Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
184/2016 AI generated

Portuguese Constitutional Court dismisses challenge to Article 27 of the Civil Procedure Code regarding procedural utility.

Case Number 184/2016
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Portugal (PT)
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Constitutional Court dismissed the authors' appeal challenging the constitutionality of specific provisions in the Civil Procedure Code. The lower courts had declared the case inadmissible due to lack of utility rather than applying the contested norm as the decisive reason. The Court ruled that the lower courts correctly identified the procedural bar without needing to address the substantive constitutional complaint.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 3.º n.º 3 do CPC; Art. 27.º n.ºs 1, alínea i) e 2 do CPTA: When a lower court declares a case inadmissible on grounds of procedural utility without applying the contested norm as the ratio decidendi, the Constitutional Court may dismiss the unconstitutionality challenge without examining the merits.

Keywords

AI generated
procedural utility inadmissibility Civil Procedure Code Constitutional appeal ratio decidendi Tribunal Constitucional Portuguese law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 3.º n.º 3 do CPC
Art. 27.º n.ºs 1, alínea i) e 2 do CPTA
AI generated
333/2017
Constitutional Court dismisses pensioner's claim that social security law violates trust and proportionality principles.
1096/2013
Constitutional Court dismisses appeal for non-examination of non-essential normative interpretations.
131/95
Portuguese Constitutional Court dismisses constitutional challenge against a single-judge report due to lack of prior conference request.
156/00
Constitutional review dismissed because constitutional challenge was raised too late and targeted the court's fact-finding rather than the law.
49/17
Portuguese Constitutional Court dismisses claim for Constitutional Court admission due to expired 10-day filing deadline.

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 Nº 265/2017

Processo n.º 184/2016

2ª Secção

Relator: Conselheiro Fernando Ventura

(Conselheiro Lino Rodrigues Ribeiro)

Acordam na 2ª secção do Tribunal Constitucional

Os autores A. e outros interpuseram recurso para o Tribunal Constitucional do acórdão proferido pelo TCA-Sul e, também, do acórdão proferido pelo STA, pedindo a apreciação da inconstitucionalidade de norma do artigo 27.º, n.ºs 1, alínea i), e 2 do CPTA.

Perspetivando a eventualidade de não conhecimento do recurso, na parte dirigida ao acórdão proferido pelo STA, em 7 de janeiro de 2016, por inutilidade, em virtude de nele não ter sido aplicado, como ratio decidendi, o sentido normativo questionado, notifique-se os recorrentes para, em 10 dias, se pronunciarem, querendo (artigo 3.º, n.º 3, do CPC).

Lisboa, 31 de maio de 2017 - Fernando Vaz Ventura - Catarina Sarmento e Castro - Pedro Machete - Lino Rodrigues Ribeiro - Manuel da Costa Andrade