CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 novembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 December 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 23911/23 CTT - CORREIOS DE PORTUGAL S.A. against Portugal lodged on 7 June 2023 communicated on 12 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The Portuguese State concluded a concession contract with the applicant company for providing the national postal service. The application concerns two sets of proceedings instituted against the applicant company by the National Authority for Communications (“ANACOM”) for breach of the concession contract and for administrative offences. Relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, the applicant company complains of having been punished twice for the same facts. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the proceedings instituted against the applicant company by the ANACOM for breach of the concession contract of a criminal nature, within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (see, Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, §§ 52-53, 10 February 2009; Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy, nos. 18640/10 and 4 others, § 94, 4   March 2014; and A and B v. Norway [GC], nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11, §§   105-107, 15 November 2016)?   2.     If so, has the applicant company been punished twice for the same offences, as prohibited by Article   4 §   1 of Protocol No.   7 to the Convention? In particular:   (a) Did the two sets of proceedings instituted by the ANACOM originate from identical facts or facts which were substantially the same (see Sergey   Zolotukhin , cited above, §§ 82-84; A and B v. Norway , cited above, §§   108 and 117-134; Grande Stevens and Others , cited above, §§ 219-20; and Ramda v. France , no. 78477/11, § 87, 19 December 2017)?   (b) In the affirmative, were the proceedings sufficiently closely connected in substance and time (see A and B v. Norway , cited above, §§ 130-34, and Goulandris and Vardinogianni v. Greece , no. 1735/13, §§ 54-55, 16   June 22)?