CASE OF OLIVEIRA MODESTO AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL

 
 
 
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,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
and Andrea 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 251 Portuguese nationals listed in the Annex (“the applicants”), on 17 November 2010.
2. The first applicant represented all the applicants and was 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 Graça Carvalho, 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  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicants are former employees and heirs 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 being unable 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 Aveiro Court 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 of the former employees’ claims. On 9 February 2001 the first applicant appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court of Justice.
12. On 19 February 2001 the applicant Rosa Rodrigues Casal (applicant no. 199 in the appended table) lodged an application with the Aveiro Court, seeking to register a claim against the insolvent company.
13. On 6 December 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice delivered a judgment confirming the classification of claims by the Coimbra Court of Appeal (see paragraphs 9 and 11 above).
14. On 27 November 2002 the judicial liquidator informed the Aveiro Court 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. On 29 July 2009 the municipality of Aveiro, the body of creditors and company G. entered into an agreement 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 contact with 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, but he 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 paragraph 13 above).
26. Following the Aveiro Commercial Court insisting that the judicial liquidator provide 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 court invited 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 liquidator informed 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 had sent 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 replies were negative. He then suggested that a 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 distributing those 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 two sets of tax enforcement proceedings which were ongoing.
33. On 6 July 2017 the court notified the judicial liquidator that 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 issue before 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 satisfaction was paid to the applicants on 11 and 12 December 2000.
40. By Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)149 adopted on 8 June 2016 at the 1259th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers declared that it had exercised 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 Processos Especiais 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. By letters of 3 October 2017 and 21 May 2018 the first applicant informed the Court about the death of the following applicants: 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, and Mr 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 herdeiros notariais) 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 Rodrigues at 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 (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000‑XII; see also Ječius 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’s heirs 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 she had not declared her claims at the stage 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 paragraph 8 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 paragraph 7 above) the applicant Rosa Rodrigues Casal only declared her claims on 19 February 2001 (see paragraph 12 above), long after the time-limit fixed 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 become a 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 rejected in 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 application in 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 complained about the length of the proceedings as of 8 June 2000, the date on which the Court’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 36 above), 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 paragraphs 31 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 paragraph 10 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 requested by 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 paragraph 26 above);
- it took him more than nine months (from 6 March 2013 until 18 December 2013) to reply to the court order on establishing new contact with real-estate companies by email (see paragraphs 27 and 28 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 paragraphs 25 and 29 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 paragraphs 31 and 32 above).
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 the context 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 proceedings constituted 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, and Jama 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 question from 30 July 2009 until 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, Društvo Za Varstvo Upnikov 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. Holds that 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 (five hundred euros) 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. Dismisses the 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 TamiettiEgidijus Kūris
Deputy RegistrarPresident
 
 


ANNEX
 
 
No.
Applicant reference number
Applicant name
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 Graça Carvalho
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 António Teles Machado
10/04/1949
AVEIRO
 
EUR 500
10
10
Ana Maria Rodrigues da Cruz
30/07/1958
AVEIRO
 
EUR 500
11
11
Maria Ascenção Gonçalves Maio
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 Nascimento Fernandes 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 Souto Ratola
12/03/1957
MAMODEIRO
 
EUR 500
35
36
Maria Fernanda Santos de Carvalho Ratola
05/03/1950
MAMODEIRO
 
EUR 500
36
37
José Mário Gonçalves Carvalho
09/02/1944
AVEIRO
 
EUR 500
37
38
Luis Manuel dos Reis Vinagre
25/12/1948
AVEIRO
 
EUR 500
38
39
António Rufino 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 Galvão Seco
02/04/1946
EIXO
 
EUR 500
52
53
Maria Isabel Pereira Oliveira Santos
25/01/1951
AVEIRO
 
EUR 500
53
54
Guilhermina Conceição 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 Loura Gamelas
13/01/1941
AVEIRO
Mr José Manuel Teixeira Gamelas, 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 Rosália Gonçalves Genrinho
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 Amaro Bonifácio
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 Simões Sequeira
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, and Ms Ana Alexandra Rodrigues da Silva Sachse, heirs of the applicant, pursue the application in his stead.
EUR 500
(jointly)
89
95
António Nobre 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, and Ms Ana Paula Diniz Teles Machado Pimenta, heirs of the applicant, pursue the application in his stead.
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 Simões Instrumento
13/05/1925
AVEIRO
Mr João Francisco Rasoilo Simões, 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 Conceição Gonçalves Branco
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 Emília Soares Correia
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 Simões Sequeira 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 António Domingues 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 Gonçalves Amaro
30/01/1968
AVEIRO
120
Célia Maria Gonçalves Amaro
30/06/1969
AVEIRO
121
75
Júlio de Campos Soares
30/10/1953
AVEIRO
The applicants intervene in their capacity as heirs of Ms Maria 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 Vitória Branco Rodrigues da Rocha (no. 130) died while the application was pending before the Court. Mr António Manuel da Rocha Tavares Teixeira (applicant no. 131) is her only heir.
 
The applicant Mr António Manuel da Rocha Tavares Teixeira therefore intervenes in his own capacity as heir of Mr António Tavares Teixeira and pursues the application in the stead 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 Gonçalves Ruela
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
Nazaré Glória Gonçalves Morgado
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 João Mário da Graça Azevedo Neto and Mr Fernando Miguel de Sousa Azevedo Neto, 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 Purificação Egreja 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 Fino Figueiredo
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 Ms Maria 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 Vitorino Henriques 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 Mário Rui Simões 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 Pinho Branco, 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 Limas Simões, 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, and Mr João Pedro Silva Ferreira, heirs of the applicants, pursue the application in their stead.
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 Zacarias Gonçalves 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 Nogueira Mota
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, and Ms Cristiana Jorge de Figueiredo Nogueira are the only heirs of the deceased applicants. 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. Arménio Domingues 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
 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy