230 | Ana Clara dos Santos Silva Ferreira | 27/02/1964
AVEIRO |
|||
| 231 | 168 | Emília Alves Igreja | 29/08/1922
AVEIRO |
The applicants intervene in their capacity as heirs of Mr ZacariasGonçalves Pereira Júnior, who died on 26 February 2007. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 232 | Maria da Purificação Egreja Pereira | 15/02/1958
AVEIRO |
|||
| 233 | Maria Isabel Egreja Pereira Caldeira | 01/03/1960
AVEIRO |
|||
| 234 | José Carlos Egreja Pereira | 26/01/1964
AVEIRO |
|||
| 235 | 175 | Ilda NogueiraMota | 06/01/1941
S. JOÃO DE LOURE |
The applicants intervene in their capacity as heirs of Mr. Avelino de Jesus Henriques da Silva, who died on 19 July 1997. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 236 | Tércio Mota Henriques da Silva | 13/05/1965
S. JOÃO DE LOURE |
|||
| 237 | 177 | Maria da Soledade Freire Pinto Nogueira | 08/04/1941
AVEIRO |
The initial applicants intervened in their capacity as heirs of Mr Jorge Marques Nogueira, who died on 20 August 2009.
The applicants Ms Maria da Soledade Freire Pinto Nogueira and Mr Jorge Alberto Pinto Nogueira (nos. 237 and 239) died while the application was pending before the Court.
Ms Deolinda Maria Pinto Nogueira (applicant no. 238), Ms Bárbara Esteves Nogueira, andMs Cristiana Jorge de Figueiredo Nogueira are theonlyheirs of thedeceasedapplicants. They therefore intervene in their own capacity as heirs of Mr Jorge Marques Nogueira and pursue the application in the stead of Ms Maria da Soledade Freire Pinto Nogueira and Mr Jorge Alberto Pinto Nogueira. |
EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 238 | Deolinda Maria Pinto Nogueira | 20/10/1955
AVEIRO |
|||
| 239 | Jorge Alberto Pinto Nogueira | 12/12/1964
AVEIRO |
|||
| 240 | 181 | Carla Cristina Gonçalves de Oliveira | 13/04/1972
AVEIRO |
The applicants intervene in their capacity as heirs of Ms. Leopoldina da Costa Gonçalves, who died on 23 February 1994. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 241 | Ana Maria Gonçalves de Oliveira | 21/09/1973
AVEIRO |
|||
| 242 | Maria Alice Gonçalves de Oliveira | 26/11/1974
AVEIRO |
|||
| 243 | Virgínia Maria Gonçalves de Oliveira | 25/03/1978
AVEIRO |
|||
| 244 | Patrícia Susana Gonçalves de Oliveira | 17/04/1982
AVEIRO |
|||
| 245 | Sandra Raquel Gonçalves de Jesus | 16/11/1992
AVEIRO |
|||
| 246 | 183 | Francisco Albino Ferreira Picado | 12/02/1963
AVEIRO |
The applicants intervene in their capacity as heirs of Mr. Albino Picado, who died on 16 December 1997.
|
EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 247 | Maria de Apresentação Ferreira Picado Instrumento | 13/01/1970
AVEIRO |
|||
| 248 | 184 | Maria Eugénia Fernandes da Silva Santos | 30/05/1951
EIXO |
The applicants intervene in their capacity as heirs of Mr. ArménioDomingues da Silva, who died on 4 December 1995. | EUR 500
(jointly) |
| 249 | Maria de La-Salete Fernandes da Silva Dinis | 04/11/1952
AVEIRO |
|||
| 250 | António Fernandes da Silva | 22/02/1954
AVEIRO |
|||
| 251 | Albano Arménio Fernandes da Silva | 14/12/1961
AVEIRO |
Leave a Reply