Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
386/90 AI generated

Portuguese Constitutional Court dismisses appeal after declaring specific insurance regulation unconstitutional.

Case Number 386/90
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Portugal (PT)
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Constitutional Court of Portugal denied the appeal against a judge's refusal to apply an unconstitutional insurance regulation. The Ministry of Public Prosecution and an insurance company challenged the lower court's decision following a prior declaration of unconstitutionality by this same court. Consequently, the court ruled that the appeal must be rejected because the underlying legal norm had already been invalidated.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Portuguese Constitution; Art. 243.º; When a norm is declared unconstitutional with general binding force, appeals against its application must be denied.

Keywords

AI generated
Constitutional unconstitutionality General binding force Insurance regulation Judicial application refusal Constitutional Court appeal Portuguese law Normative invalidation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Portuguese Constitution
Art. 243.º

Cited Case Law

AI generated
Acórdão n.º 61/91
Entretanto, este Tribunal, pelo Acórdão n.º 61/91 (publicado no Diário da República, I série-A, de 1 de Abril de 1991) declarou, com força obrigatória geral, a inconstitucionalidade da referida norma.
AI generated
79/91
Constitutional Court dismisses appeal after declaring the challenged administrative norm unconstitutional in a prior ruling.
184/96
Constitutional court allows appeal against insurance company, revoking lower court decision on insurance regulations.
255/91
Constitutional Court dismisses appeal after declaring specific administrative norm unconstitutional in prior ruling.
488/96
Constitutional court grants relief to overturn judicial refusal of insurance company's constitutional challenge.
TC_19940429
Constitutional Court dismisses appeal for non-admissibility as prior rulings covered the case. The Court rejects the claim that the lower court refused to apply a norm. The decision confirms the lower court's rectification order was correct. The Court holds that the lower court did not refuse to apply the norm. The Court finds the prior precedent covers the current situation. The Court concludes the appeal lacks admissibility grounds. The Court dismisses the claim for lack of admissibility. The Court affirms the lower court's decision on rectification. The Court states the case is already covered by precedent. The Court denies the request for constitutional review.

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

ACÓRDÃO N

ACÓRDÃO N.º 112/91

Processo n.º 386/90

2ª Secção

Relator: Conselheiro Luís Nunes de Almeida

Acordam na 2ª Secção do Tribunal Constitucional:

Nestes autos, em que são recorrentes o Ministério Público e a "A." – Companhia Portuguesa de Seguros e recorrido B., o M.m° juiz a quo recusou aplicação à norma constante da alínea b) do n.º 3° da Portaria n.º 760/85, de 4 de Outubro.

Desta decisão foi interposto recurso para este Tribunal Constitucional.

Entretanto, este Tribunal, pelo Acórdão n.º 61/91 (publicado no Diário da República, I série-A, de 1 de Abril de 1991) declarou, com força obrigatória geral, a inconstitucionalidade da referida norma.

Nestes termos, e em aplicação da mencionada declaração de inconstitucionalidade, decide-se negar provimento aos recursos.

Lisboa, 24 de Abril de 1991.

Luís Nunes de Almeida

Bravo Serra

Mário de Brito

Fernando Alves Correia

Messias Bento

José de Sousa e Brito

José Manuel Cardoso da Costa.