12 junho 2024

A Decisão do TEDH (223)

 (Continuação daqui)

223. May be excluded

Uma das funções da Ordem dos Advogados é a de garantir a credibilidade e a idoneidade dos advogados que oferecem os seus serviços em Portugal. Trata-se de uma função herdada da Idade Média que a Ordem dos Advogados, como instituição medieval e fechada que é, ciosamente mantém consagrada nos seus estatutos, e em que as pessoas acreditam.

Eis a avaliação que o TEDH faz num dos seus acórdãos da idoneidade de um dos advogados portugueses que litiga frequentemente junto deste Tribunal  e que é reveladora da confiança que os portugueses podem ter nos advogados acreditados pela Ordem (ênfases meus):

13.  While lodging the present application, Mr Ferreira Alves, who has previously lodged numerous applications with the Court and is thus familiar with the procedure, omitted to inform the Court that the case related to the very same domestic proceedings which were under scrutiny in the context of the application lodged by the applicant’s husband. Moreover, he omitted to inform the Court that the applicant in the present case was the wife of the applicant in the previous case and that they had appeared jointly before the Porto District Court.

14.  The Court accepts that the lodging, at different times, of two separate applications which can be considered essentially the same does not per se constitute an abuse of the right of application (see, mutatis mutandisDe Cristofaro v. Italy (dec.), no. 30464/07, § 48, 10 July 2012). However, in the present case, the Court does not see any legitimate reason why the applicant’s complaint was not lodged together with her husband’s, particularly since both spouses had appeared jointly in the proceedings before the Porto District Court and both were represented by Mr Ferreira Alves. In addition, the applicant’s representative submitted incomplete and therefore misleading information. This omission became all the more important after the matter at issue in the present case was determined by the Court, on the merits, in its judgment of 2 April 2013, and the applicant’s husband was awarded compensation under Article 41 of the Convention.

15.  In this connection, the Court observes that if Mr Ferreira Alves had joined the present application to the application lodged by the applicant’s husband, the Court would not have awarded any more than EUR 4,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses, [taking into account the fact that the subject matter of the case was the same, that the applicant and her husband were parties to the same domestic proceedings, that they formed a single household and that they were represented by the same lawyer.]

16.  Finally, the Court notes that it has already held that two applications in which the applicants were represented by Mr Ferreira Alves constituted an abuse of the right of application (see Aníbal Vieira & Filhos, Lda, and Ferreira da Costa v. Portugal [Committee] (dec.), nos. 980/12 and 28385/12, 13 November 2012), while three other applications (brought by Mr Ferreira Alves himself) (see Ferreira Alves v. Portugal [Committee] (dec.), nos. 22888/1140940/12 and 43465/12) were considered to be essentially the same as previous applications. In this connection, the Court emphasises that lawyers must demonstrate a high level of professional prudence and genuine cooperation with the Court by avoiding the lodging of unmeritorious complaints. Otherwise, their credibility in the eyes of the Court will be undermined and – in the event of systematic abuses – they may be excluded from the proceedings under Rule 36 § 4 (b) and Rule 44D of the Rules of Court (see Petrović cited above, nos. 56551/11 and ten others, 18 October 2011; Bekauri, cited above; and De Cristofaro, cited above).

17.  The Court considers that the conduct of the applicant’s representative in the present case was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual petition as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention and that the application must therefore be rejected as an abuse thereof, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Fonte: cf. aqui

(Continua acolá)

Sem comentários: