Supreme Administrative Court Ruling

Abstract

I – Since the action brought, as framed by the Plaintiffs in the initial petition, is structured in its causa petendi as a claim for non-contractual civil liability arising from a lawful act committed by the Defendant, the Plaintiffs’ challenge to the contested judgment—based on alleged civil liability of the Defendant founded on an unlawful act negligently committed by its governing bodies—has no legal basis.

II – Such a claim, as it raises a new issue not subject to decision by the court a quo and not of its own motion, cannot be considered within the appellate review.

III – The fundamental requirements for non-contractual civil liability under Article 9 of Decree-Law no. 48 051, of 21 November 1967, are: (i) a lawful act by the State or another public legal entity; (ii) carried out for reasons of public interest; (iii) a special and abnormal harm; and (iv) a causal link between the act and the harm.

IV – Although a municipal decision on a preliminary information request constitutes “rights” (Article 12, paragraph 3, of Decree-Law no. 445/91), its content is binding only for a subsequent license application, provided that the application is submitted within one year from the date of its communication to the applicant (Article 13).

V – The submission of a draft project for works cannot be formally and technically considered a license application, which must comply with the requirements set out in Article 14 of the same decree and must necessarily be accompanied, among other documents, by the architectural project, including descriptive report, plans, sections, elevations, and execution details (Article 15).