{"id":3412,"date":"2016-11-04T15:18:57","date_gmt":"2016-11-04T15:18:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mgra.pt\/en\/?p=3412"},"modified":"2020-10-06T10:56:43","modified_gmt":"2020-10-06T10:56:43","slug":"jurisprudencia_10_2016","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/2016\/11\/04\/jurisprudencia_10_2016\/","title":{"rendered":"JURISPRUDENCE – October 2016"},"content":{"rendered":"

III. CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

III.1. Court of Justice of the European Union<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Judgment of the Court, of 27th October 2016, Case C-428\/15<\/strong>: Reference for a Preliminary Ruling. Judicial cooperation in civil matters. Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility. Regulation (EC) No 2201\/2003. <\/strong>Article 15. <\/strong>Transfer of a case to a court of another Member State.<\/strong> Scope. Conditions under which applicable. Court better placed. Best interests of the child<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Summary:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cArticle\u00a015 of Council Regulation (EC) No\u00a02201\/2003 of 27\u00a0November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No\u00a01347\/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable where a child protection application brought under public law by the competent authority of a Member State concerns the adoption of measures relating to parental responsibility, such as the application at issue in the main proceedings, where it is a necessary consequence of a court of another Member State assuming jurisdiction that an authority of that other Member State thereafter commence proceedings that are separate from those brought in the first Member State, pursuant to its own domestic law and possibly relating to different factual circumstances.<\/em><\/p>\n

Article\u00a015(1) of Regulation No\u00a02201\/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that:<\/em><\/p>\n

\u2013\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0in order to determine that a court of another Member State with which the child has a particular connection is better placed, the court having jurisdiction in a Member State must be satisfied that the transfer of the case to that other court is such as to provide genuine and specific added value to the examination of that case, taking into account, inter alia, the rules of procedure applicable in that other Member State;<\/em><\/p>\n

\u2013\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0in order to determine that such a transfer is in the best interests of the child, the court having jurisdiction in a Member State must be satisfied, in particular, that that transfer is not liable to be detrimental to the situation of the child.<\/em><\/p>\n

Article\u00a015(1) of Regulation No\u00a02201\/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that the court having jurisdiction in a Member State must not take into account, when applying that provision in a given case relating to parental responsibility, either the effect of a possible transfer of that case to a court of another Member State on the right of freedom of movement of persons concerned other than the child in question, or the reason why the mother of that child exercised that right, prior to that court being seised, unless those considerations are such that there may be adverse repercussions on the situation of that child<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

http:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/PT\/TXT\/?qid=1477662056642&uri=CELEX:62015CJ0428<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

III.2. Constitucional<\/u><\/strong> Court<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Judgment No. 558\/2016, Case No. 1155\/15<\/u><\/strong>:<\/u> Does not declares unconstitutional the interpretation of the article 15 n.1, point l) of the Decree-Law n.13\/71 <\/u>of 23th January as amended by the Decree-law n. 25\/2004 of 24th January, related to the establishment of gas stations.<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.tribunalconstitucional.pt\/tc\/acordaos\/20160558.html<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

Judgment No. 561\/2016, Case No. 1208\/15<\/u><\/strong>:<\/u> Does not declares unconstitutional the article 52 of the Ordinance n. 107\/2009 of 14<\/u>th<\/u><\/sup> September, which provides a period of five year to the statute of limitations for the procedures for labor misdemeanor, regardless of the seriousness of violation, the violator\u2019s degree of guilt, his economical capacity or the appropriate framework.<\/u><\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.tribunalconstitucional.pt\/tc\/acordaos\/20160561.html<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

III.3. Courts of Justice<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Judgment of Supreme Court of Justice n. 14\/2016: <\/u><\/strong>Standardization of Jurisprudence.<\/u><\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.dgsi.pt\/jstj.nsf\/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814\/3602f178286dfe0180258058003ef010?OpenDocument<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Judgment of Supreme Court of Justice, 13<\/u>th<\/u><\/sup> October6, procedure n.\u00ba <\/u><\/strong>430\/13.8TBPVZ.P1.S1<\/strong>:<\/u><\/strong> SWAP Contracts<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.dgsi.pt\/jtrl.nsf\/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec\/dbb114a596558b078025805200350670?OpenDocument<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

III.4. Administrative and Tax Courts<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Judgment of the Administrative Supreme Court, of 12<\/u>th<\/u><\/sup> October 2016, Case No. <\/u><\/strong>0984\/16: <\/strong><\/p>\n

Social Security debts. Prescription. Fact. Interruption.<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.dgsi.pt\/jsta.nsf\/35fbbbf22e1bb1e680256f8e003ea931\/9675d401bf523d07802580520048ab11?OpenDocument<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Judgment of the Administrative Supreme Court, of 12<\/u>th<\/u><\/sup> October 2016, Case No. <\/u><\/strong>0721\/16: <\/strong>Capital Gains. Application of the tax law in time. Taxes.<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.dgsi.pt\/jsta.nsf\/35fbbbf22e1bb1e680256f8e003ea931\/09f96bf59801adc78025804f002dea99?OpenDocument<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

Partilhar este artigo<\/p>

<\/i><\/a><\/i><\/a><\/i><\/a><\/i><\/span><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":3423,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rs_blank_template":"","rs_page_bg_color":"","slide_template_v7":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[26,33],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3412","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-e-legal-en","category-e-legal16"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3412","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3412"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3412\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3423"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3412"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3412"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3412"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}