FOURTH SECTION<\/p>\n
DECISION<\/p>\n
Application no.8133\/14
\nJos\u00e9 Miguel FISCHER RODRIGUES CRUZ DA COSTA
\nagainst Portugal<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8\u00a0January 2019 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Egidijus K\u016bris, President,
\nPaulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
\nIulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
\nand Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 February 2014,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Mr Jos\u00e9 Miguel Fischer Rodrigues Cruz da Costa, is a Portuguese national, who was born in 1984 and is detained in Braga.<\/p>\n The circumstances of the case<\/strong><\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 July 2011 the investigating judge of the Braga Criminal Court indicted (despacho de pron\u00fancia) the applicant for the crime of computer fraud and committed him for trial.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0At a hearing on 31 July 2012, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Braga Court issued a decision giving the applicant notice of a change to the facts on which he had been indicted.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 August 2012 the applicant lodged an application challenging the previous decision.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 August 2012 the Braga Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s application and adopted a judgment convicting the applicant of computer fraud and sentencing him to six years\u2019 imprisonment.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 September 2012 the applicant brought an appeal against both the dismissal of his application and his conviction.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 April 2013 the Court of Appeal of Guimar\u00e3es upheld the applicant\u2019s conviction. Regarding the dismissal of the applicant\u2019s application challenging the change to the facts, the court considered that the applicable legal provisions imposed a twenty-day time-limit for an appeal to be lodged. Accordingly, that court declared that part of the appeal inadmissible as it was time-barred.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0A constitutional appeal lodged by the applicant was declared inadmissible on 19 November 2013 on the grounds that he had not complied with the formal requirement to raise an argument of unconstitutionality in respect of any legal provision. Instead, the applicant had challenged the judicial decision convicting him.<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0Relying on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 b) and Article 13 of the Convention and on Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 7, the applicant complained of the unfairness of the proceedings. He alleged in particular that he had not been able to challenge the dismissal of his request regarding the change to the facts owing to the time-limit for the appeal.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant submitted that the proceedings leading to his conviction had been unfair and, in particular, that part of the appeal court\u2019s reasoning had been taken from another unfinished criminal case. He further complained about the finding of inadmissibility of the appeal on the change to the facts, rendered by the Court of Appeal of Guimar\u00e3es (see paragraph 8 above).<\/p>\n The applicant invoked Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 b) and Article 13 of the Convention as well as Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 7.<\/p>\n