One of the complaints that the ECHR considered inadmissible is the case filed by judge Lúcia Lobato, who was detained in Timor-Leste and was subject to disciplinary proceedings in the Superior Council of Magistrates, which, according to the complainant, exceeded a reasonable period of time.
The court considered that the request of the magistrate did not meet the conditions to be considered and declared the complaint inadmissible.
In the case that opposed Carvalho Soares to the Portuguese State, brought against the poor conditions in which he lived when he was detained, in 2014 and 2015, in the prison of the Judicial Police of Lisbon and in the prisons of Caxias and Vale de Judeus, the ECtHR considered that action was met by the Portuguese State through the guarantee of payment of 11,000 Euros for moral damages and another 1,200 Euros for court costs.
In the other action against Portugal, also about the poor conditions of incarceration in Olhão prison in 2011 and Vale de Judeus prison in 2012, the Romanian citizen Gheorghe Beucã had already secured payment by the Portuguese State of €3,500 for moral damages and €1,200 for court costs, the European court having concluded that his claim was not admissible.
In the case between Gotalimpa and Portugal, related to access by the Tax Authority to the identity and bank details of the recipients of cheques issued by the company, the parties have since reached an agreement.
The decision states that the Court was notified that the parties in dispute had reached an agreement and that the company renounced any new claim against Portugal, under the commitment of the State to pay it compensation, within three months from the date of notification of the decision, for non-pecuniary damages to which an additional 1,500 Euros is added for court costs.
Another action that the ECHR also found to be inadmissible was between Arnaldo de Sousa Magalhães and Luísa Castro Soares against the State and was related to the expropriation of land in Quinta do Souto for the installation of railway infrastructure by REFER.
The Strasbourg Court unanimously decided to join other related claims and consider them inadmissible.