Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
1014/08 AI generated

Constitutional court dismisses request for clarification as it aims only to delay the process's conclusion.

Case Number 1014/08
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Portugal (PT)
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Constitutional Court rejected a request by a party seeking clarification of an ambiguous ruling. The court found the request was manifestly unfounded and intended solely to obstruct the immediate closure of the proceedings. Consequently, the incident was separated from the main case to prevent further delays.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 720(1) CPC; Art. 84(8) LCTC: A request for clarification of a constitutional ruling is inadmissible if its sole purpose is to delay the process's conclusion.

Keywords

AI generated
request for clarification obstruction of proceedings manifestly unfounded separation of incident constitutional review procedural delay immediate closure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 720(1) CPC
Art. 84(8) LCTC
AI generated
TC_20040211
Portuguese Constitutional Court dismisses request to lower case to Supreme Court to prevent criminal prescription. The court rejects the applicant's attempt to delay the final judgment. The court orders the case back to the Supreme Court for continuation. The applicant's arguments were deemed manifestly unfounded and dilatory. The court applies procedural rules to stop unnecessary delays. The decision emphasizes preventing procedural abuse in constitutional appeals. The case involves a request to transfer jurisdiction to avoid time limits. The court finds the applicant's conduct obstructive to the process. The outcome is the remittal of the case to the lower court. The ruling upholds the integrity of the judicial timeline.
621/15
Constitutional Court dismisses claim for review of administrative court decision due to improper procedural path.
429-A/2020
Portuguese Constitutional Court dismisses request for clarification as it disputes the decision's meaning rather than finding ambiguity.
654/07
Constitutional appeal dismissed due to failure to pay court costs and lack of legal representation.
452-A/10
Constitutional Court rejects request to clarify if a prior judgment became final due to procedural delays.

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 166/09

ACÓRDÃO Nº 166/2009

Processo n.º 1014/08

3ª Secção

Relator: Conselheiro Carlos Fernandes Cadilha

Acordam na 3ª Secção do Tribunal Constitucional

A., notificado do acórdão de 11 de Março de 2009 que julgou improcedente o recurso de constitucionalidade, veio requerer a aclaração, pretendendo ver esclarecidos aspectos que considera ambíguos e obscuros.

O requerimento é, todavia, manifestamente infundado, não visando mais do que obstar à imediata baixa do processo.

Nestes termos, atento o disposto no artigo 720º, nº 1, do Código de Processo Civil para que remete o artigo 84º, nº 8, da Lei do Tribunal Constitucional, determina-se:

a) que o incidente se processe em separado, mediante traslado do acórdão de fls 1610 – 1630 e do requerimento de fls 1646 – 1654 remetendo-se os autos ao Tribunal recorrido;

b) só seja dado seguimento no traslado ao incidente suscitado pelos reclamantes, e a quaisquer outros que porventura os mesmos venham a suscitar, depois de decorrido o prazo para a reclamação da conta de custas.

Lisboa, 26 de Março de 2009

Carlos Fernandes Cadilha

Ana Maria Guerra Martins

Maria Lúcia Amaral

Vítor Gomes

Gil Galvão