Commentary on the ECHR´s Correia de Matos v. Portugal judgment from the perspective of discrimination of professional groups

Authors

  • Catherine MAIA Professora Doutora em Direito Internacional da Faculdade de Direito e Ciência Política da Universidade Lusófona do Porto (Portugal), Professora Visitante da Sciences Po Paris e das Universidades Católicas de Lyon e Lille (França). https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9710-4655
  • Rafaela MENDEL Universidade do Minho https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9293-9900

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.34625/issn.2183-2705(35)2024.jur-02

Keywords:

European Court of Human Rights; European Convention on Human Rights; right to a fair trial; right to self-representation; principle of non-discrimination.

Abstract

The purpose of this commentary is to analyse the contribution of Judge Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, a member of the Grand Chamber, to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Correia de Matos v. Portugal (Application n° 56402/12) of 4 April 2018. In this case, the applicant complained of the decision of the Portuguese domestic courts refusing to allow him to conduct his own defence in the criminal proceedings against him and requiring that he be represented by a lawyer. The ECtHR held, by nine votes to eight, that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial/right to defend oneself in person) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Judge Pinto de Albuquerque expressed a dissenting opinion. The central issue addressed is discrimination of professional groups, i.e. the position of Portuguese legislation which makes self-representation impossible in criminal proceedings.

Author Biography

Catherine MAIA, Professora Doutora em Direito Internacional da Faculdade de Direito e Ciência Política da Universidade Lusófona do Porto (Portugal), Professora Visitante da Sciences Po Paris e das Universidades Católicas de Lyon e Lille (França).

Professora Doutora em Direito Internacional da Faculdade de Direito e Ciência Política da Universidade Lusófona do Porto (Portugal), Professora Visitante da Sciences Po Paris e das Universidades Católicas de Lyon e Lille (França).

References

Christopher Gray, “The right to defend oneself in person in criminal proceedings: Correia de Matos v. Portugal”, European Human Rights Law Review, vol. 4, 2018, pp. 393-396.

Comité dos Direitos Humanos, Comentário Geral n.º 32, “Artigo 14.º Direito à igualdade perante os tribunais de justiça e a um julgamento justo”, CCPR/C/GC/32, 23 de agosto de 2007.

Comité dos Direitos Humanos, Correia de Matos c. Portugal, comunicação n.º 1123/2002, 28 de março de 2006.

Comité dos Direitos Humanos, Observações finais sobre o quarto relatório periódico de Portugal, adotadas pelo Comité dos Direitos Humanos na sua 106ª sessão (15 de outubro-2 de novembro de 2012), CCPR/C/PRT/CO/4, 23 de novembro de 2012.

Conselho da Europa/TEDH, Guide sur l’article 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme : droit à un procès équitable (volet pénal), 2022.

Dorothea Staes, “Correia de Matos v. Portugal: fragmented protection of the right to defend oneself in person”, Strasbourg Observers, 24 de maio de 2018.

Hugues Diaz, “Droit ou obligation d’être défendu par un avocat ?”, Dalloz, 30 de abril de 2018.

Jurisprudência do Tribunal Europeu dos Direitos Humanos: sumários, Centro de Estudos Judiciários, Lisboa, 2020.

Tayrone Marquesini Chiavone, “Riscos à privacidade v. riscos à segurança pública, um dilema a ser superado na sociedade de risco (digital). Comentários ao voto parcialmente dissidente do Juiz Pinto de Albuquerque no caso Big Brother Watch and Others v. The United Kingdom”, Revista Jurídica Portucalense, vol. 35, 2024, pp. 1-11.

TEDH, Correia de Matos c. Portugal, queixa nº 48188/99, decisão final sobre a admissibilidade, 15 de novembro de 2001.

TEDH, Tribunal Pleno, Correia de Matos c. Portugal, queixa nº 56402/12, acórdão de 4 de abril de 2018.

Thomas Kleinlein, “The procedural approach of the European Court of Human Rights: between subsidiarity and dynamic evolution”, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 68, 2019, pp. 91-110.

Downloads

Published

2024-04-09

How to Cite

MAIA, C., & MENDEL, R. (2024). Commentary on the ECHR´s Correia de Matos v. Portugal judgment from the perspective of discrimination of professional groups. Revista Jurídica Portucalense, 12–24. https://doi.org/10.34625/issn.2183-2705(35)2024.jur-02

Issue

Revista Jurídica Portucalense nº 35 (2024)

Section

Jurisprudence

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Revista Jurídica Portucalense

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who published in the journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Authors grant the Journal the right of first publication, and other non-exclusive publishing rights, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which allows the sharing of work with recognition of its initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to take on additional contracts separately, non-exclusive distribution of the version of the paper published in this journal (ex .: publish in an institutional repository or as a chapter in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post and distribute their work online (eg .: in institutional repositories or on their website) at any point before or during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as increase the impact and the citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access). 
     

RJP does not apply submission, publication or any other fees of any nature. Its articles are open access, with the goal of disseminating scientific knowledge and the debate of legal topics in the area of ​​Legal Sciences.