Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
5/02 AI generated

Constitutional Court rejects inept request for new analysis due to procedural ineligibility.

Case Number 5/02
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Portugal (PT)
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Constitutional Court dismissed a request from the appellant to re-analyze a previous ruling because the submission was procedurally inept. The appellant argued that the court should reconsider the decision since public functions were closed the day after the election, yet the request did not fit any specific grounds for reform under the Code of Civil Procedure. The court ruled that since the request was neither a material correction, nullity claim, nor a valid appeal for costs or error, it could not be processed and was therefore rejected.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 669º do CPC; Art. 27º da Lei Orgânica do Tribunal Constitucional: A recorrente não pode solicitar nova análise de decisão judicial quando o requerimento não se enquadra nas espécies de reforma previstas na lei processual, sendo inepto e sem seguimento processual.

Keywords

AI generated
procedural ineptness request for new analysis Code of Civil Procedure Constitutional Court jurisdiction dismissal of inept request

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 669º do CPC
Art. 27º da Lei Orgânica do Tribunal Constitucional
artigo 669º do CPC
AI generated
428/2021
Portuguese Constitutional Court dismisses late constitutional complaint due to procedural abuse and lack of legal representation.
477/2026
Constitutional Court dismisses appeal for non-constitutionality of CPP articles not previously raised before lower court.
752/2017
Constitutional Court dismisses appeal for lack of admissibility as it seeks judicial interpretation of ordinary law, not constitutional review.
295/2011
Portuguese Constitutional Court dismisses late constitutional review due to procedural time bar. The court rejects the claim that a non-existent legal incident suspended the deadline. The ruling confirms the original dismissal of the review as untimely.
669/2025
Constitutional review dismissed for late filing after lower court decision was already final. The Constitutional Court rejected the claim because the constitutional challenge was raised too late in the proceedings. The court held that the proper time to raise constitutional issues was before the lower court issued its ruling. Consequently, the request for constitutional review was inadmissible due to procedural impropriety. The decision confirms the lower court's refusal to admit the constitutional appeal. This case establishes that constitutional challenges must be timely raised to be valid. The court emphasized that procedural rules prevent late submissions of constitutional arguments. The outcome reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural timelines in legal actions.

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 30/02

Acórdão nº 30/2002

Processo nº 5/02

3ª Secção

Relator : Sousa e Brito

Acordam, em plenário, no Tribunal Constitucional :

I

A recorrente veio juntar aos autos um requerimento “em resposta ao processo nº 5/02”, do seguinte teor :

“Sugere-me contrapor Vossa decisão, dado que tal como V.Ex ªs sabem o dia útil seguinte ao dia da eleição pelo Plenário de Cidadãos Eleitorais toda a função Pública estava encerrada, nomeadamente o Tribunal Constitucional.

Assim sendo solicito a V.Exª nova análise do Acórdão nº 18/2002.”

II

O requerimento da recorrente não é nem um pedido de rectificação de erros materiais, nem uma arguição de nulidade, nem um pedido de esclarecimento, nem um pedido de reforma da decisão de uma das espécies previstas no artigo 669º do CPC (quanto a custas e multa ou por manifesto lapso do juiz), pelo que não pode ter seguimento processual .

O requerimento pode, contudo, interpretar-se como um pedido de reforma, embora inepto.

III

Por consequência, indefere-se o requerimento.

Lisboa,22 de Janeiro de 2002-

José de Sousa e Brito

Maria Helena Brito

Maria Fernanda Palma

Alberto Tavares da Costa

Paulo Mota Pinto

Bravo Serra

Guilherme da Fonseca

Maria dos Prazeres Pizarro Beleza

Luís Nunes de Almeida

Artur Maurício

José Manuel Cardoso da Costa