BAS - Sociedade de Advogados
Menu

Summary of the ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court (First section) of 16.11.2017, case No 0935/17, rapporteur: Teresa de Sousa

BAS > Communication > Legal Topics > Summary of the ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court (First section) of 16.11.2017, case No 0935/17, rapporteur: Teresa de Sousa

This extraordinary appeal was filed by Caixa Geral de Aposentações (Civil Servants Pension Fund) (CGA) concerning the judgment of the Central Administrative Court of the North, under which the acquittal decided by the Administrative and Tax Court of Porto was partially repealed, in which the question to be decided was to determine the actual date of the clinical discharge attributed to the defendant who had been the victim of a road traffic accident while on professional duty on 08.04.2002, causing injuries that resulted, first, in a partial disability of 32%, with a subsequent devaluation of 48%, according to the opinions of the CGA medical boards: if 09.09.2002, according to clinical information provided by the physician of Liberty Insurance Company, or 27.11.2012, date on which the petitioner was present before the ADSE board.

The CGA, although unsuccessfully, argued that in the judgement of the main appeal there were no grounds for asserting that the date on which the defendant was discharged was different from that on which the medical board of the ADSE was held and that, by taking a different approach, the judgment under appeal infringed Articles 20 (1), 21 (1) and 24 (2) of Decree-Law no. 503/99, of 20 November; already in the subordinate appeal, the applicant defended, also without success, the unconstitutionality of paragraphs 4 and 5 of article 46 of Decree-Law no. 503/99, when interpreted to include any damages and that the law does not distinguish between damages that were requested in previous action or subject to friendly negotiation, and also because they are in violation of the right to social security (see Article 63 of the Portuguese Constitution) and the principles of proportionality, equality, the protection of trust and justice, concluding that the contested judgment infringed Articles 1, 13 and 266 of the Constitution when it challenged the application of the presumption laid down in the no. 5 of Article 46 of Decree-Law no. 503/99.

All things considered, the judges of the Supreme Court agreed that the appellants litigated without any reason and that the appeals were therefore dismissed and the contested decision confirmed, at the expense of the appellants.

Back

More in Communication