Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
549/02 AI generated

Constitutional court dismisses appeal due to applicant's failure to appoint mandatory counsel and procedural delay.

Case Number 549/02
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 claim of unconstitutionality, ruling that the proceedings were extinguished because the applicant failed to appoint the mandatory lawyer required by law. The court noted that the applicant's subsequent actions demonstrated an intent to delay the process rather than pursue the legal remedy. Consequently, the court ordered the removal of the case file from its records and its return to the lower tribunal.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 84(8) of Law No. 28/82; Art. 720(2) of the Civil Procedure Code: The Constitutional Court may declare a constitutional appeal inadmissible if the applicant fails to comply with mandatory legal representation requirements and acts to delay proceedings.

Keywords

AI generated
mandatory legal representation procedural delay tactics extinction of proceedings constitutional appeal inadmissibility Civil Procedure Code

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 84(8) of Law No. 28/82
Art. 720(2) of the Civil Procedure Code
AI generated
288/05
Constitutional Court dismisses appeal due to applicant's failure to appoint mandatory counsel and procedural delay.
748-A/05
Constitutional Court dismisses post-decision incident as an illegitimate attempt to block a final judgment.
742/2004
Constitutional Court dismisses request to clarify final extinction decision due to procedural abuse.
595/92
Constitutional Court dismisses procedural delay tactic by ordering immediate return of case files to lower court.
654/07
Constitutional appeal dismissed due to failure to pay court costs and lack of legal representation.

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 235/06

ACÓRDÃO N.º 235/2006

Processo n.º 549/02

1ª Secção

Relator: Conselheiro Pamplona de Oliveira

Acordam em Conferência no Tribunal Constitucional

Em 13 de Dezembro de 2005 – fls. 473 – foi preferido acórdão a indeferir reclamação do recorrente A. e a julgar extinta a presente instância do recurso de inconstitucionalidade, em virtude de o mesmo recorrente não haver constituído advogado que exercesse o patrocínio, aqui obrigatório.

A actividade processual do recorrente, posterior a esse acórdão, demonstra o propósito de protelar a remessa do processo ao Tribunal recorrido e a tramitação subsequente.

Assim, por força do disposto nos artigos 84º n.º 8 da Lei n.º 28/82 de 15 de Novembro e 720º n.º 2 do Código de Processo Civil, deve extrair-se traslado para que possa ser analisado o requerimento agora apresentado pelo recorrente.

Para esse efeito, extraia certidão do que consta dos autos desde fls. 442 até 478, e desentranhe o que consta desde fls. 479 inclusive até ao presente acórdão.

Junte ao processo certidão do presente acórdão e devolva os autos ao Tribunal recorrido.

Lisboa, 29 de Março de 2006

Carlos Pamplona de Oliveira

Maria Helena Brito

Rui Manuel Moura Ramos