CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 septembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 11 September 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 21864/14 Joao Miguel FERNANDES MARTINS against Portugal lodged on 5 March 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s criminal conviction for drug consumption based on the Supreme Court judgment no. 8/2008 of 25   June 2008 harmonising the contradictory case-law ( Acórdão de Fixação de Jurisprudência ) following the decriminalisation of drug consumption brought by Article 28 of Law no. 30/2000, of 29 November 2000.   It also concerns the inadmissibility of the applicant’s appeal before the Constitutional Court due to its noncompliance with the procedural formalities stipulated in Article 75-A of Law no. 28/82 of 15   November 1982. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the act for which the applicant was convicted constitute a criminal offence under national law at the time it was committed, as envisaged by Article 7 of the Convention? In particular:   Was the Supreme Court judgment no. 8/2008 of 25 June 2008, harmonising the contradictory case-law, compatible with Article   7 of the Convention? More specifically, was its interpretation consistent with the essence of the offence at issue and reasonably foreseeable; and was it in line with the wording of the relevant provisions of the criminal legislation in question as read in its context (see Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania [GC] , no.   35343/05, §§ 155-56, 161-62 and 184, 20 October 2015)?   2.     Did the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of the formalities provided for in Article 75-A of Law no. 28/82 of 15 November 1982 violate the applicant’s right of access to court (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no.   40160/12, §§ 97-99, 5 April 2018)?