The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), in the case Albertina Carvalho e Filhos Lda v. Portugal – 4 July 2017 – found that the lenght of the overall enforcement proceedings (instituted on 18 July 2005 and ended in September 2014) was excessive and did not meet the ‘reasonableness’ requirement referred to in Art. 6 (1) of the Convention. The Court noted that, even though the applicant company’s conduct might have caused some delays in the proceedings, the Government failed to provide any explanation for several periods of inactivity on the part of the competent court. On the additional applicant’s complaint that in Portugal there was no court to which an application could be made to complain about the excessive length of proceedings, the Court reiterated that Art. 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 for a case to be heard within a reasonable time (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96). In the instant case, it noted that prior to 27 May 2014, Portuguese practice did not provide for an effective legal remedy allowing a claimant to obtain compensation for excessive length of proceedings (see Martins Castro and Alves Correia de Castro v. Portugal, no. 33729/06); therefore it concluded that a violation of Article 13 of the Convention took place. FInally, the Government allaged that the applicant company had abused its right of petition within the meaning of Art. 35, par. 3 of the Convention, by omitting to indicate in the application form the existence of the proceedings for opposition to enforcement and the appeal that it had lodged with the Court of Appeal in those proceedings, as well as by failing to inform the Court of the fact that the enforcement proceedings had been discontinued in September 2014. The Court firstly reiterated that, in general terms, any conduct on the part of an applicant that is manifestly contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application as provided for in the Convention and that impedes the proper functioning of the Court, or the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, constitutes an abuse of the right of application (see Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, no. 798/05). However, in the instant case it noted that, when the application was lodged with the Court, the proceedings had already lasted almost nine years. Although the applicant company failed to provide all the details on the proceedings, the omissions did not impede the proper functioning of the Court. Moreover, the applicant company did mention once in the application form the existence of the proceedings for opposition to enforcement – even if it didn’t provide any details in that connection. Therefore, while it considered regrettable that the applicant company failed to provide some information, the Court did not consider that the applicant company abused its right of individual petition in the present case pursuant to Art. 35 § 3 of the Convention.
