Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
800/04 AI generated

Constitutional Court dismisses new request as abuse of process under Article 84(8) of the Law. The Court rejects the applicant's attempt to delay proceedings by raising identical issues. The decision allows the case to proceed to the lower court. The ruling establishes that persistent repetition of arguments constitutes an abuse of process. The Court cites Article 84(8) of the Law of the Constitutional Court. The applicant's request for clarification is inadmissible due to procedural abuse. The case is now returned to the lower court for final resolution. The decision emphasizes judicial efficiency and procedural integrity. The Court applies the principle of good faith in litigation. The ruling prevents unnecessary delays in constitutional review processes.

Case Number 800/04
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Portugal (PT)
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's new request for clarification, ruling that it constituted an abuse of process by raising identical issues repeatedly. The applicant sought to delay the proceedings, while the Public Prosecutor invoked the immediate use of the mechanism under Article 84(8) of the Law of the Constitutional Court. The Court decided to process the incident separately and return the case to the lower court to allow the proceedings to conclude.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 84(8) of the Law of the Constitutional Court; Article 720 of the Civil Procedure Code: The Court may reject a new request for clarification if it manifests that the applicant is attempting to obstruct proceedings by persistently raising identical issues, thereby constituting an abuse of process.

Keywords

AI generated
abuse of process repeated litigation procedural delay Constitutional Court Article 84(8) good faith principle procedural integrity

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 84(8) of the Law of the Constitutional Court
Article 720 of the Civil Procedure Code
artigo 720º do Código de Processo Civil
Assim, decide-se, ao abrigo do disposto no n.º 8 do artigo 84º da Lei do Tribunal Constitucional e nos termos do artigo 720º do Código de Processo Civil, que o presente incidente se processe em separado, para que os autos possam baixar ao Tribunal recorrido.
AI generated
1064/04
Portuguese Constitutional Court dismisses abuse of process request to block case closure via identical issues.
254/09
Constitutional Court dismisses late appeal as a pretext to delay final judgment on prior questions.
1014/08
Constitutional court dismisses request for clarification as it aims only to delay the process's conclusion.
970/2020
Portuguese Constitutional Court dismisses request to annul prior ruling to delay case execution.
46/09.3PTVRL.P1
Portuguese court dismisses MP appeal; missing 90-day deadline in abbreviated process does not force switch to common process.

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 221/05

ACÓRDÃO N.º 221/05

Processo n.º 800/04

1.ª Secção

Relator: Conselheiro Pamplona de Oliveira

ACORDAM EM CONFERÊNCIA NO TRIBUNAL CONSTITUCIONAL

Apresenta o recorrente um novo requerimento a pedir a aclaração do acórdão de 16 de Março de 2005, ao que o representante do Ministério Público responde promovendo "o uso imediato do mecanismo previsto no n.º 8 do artigo 84º da Lei do Tribunal Constitucional".

Torna-se manifesto, atenta a questão em debate e o motivo da renitência, o propósito do recorrente de obstar à baixa do processo mediante a permanente suscitação de questões idênticas à ora formulada.

Assim, decide-se, ao abrigo do disposto no n.º 8 do artigo 84º da Lei do Tribunal Constitucional e nos termos do artigo 720º do Código de Processo Civil, que o presente incidente se processe em separado, para que os autos possam baixar ao Tribunal recorrido.

Para esse efeito, extraia-se traslado com certidão das seguintes peças processuais: fls. 24/25; fls. 32; fls. 38/40; fls. 43/44; fls. 50/55; fls. 59/60; fls. 66/68; fls. 72/73; fls. 76 e do presente acórdão.

Lisboa, 27 de Abril de 2005

Carlos Pamplona de Oliveira

Maria Helena Brito

Rui Manuel Moura Ramos