Abstract
In the Portuguese Legal System liability of Public Authorities, as well as their officials, public officers and agents, for violation of Human Rights is foreseen both at a constitutional and infra-constitutional level. The 1976 Constitution lays down a general principle of (exclusive or joint) liability of public authorities, including that of private entities performing public functions, therefore, including liability for infringement of Human Rights, as well as special rules, namely for unlawful privation of one’s liberty and unjust criminal decisions. The 2007 Law on Public Authority liability completes the constitutional principle and provides for the legal (fault and no fault) regimes regarding liability arising out of all state functions, administrative, judicial and political-legislative, as well as for a special (no fault) regime for damages arising out of a sacrifice imposed by public interest reasons. Damages for violation of human rights falls under the scope of public law although some rules of the civil code may be applicable. As a rule, actions to obtain compensation for damages fall under the jurisdiction of administrative courts although jurisdiction of common civil courts may exist in some specific cases. A principle of natural restoration and full compensation applies although some exceptions are foreseen, namely regarding the limitation of compensation to special and/or abnormal damages. The national remedies aiming at compensation for infringement of human rights, mainly actions for damages, do not prevent the victims to accede to the protection offered by the European Convention on Human Rights and introduce a claim in the Strasbourg Court.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Available in http://www.parlamento.pt. Accessed 15 March 2015.
- 2.
The 1976 Portuguese Constitution establishes a main distinction between the following categories of fundamental rights: “rights, liberties and freedoms” (including personal rights, liberties and freedoms, rights, liberties and freedoms regarding political participation and worker’s rights, liberties and freedoms) and ‘economic, social and cultural rights and duties’ – arts. 24–57 and 58–79.
- 3.
Available in http://www.tribunalconstitucional.pt. Accessed 15 March 2015.
- 4.
The case law of the Supreme Court of Justice (Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, STJ) that applied art. 27 of the Constitution and art. 225 sec. 1, b), of the CPC – according to which liability depends on the existence of a gross error (erro grosseiro) – is rather strict in the interpretation of such requirement of the duty to compensate – see decisions of the STJ of 1.10.2004 (case 04B2543), of 22.1.2008 (case 07A2381) and also of 11.9.2008 (case 08B1747) – see http://www.dgsi.pt/jsts.nsf. Accessed 15 March 2015. According to such case law liability and the duty to compensate in the case of deprivation of liberty due to gross error in the judgment on the factual framework on which depends the deprivation of liberty can only be declared in exceptional cases when a really ostensive error was committed by the judge.
- 5.
On the relationship between such norms of the CrimPC and the 1976 Constitution see Catarino (2002), no. 11, 274 ff.
- 6.
Arts. 109–111 of the (2002) Code of Procedure in the Administrative Courts (Código de Processo nos Tribunais Administrativos, CPTA) approved by Law no 15/2002, of 22.2.2002 and modified afterwards – the Code is in course of revision and the approved project is available at www.portugal.gov.pt. Accessed 15 March 2015.
- 7.
- 8.
See infra fn10.
- 9.
See among other Case C-224/01, Köbler [2003] ECR I-10239 55 ff.
- 10.
That is the case of a liability action introduced by a victim’s heirs (deceased in a car accident where no fault of the driver existed) against the State (as legislator) in case of incomplete transposition of a EU motor insurance directive regarding no-fault liability – decision of the STJ of 27.11.2007 (case 07A3945), in http://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf. Accessed 15 March 2015.
- 11.
See art(s) 6(2) and 225 ff of the 1976 Constitution . The Portuguese doctrine is not however unanimous concerning (autonomous) liability arising out of the exercise of the legislative power by the autonomous regions.
- 12.
See e.g. decisions of the Court of Conflicts of 5.6.2008 (case 21/06) of 4.11.2009 (case 6/09 and case 13/09) of 20.1.2010 (case 25/09) or of 28.9.2010 (case 10/10); decisions of the STJ of 14.1.2010 (case 1450/06.4 TBALM-A.S1) and of 10.4.2008 (case 08B845); or decision of the Central Administrative Court-North of 6.5.2010 (case 1566/08) – http://www.dgsi.pt. Accessed 15 March 2015.
- 13.
Supra, fn 6.
- 14.
STJ of 10.7.2008 (case 07B740) – see http://www.dgsi.pt. Accessed 15 March 2015.
- 15.
Tribunal de Conflitos (Court of Conflicts), 18/12/2003 (conflict no 15/03).
- 16.
Although Portugal is bound by other international systems of (direct or indirect, administrative and jurisdictional) protection of HR’s – that is the case of the systems of the UN Covenants of HR’s and of the jurisdiction of the I nternational Criminal Court laid down by the Rome Statute. However, in practice, only the system of the ECHR is relevant regarding the interplay with national law and domestic jurisdiction.
- 17.
ECtHR, Case 20620/04, Azevedo c. Portugal of 27.3.2008, and STJ Case 104/02.5TACTB-A.S1 of 23.4.2009; ECtHR, Case 17107/05, Campos Dâmaso c. Portugal, 24/4/2008, and STJ Case 55/01.OTBEPS-A.S1 of 27.5.2009 (in http://echr.coe.int and in http://dsgi.pt/jsts.nsf. Accessed 15 March 2015). Although there are also examples of decision of the Supreme Court (STJ) that did not allow the exceptional revision of a national (criminal) court decision on the grounds of contradiction with a previous ECourtHR decision against Portugal.
- 18.
ECtHR, Case 30696/06 of 21.1.2011 and Case 27765/09 of 23.2.2012 (in http://echr.coe.int); CJEU, Case C-411/10, N.S. v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] (available in http://curia.europa.eu Accessed 15 March 2015).
References
Cadilha, Carlos Alberto Fernandes. 2011. Regime da Responsabilidade Civil Extracontratual do Estado e demais Entidades Públicas Anotado. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.
Catarino, Luís. 2002. Responsabilidade por facto jurisdicional – Contributo para uma reforma do sistema geral de responsabilidade civil extracontratual do Estado. In Responsabilidade Civil Extra-contratual do Estado, Trabalhos preparatórios da reforma, ed. VVAA, 267–287. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.
Rangel de Mesquita, M.J. 2009. O regime da responsabilidade civil extracontratual do Estado e demais entidades públicas e o Direito da União Europeia. Coimbra: Almedina.
VVAA. 2011. XIII Seminário de Justiça Administrativa. Cadernos de Justiça Administrativa 89: 1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rangel de Mesquita, M.J.R. (2016). Damages for Violations of Human Rights: The Portuguese Legal System. In: Bagińska, E. (eds) Damages for Violations of Human Rights. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18950-5_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18950-5_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-18949-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-18950-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)