CASE OF ALBERTINA CARVALHO E FILHOS LDA v. PORTUGAL
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque
4. The applicant company has its registered office in Valongo, Portugal. 5. On 18 July 2005 the applicant company brought enforcement proceedings against M.C. before the Valongo Court, seeking payment of an alleged debt of 32,992.99 euros (EUR) plus EUR 18,413.35 in interest it considered to be due up to that date, amounting to a total sum of EUR 51,406. It also sought the payment of the interest accrued until the date of repayment of the debt in full. 6. On 12 October 2005 a judicial enforcement officer (agente de execução) was appointed to the case by the Valongo Court. He accepted this appointment on 13 October 2005. 7. M.C. was summoned on 20 November 2005 and on 14 December 2005 she lodged an application for proceedings for opposition to enforcement (oposição à execução). These proceedings were joined to the enforcement proceedings on 15 December 2005. 8. Between 15 December 2005 and 3 March 2016 information was exchanged between the Valongo Court and the judicial enforcement officer about the date on which M.C. had been summoned and the documents in that connection. 9. On 30 May 2006 the applicant company gave its reply to the opposition to enforcement proceedings. 10. Between 6 February 2007 and 15 August 2008 several procedural steps took place in the enforcement proceedings regarding the possible freezing of M.C.’s bank accounts. 11. In the meantime, on 22 February 2008, in the proceedings for opposition to enforcement the court had given a preparatory decision setting out the facts that had already been established and those that remained outstanding (despacho saneador). 12. On 29 November 2010 the applicant company’s lawyer withdrew from the case. 13. On 6 December 2010 the court requested that the judicial enforcement officer provide a report on the procedural steps taken (see paragraph 10 above). 14. On 14 January 2011 the court could not contact the applicant company at the address it had provided to the court. 15. On 16 December 2011 a hearing in the proceedings for opposition to enforcement was scheduled for 30 May 2012. For reasons related to the health of M.C.’s lawyer, the hearing was postponed to 27 November 2012. On an unknown date the hearing was postponed to 6 March 2013, the date on which it took place. 16. For unknown reasons, on 23 December 2011 the Chamber of Judicial Officers (Câmara dos Solicitadores) informed the Valongo Court that a new judicial enforcement officer was to be appointed. 17. On 3 January 2012 a new judicial enforcement officer was appointed to the enforcement proceedings. 18. On an unknown date before the 16 January 2012 another lawyer started representing the applicant company. 19. Between 25 September and 11 December 2012 discussions took place between the new judicial enforcement officer, the court and the previous judicial enforcement officer regarding the transmission of the necessary case documents from the previous judicial enforcement officer to the new one. 20. Between 9 April and 1 October 2013 correspondence took place between the new judicial enforcement officer and the court regarding the applicant company’s representation by a lawyer (whether it was represented in the case and by whom). 21. On 29 April 2013 the Valongo Court adopted a decision against the applicant company in the proceedings for opposition to enforcement. 22. On an unknown date before or during February 2014 the applicant company appealed against that decision to the Oporto Court of Appeal. 23. The Oporto Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision by a judgment adopted on 20 May 2014. 24. On an unknown date the applicant company appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court of Justice. On 11 September 2014 that appeal was rejected by the Oporto Court of Appeal because the applicant company had not submitted any grounds of appeal. Following that decision, the enforcement proceedings were terminated.