Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) of Court (First Section Committee), April 30, 2015 (case CASE OF ALVES v. PORTUGAL)

• Judge: PAMELA SA P.
• Defense: PORTUGAL
• Resolution Date: April 30, 2015
• Issuing Organization: Court (First Section Committee)

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF ALVES v. PORTUGAL

(Application no. 79925/12)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

30 April 2015

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Alves v. Portugal,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

             Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, President,              Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,              Ksenija Turković, judges,

and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 7 April 2015,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 79925/12) against the Portuguese Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Slovenian national, Ms Cretka Ivanic Alves (“the applicant”), on 4 December 2012.

2. The applicant was represented by Mrs P. Pamela Sá, a lawyer practicing in Braga. The Portuguese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. F. da Graça Carvalho, Deputy-Attorney General.

3. On 4 March 2014 the application was communicated to the Portuguese Government.

4. The Slovenian Government, having been informed by the Registry of the right to intervene under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2 (a) of the Rules of the Court, did not avail themselves of this right.

   THE FACTS

   THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

5. The applicant was born in 1953, in Slovenia, and lives in Braga, Portugal.

6. On 22 November 2006 the applicant brought a liability action (ação de responsabilidade civil) in the Braga Court against F., a lawyer who had acted as her legal representative in previous proceedings, claiming damages for professional negligence.

7. On 12 December 2006 F. was notified of the action. On 25 January 2007 he lodged his submissions in reply (contestação) and requested the intervention of his insurance company to which he had transferred his responsibility for the acts committed by him in his capacity as lawyer.

8. On 8 March 2007 the applicant lodged new submissions in reply (réplica).

9. By a Braga Court’s decision of 11 July 2007 the intervention of the insurance company in the proceedings was accepted. The company was summoned on an unknown date. On 14 September 2007 it lodged its submissions, to which the applicant replied on 11 October 2007.

10. Between January and April 2008 the parties disputed the applicant’s legal...