Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
386/2015 Généré par l'IA

Constitutional Court corrects a prior ruling due to a manifest error in identifying the referenced judgment.

Numéro de cause 386/2015
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Portugal (PT)
Issue du litige Admis (Allowed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The Constitutional Court ordered a correction to a previous ruling because the relator mistakenly identified the target judgment for a reform request. The court found that the original decision referenced Acórdão n.º 558/15, which had not been issued, whereas the actual decision was Acórdão n.º 675/15. Relying on the principle that manifest errors are always rectifiable under the Code of Civil Procedure, the court mandated the amendment of the text to reflect the correct citation.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Article 614, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court: A manifest error in identifying the decision to be reformed is always rectifiable, requiring the correction of the cited judgment number to the one actually addressed.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
manifest error rectification of judgment identification error Code of Civil Procedure constitutional court ruling correct citation procedural correction modification de la demande

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Article 614, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court
Généré par l'IA
553/11
Constitutional Court dismisses request to clarify and reform a prior judgment on procedural law application.
493/19
Constitutional Court dismisses nullity claim against prior rulings regarding inadmissible constitutional appeal and procedural error.
TC_20000543
Constitutional Court rejects clarification request as it is merely a re-litigation of a decided constitutional issue.
558/2005
Portuguese Constitutional Court dismisses civil procedure reform request based on divergent interpretation of prior decision.
856/04
Constitutional Court rejects municipality's claim of omission regarding a third constitutional violation argument in a concrete review. The court held that the third ground was merely a request to correct the lower court's substantive judgment rather than a distinct omission requiring review.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

ACÓRDÃO N.º 117/2016[1]

Processo n.º 386/2015

3ª Secção

Relator: Conselheiro Carlos Fernandes Cadilha

Acordam, em conferência, na 3ª Secção do Tribunal Constitucional

1. Pelo Acórdão n.º 75/16, decidiu-se «deferir o pedido de reforma do Acórdão n.º 558/15, reduzindo-se para 10UC a taxa de justiça fixada».

Porém, decorre do contexto do acórdão e, em particular, do que nele se relata, que o acórdão a que se dirigia o pedido de reforma nesses termos decidido, não era o Acórdão n.º 558/15 – que não foi sequer proferido nestes autos -, mas o Acórdão n.º 675/15, que havia indeferido a arguição de nulidade processual deduzida pelo recorrente.

O apontado erro na identificação da decisão reformada deveu-se, pois, a um lapso manifesto, que é a todo o tempo retificável (artigo 614.º, nºs. 1 e 3, do CPC, aplicável ex vi artigo 69.º da LTC).

2. Pelo exposto, determina-se a retificação do Acórdão n.º 75/2016, nos seguintes termos: onde se lê, no dispositivo, «Acórdão n.º 558/15», deve passar a ler-se «Acórdão n.º 675/15».

Notifique.

Anote no local próprio.

Lisboa, 24 de fevereiro de 2016 - Carlos Fernandes Cadilha - Maria José Rangel de Mesquita - Maria Lúcia Amaral

[1] Retifica Acórdão n.º 75/2016