Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
254/09 AI generated

Constitutional Court dismisses late appeal as a pretext to delay final judgment on prior questions.

Case Number 254/09
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Portugal (PT)
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Constitutional Court rejected the appellant's request to review previously decided questions, ruling it a mere pretext to obstruct the case's closure. The appellant submitted a new petition after the Court had already issued a decision addressing their initial queries. Consequently, the court ordered the file to be sent to the lower tribunal for final resolution.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 84(8) L.T.C.; Art. 720 CPC: A late request to review already decided questions constitutes a pretext for delaying the process and must be rejected to allow the case to proceed to final judgment.

Keywords

AI generated
pretext for delay procedural objection final judgment constitutional review file closure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 84(8) L.T.C.
Art. 720 CPC
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 a análise do requerimento se processe em separado, para que os autos possam baixar ao Tribunal recorrido.
AI generated
748-A/05
Constitutional Court dismisses post-decision incident as an illegitimate attempt to block a final judgment.
1014/08
Constitutional court dismisses request for clarification as it aims only to delay the process's conclusion.
800/04
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.
1241-A/2019
Portuguese Constitutional Court dismisses procedural nullity claim regarding omission of pronouncement on merits.
857/05
Constitutional Court dismisses request to remove irrelevant petition after final non-admission decision.

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 377/09

ACÓRDÃO N.º 377/09

Processo n.º 254/09

1ª Secção

Relator: Conselheiro Carlos Pamplona de Oliveira

EM CONFERÊNCIA DA 1ª SECÇÃO

ACORDAM NO TRIBUNAL CONSTITUCIONAL

Apresenta o recorrente A. um requerimento a pedir a apreciação dos requerimentos anteriores que "ainda se encontram por apreciar e decidir". O pedido é deduzido na sequência da notificação do Acórdão n.º 319/2009, proferido a fls. 91/101 dos presentes autos, aresto que pretendeu, precisamente, responder às questões anteriormente colocadas pelo recorrente. Por esse motivo, tal renitência poderá ser interpretada como um mero pretexto usado no propósito de obstar à baixa do processo.

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 a análise do requerimento se processe em separado, para que os autos possam baixar ao Tribunal recorrido.

Para esse efeito, extraia-se traslado desde fls. 51 e seguintes, incluindo o presente acórdão.

Lisboa, 23 de Julho de 2009

Carlos Pamplona de Oliveira

Maria João Antunes

Rui Manuel Moura Ramos