Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
TC_19970649 AI generated

Constitutional Court dismisses appeal for non-acceptance due to lack of constitutional challenge in lower court.

Case Number TC_19970649
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Portugal (PT)
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Constitutional Court declined to examine the appeal filed by the applicants against a Supreme Court judgment. The applicants argued the lower court's interpretation of the Expropriation Code violated constitutional rights, but they had not raised this specific unconstitutionality issue during the initial proceedings. Consequently, the court ruled that it could not review the matter because the constitutional question was not properly preserved in the lower instance.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 70(1)(a) and (b) of the Law on the Constitutional Court; A constitutional court may not examine an appeal if the party failed to raise the constitutional challenge in the lower court, thereby losing the right to have the issue reviewed.

Keywords

AI generated
constitutional challenge preservation of issue non-acceptance of appeal expropriation code procedural default Supreme Court judgment Tribunal Constitucional

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 70(1)(a) and (b) of the Law on the Constitutional Court
AI generated
1061/14
Constitutional review dismissed because the appealed judgment did not apply the contested procedural articles. The court ruled the constitutional question was irrelevant to the decision's outcome. The claim failed due to lack of procedural interest. The constitutional review was rejected because the appealed judgment did not apply the contested articles. The court held the constitutional question lacked procedural interest. The claim was dismissed for lack of procedural interest.
906/03
Portuguese Constitutional Court upholds expropriation compensation liquidation limits on Supreme Court appeals.
415/14
Portuguese Constitutional Court dismisses appeal for non-admissibility as no constitutional issue was raised regarding the applied law.
TC_19880173
Constitutional Court dismisses late constitutional challenge raised during a clarification request after jurisdiction was exhausted. The court ruled that the constitutional issue was not invoked timely during the main proceedings. The court held that the power to judge was exhausted before the clarification request, making the late invocation inadmissible. The court established that constitutional challenges must be raised before the lower court's jurisdiction ends. The court cited the Constitution and the Constitutional Court Law regarding admissibility requirements. The court dismissed the appeal as procedurally inadmissible due to untimely invocation. The court emphasized that constitutional questions are part of the main case's applicability. The court rejected arguments that the Supreme Court could still consider the issue. The court maintained that reopening the issue via clarification is an error of judgment. The court concluded that the appeal cannot be known due to lack of timeliness.
TC_19961045
Constitutional court dismisses public prosecution appeal, upholding administrative law norms as constitutional.

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 649/97

ACÓRDÃO Nº 649/97

Proc. nº 428/97

Cons. Messias Bento

Acordam na 2ª Secção do Tribunal Constitucional:

Recorrentes: A. e esposa; B. e esposa; e C. e esposa

Recorrida : Junta Autónoma das Estradas

Nestes autos de recurso, vindos do Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, interposto ao abrigo das alíneas a) e b) do nº 1 do artigo 70º da Lei do Tribunal Constitucional, pelo essencial das razões aduzidas na exposição do relator, para as quais se remete, e que não foram abaladas pela resposta dos recorrentes, que insistem em que o aresto sob recurso "é inconstitucional e ilegal" e em que, só depois de o Supremo decidir, soube que ele interpretou o artigo 37º do Código das Expropriações no sentido de não admitir a revista - ou seja: porque o acórdão recorrido não desaplicou nenhuma norma com fundamento na sua inconstitucionalidade e os recorrentes, nas alegações para o Supremo, não suscitaram a inconstitucionalidade daquele artigo 37º, interpretado no sentido apontado, só tendo suscitado tal questão no requerimento de interposição de recurso para este Tribunal -, decide‑se não tomar conhecimento do recurso e condenar os recorrentes em custas com taxa de justiça que se fixa em oito unidades de conta.

Lisboa, 29 de Outubro de 1997

Messias Bento

Guilherme da Fonseca

Fernando Alves Correia

Luís Nunes de Almeida

Bravo Serra

José de Sousa e Brito

José Manuel Cardoso da Costa