Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
386/2015 KI-generiert

Constitutional Court corrects a prior ruling due to a manifest error in identifying the referenced judgment.

Geschäftsnummer 386/2015
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Portugal (PT)
Ausgang Gutgeheissen (Allowed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Constitutional Court ordered a correction to a previous ruling because the relator mistakenly identified the target judgment for a reform request. The court found that the original decision referenced Acórdão n.º 558/15, which had not been issued, whereas the actual decision was Acórdão n.º 675/15. Relying on the principle that manifest errors are always rectifiable under the Code of Civil Procedure, the court mandated the amendment of the text to reflect the correct citation.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Article 614, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court: A manifest error in identifying the decision to be reformed is always rectifiable, requiring the correction of the cited judgment number to the one actually addressed.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
manifest error rectification of judgment identification error Code of Civil Procedure constitutional court ruling correct citation procedural correction Klageänderung

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
Article 614, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court
KI-generiert
553/11
Constitutional Court dismisses request to clarify and reform a prior judgment on procedural law application.
493/19
Constitutional Court dismisses nullity claim against prior rulings regarding inadmissible constitutional appeal and procedural error.
TC_20000543
Constitutional Court rejects clarification request as it is merely a re-litigation of a decided constitutional issue.
558/2005
Portuguese Constitutional Court dismisses civil procedure reform request based on divergent interpretation of prior decision.
856/04
Constitutional Court rejects municipality's claim of omission regarding a third constitutional violation argument in a concrete review. The court held that the third ground was merely a request to correct the lower court's substantive judgment rather than a distinct omission requiring review.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

ACÓRDÃO N.º 117/2016[1]

Processo n.º 386/2015

3ª Secção

Relator: Conselheiro Carlos Fernandes Cadilha

Acordam, em conferência, na 3ª Secção do Tribunal Constitucional

1. Pelo Acórdão n.º 75/16, decidiu-se «deferir o pedido de reforma do Acórdão n.º 558/15, reduzindo-se para 10UC a taxa de justiça fixada».

Porém, decorre do contexto do acórdão e, em particular, do que nele se relata, que o acórdão a que se dirigia o pedido de reforma nesses termos decidido, não era o Acórdão n.º 558/15 – que não foi sequer proferido nestes autos -, mas o Acórdão n.º 675/15, que havia indeferido a arguição de nulidade processual deduzida pelo recorrente.

O apontado erro na identificação da decisão reformada deveu-se, pois, a um lapso manifesto, que é a todo o tempo retificável (artigo 614.º, nºs. 1 e 3, do CPC, aplicável ex vi artigo 69.º da LTC).

2. Pelo exposto, determina-se a retificação do Acórdão n.º 75/2016, nos seguintes termos: onde se lê, no dispositivo, «Acórdão n.º 558/15», deve passar a ler-se «Acórdão n.º 675/15».

Notifique.

Anote no local próprio.

Lisboa, 24 de fevereiro de 2016 - Carlos Fernandes Cadilha - Maria José Rangel de Mesquita - Maria Lúcia Amaral

[1] Retifica Acórdão n.º 75/2016