Case of European Court of Human Rights, January 12, 2016 (case ESCALDA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL)

Defense:PORTUGAL
Resolution Date:January 12, 2016

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF ESCALDA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL

(Application no. 62252/12)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

12 January 2016

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

In the case of Escalda Ferreira v. Portugal,

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

Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,

and Fatoş Araci, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 1 December 2015,

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

PROCEDURE

  1. The case originated in an application (no. 62252/12) 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 Portuguese national, Mr Carlo Josué Escalda Ferreira (“the applicant”), on 11 September 2012.

  2. The Portuguese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. F. da da Graça Carvalho, Deputy-Attorney General.

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

    THE FACTS

    1. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

  4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

  5. On 19 January 2005 bank C. brought enforcement proceedings against the applicant before the Setúbal Court seeking the payment of a debt of 106,278.60 euros (EUR) plus EUR 23,122.72 in interest.

  6. On 8 October 2007 a writ of execution was issued against the applicant concerning an apartment he had mortgaged to the bank (penhora do apartamento). On an unspecified date a judicial enforcement officer (agente de execução) was appointed by the Setúbal Court as depositary (fiel depositário), thus being in charge of the apartment and responsible for the course of the enforcement proceedings through the sale of the applicant’s apartment, pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure.

  7. On 29 September 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Setúbal Court regarding the judicial enforcement officer’s inactivity in the proceedings.

  8. On 15 February 2012 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Commission for the Efficiency of Executions (Comissão para a Eficácia das Execuções) complaining about the judicial enforcement officer’s professional conduct which was preventing the sale of the applicant’s apartment. On 18 June 2012 the Commission acknowledged the receipt of the applicant’s complaint and in July 2012 informed him that they would start...

To continue reading

Request your trial