Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
220/2002 AI generated

Constitutional court declares impediment due to conflicting roles in main and precautionary action.

Case Number 220/2002
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Portugal (PT)
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Constitutional Court declared the concrete review of constitutionality inadmissible because the impediment rule was verified. The main action named the Securities Commission as defendant, while the precautionary measure named the Councilor Gil Galvão, who was allegedly its Vice-President at the time. The court ruled that this dual representation violated the conflict of interest provision in the Civil Procedure Code, necessitating the dismissal of the constitutional appeal.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 70(1)(b) of Law 28/82; Art. 122(1) of the Civil Procedure Code: A constitutional review of constitutionality is inadmissible if the respondent in the main action is the same person or entity acting in the precautionary measure, creating a conflict of interest.

Keywords

AI generated
concrete review of constitutionality impediment rule conflict of interest precautionary measure Civil Procedure Code Securities Commission inadmissible appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 70(1)(b) of Law 28/82
Art. 122(1) of the Civil Procedure Code
Art. 29(3) of Law 28/82
artigo 122º do Código de Processo Civil
AI generated
621/10
Constitutional Court grants a judge's request to withdraw from a case due to past professional relationship with the applicant.
1120/07
Constitutional court declares relator judge disqualified due to prior participation in the appealed administrative decision.
353/2021
Constitutional claim rejected for challenging a judicial interpretation of procedural law regarding lawyer's requests. The claim was dismissed as it did not involve the constitutionality of a legal concept. The court ruled the request must be denied. The claim was rejected because it did not challenge the constitutionality of a legal concept or category of dogmatic origin. The court held that the claim must be denied. The claim was rejected because it did not challenge the constitutionality of a legal concept or category of dogmatic origin. The court held that the claim must be denied.
49/83
Constitutional Court declares judge's recusal verified due to prior participation in the case at the Supreme Court.
TC_19990553
Court rules that being summoned as a criminal witness constitutes a valid impediment for a judge to intervene.

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 53/03

ACÓRDÃO Nª 53/2003

Processo nº 220/2002

3ª Secção

Relatora: Maria dos Prazeres Pizarro Beleza

Acordam, na 3ª Secção

do Tribunal Constitucional:

Nos presentes autos de recurso de fiscalização concreta de constitucionalidade, interpostos ao abrigo do artigo 70º, nº 1, alínea b), da Lei nº 28/82, de 15 de Novembro, em que é recorrente A e recorrida B o Conselheiro Gil Galvão, a quem o referido recurso foi distribuído, veio comunicar, a fls. 630, "para efeitos do disposto no nº 3 do artigo 29º da LTC", que "na acção principal, de que a providência cautelar de que provém o actual recurso é instrumental, é ré a Comissão do Mercado de Valores Mobiliários, por factos alegadamente ocorridos durante o período" em que "era seu Vice-Presidente".

Verifica-se, com efeito, que entre os réus da acção principal (cfr. cópia da petição inicial, a fls. 607) figura a referida Comissão do Mercado de Valores Mobiliários; e verifica-se, igualmente, que a relação entre os pedidos formulados contra esta Comissão e contra a requerida na providência cautelar permite considerar verificado o impedimento previsto no nº 1 do artigo 122º do Código de Processo Civil, aplicável em virtude do disposto no nº 1 do artigo 29º e no artigo 69º da Lei nº 28/82, de 15 de Novembro .

Assim sendo, tendo em conta os citados preceitos e, bem assim, o disposto no nº 3 do artigo 29º da Lei nº 28/82, o Tribunal decide declarar verificado o impedimento.

Lisboa, 29 de Janeiro de 2003

Maria dos Prazeres Pizarro Beleza

Alberto Tavares da Costa

Bravo Serra

Luís Nunes de Almeida