Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
031757 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal where facts were not raised as nullity and prior suspension bars leniency.

Case Number 031757
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Portugal (PT)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Administrative Court rejected Fernando Prado's appeal against a disciplinary dismissal by the Lisbon City Council. Prado attempted to introduce new facts regarding prior good behavior and a previous suspension, but the court held these could not be considered since he did not formally challenge the silence on them as a nullity. Consequently, the court ruled that the prior suspension precluded the application of the leniency provision under the Disciplinary Statute.

Legislator headnote

Official

PROCESSO DISCIPLINAR DEMISSÃO ATENUANTE ESPECIAL BOM COMPORTAMENTO ANTERIOR OMISSÃO DE PRONÚNCIA

Keywords

AI generated
disciplinary dismissal omission of pronouncement nullity of silence leniency provision prior suspension penalty administrative appeal discipline of civil servants

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 26(1) of the Disciplinary Statute of Civil Servants
Art. 29(a) of the Disciplinary Statute of Civil Servants
II - Não beneficia da atenuante do art. 29 a) do Estatuto Disciplinar dos Funcionários Civis aprovado pelo Dec-Lei n.
Art. 30 of the Disciplinary Statute of Civil Servants

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

[AREA TEMATICA 1] DIR ADM GER - FUNÇÃO PUBL DISCIPLINAR.

[LEGISLACAO NACIONAL] EDF84 ART26 N1 ART29 A ART30.

[ANO DA PUBLICACAO] 96

[DATA DE ENTRADA] 02/02/1993

[Nº CONVENCIONAL] JSTA00046044

[Nº DO DOCUMENTO] SA119960604031757

[OBJECTO] SENT TAC LISBOA.

[PRIVACIDADE] 01

[RECORRENTE] PRADO , FERNANDO

[RECORRIDO 1] CM DE LISBOA

[URL] https://www.dgsi.pt/jsta.nsf/35fbbbf22e1bb1e680256f8e003ea931/DA2809CBBC6FAD21802568FC0039670B?OpenDocument

SUMÁRIO

I - Se no recurso de decisão proferida pelo Tribunal Administrativo de Círculo o recorrente invoca factos que poderiam eventualmente conduzir a decisão diferente mas não argui a nulidade de omissão de pronúncia não pode o Supremo Tribunal Administrativo conhecer deles.

II - Não beneficia da atenuante do art. 29 a) do Estatuto Disciplinar dos Funcionários Civis aprovado pelo Dec-Lei n. 28/84, de 16/11, o arguido a quem foi anteriormente aplicada uma pena de suspensão por 120 dias.