Communicated on 15 September 2020 Published on 5 October 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 44285/16 Ricardo PAIXÃO MOREIRA SÁ FERNANDES against Portugal lodged on 22 July 2016

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The case concerns enforcement proceedings brought by the Institute for funding Agriculture and Fisheries ( Instituto de Financiamento de Agricultura e Pescas - “IFAP”) against the applicant before the Lisbon Tax Court, in respect of a claim for the sum of 5,493 euros (EUR) plus tax.

The applicant lodged a request for proceedings to oppose the enforcement ( oposição à execução ) with the Lisbon Tax Court.

On 31 July 2013 the Lisbon Tax Court dismissed the opposition and the applicant appealed. On 20 January 2014, the public prosecutor at the Supreme Administrative Court issued an opinion arguing that the applicant had been notified of the monetary claim which was therefore enforceable. The applicant was not notified of this opinion . On 5 February 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with, and quoting the public prosecutor ’ s opinion. The applicant lodged a plea of nullity ( arguição de nulidades ) with the Supreme Administrative Court given that he had not been notified of the public prosecutor ’ s opinion. The plea was dismissed on 25 March 2015.

On 28 October 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional appeal lodged by the applicant and ordered payment of EUR 2,753 in court fees.

Invoking Article 6, the applicant complains that:

- his opposition to the enforcement proceedings instituted against him has not been examined on the merits ;

- he was not notified of the public prosecutor ’ s opinion of 20 January 2014 issued at the Supreme Administrative;

- the Constitutional Court ’ s fees were disproportionate in view of the monetary claim in dispute.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have a fair trial in the enforcement proceedings instituted against him? In particular, was the principle of adversarial proceedings breached given that the applicant could not reply to the prosecutor ’ s opinion of 20 January 2014 (see Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional v. Portugal , no. 4687/11, §§ 49-52, 17 May 2016, and Novo e Silva v. Portugal , no. 53615/08 , §§ 46-49, 25 September 2012) ?