Versions internationales / International versions

Version française Version française de la plainte contre la Juge Sónia Sousa Bártolo auprès du Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature.

English version English version of the complaint against Judge Sónia Sousa Bártolo to the Superior Council of the Judiciary

Exmo. Mr. President of the Superior Council of the Judiciary

Subject: Reinforcement of disciplinary complaint no. 2023/GAVPM/3898 – shortened disciplinary version (10 documented facts)

INTRODUCTION

I acknowledge receipt of the response from the Superior Council of the Judiciary to the disciplinary complaint filed against Exma. Mrs. Judge Sónia Sousa Bártolo, of the Judicial Court of the District of Lisbon North – Cascais. This submission is exclusively disciplinary in nature, and seeks solely the assessment of objective facts potentially relevant for disciplinary purposes under Articles 6(c), 7(c), and 83-H of the Statute of Judicial Magistrates.

Article 6-C (Duty of Impartiality): “Judicial magistrates, in the exercise of their functions, must act impartially, ensuring equal and unbiased treatment to all with regard to the private and public interests they are called upon to decide.”

Article 7-C (Duty of Diligence): “Judicial magistrates must conduct their activity according to principles of quality and efficiency so as to ensure, in particular, a fair, equitable judgment within a reasonable time for those who resort to the courts.”

Article 83-H (Serious Infractions): Expressly classifies as a serious infraction “the unjustified, repeated, or grossly negligent failure to comply with the time limits established for the performance of an act proper to the judge, in particular when six months have elapsed since the expiry of the time limit for the performance of the act.”

It is expressly clarified that no review, amendment, or reassessment of the merits of the judicial decision rendered in the child-return proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention is requested. The jurisdictional matter will be discussed through the appropriate procedural channels. This communication concerns only the disciplinary dimension of the conduct described, which is extensively supported by documentation in the case file, hearing recordings, and case law communicated to the court and, according to the complaint, disregarded in the handling of the case and in the reasoning of the decision. All the elements supporting this complaint are available on the public website Pela Justica.

This is a shortened version, containing the 10 most relevant disciplinary facts. The original complaint contains additional elements of disciplinary nature, which are here deemed reproduced, and the Council’s analysis should focus exclusively on that aspect.

Failure to decide on urgent interim relief

The Public Prosecutor’s Office filed, on 29.06.2023, an urgent interim measure seeking the immediate return of the child to Luxembourg, attaching the official request sent by the Luxembourg authorities on 24.01.2023 and received by the Portuguese Central Authority on 25.01.2023. Despite this, and despite the court having been informed of the existence of the return request by the filings of 30.01.2023 and 31.01.2023 and by the communication from the Portuguese Central Authority of 11.04.2023, the interim measure remained undecided for 17 months, that is, 77 weeks.

Such procedural inaction, in a matter expressly classified as urgent, may amount to a breach of the functional duties of diligence, efficiency, and proper case management.

Selective credibility given to health allegations without documentary support

At the hearing of 03.08.2023, the mother alleged that the child suffered from anorexia nervosa, despite the fact that the child was under three years old, and that allegation was accepted without any requirement for objective clinical support. Later, the child’s doctor formally confirmed, on 28.09.2023, the non-existence of such a condition, and the mother herself admitted that it had been a mistake (audio).

Nevertheless, those elements were not given proper procedural weight. All questions relating to the child’s health were dealt with without any real critical assessment, as described in the original complaint.

Such conduct may constitute a breach of the duties of rigour, objectivity, and impartiality in the assessment of the material submitted to the court.

Ordering expert examinations incompatible with Hague Convention urgency

Despite the existence of a NIJ expert report dated 30.03.2023, and the successive warnings contained in the filings of 11.08.2023, or 28.09.2023, or at 17.11.2023 concerning the urgent nature of the case, new expert examinations were ordered from the NIJ and INML only on 02.04.2024.

The complaint itself relies on case law from the Porto Court of Appeal to the effect that such examinations are incompatible with the urgent nature of Hague Convention return proceedings, whose reference deadline is six weeks. As stated in the Porto Court of Appeal judgment (case no. 1298/21.6T8MCN.P1): “Moreover, the present proceedings are urgent in nature (see, e.g., Article 11 of the Convention – which provides that ‘the judicial or administrative authorities of the Contracting States shall act expeditiously in proceedings for the return of children’, and in its § 2 that the proceedings should, as a rule, culminate in a decision ‘within six weeks from the date of commencement of the proceedings’) which is difficult to reconcile with medico-legal examinations to be carried out by the National Institute of Legal Medicine (which, as forensic practice shows, take several months to prepare), it being clear that such urgency has precisely been one of the reasons given for rejecting means of proof that are not a condition for issuing the decision, even in cases of refusal of return.”

The carrying out of such measures, at an advanced stage and in a context of internationally recognised urgency, reveals case management that is inconsistent with the required speed of these proceedings.

Such conduct may amount to a breach of the functional duties of diligence and adequacy in the conduct of the proceedings.

Failure to address the confession of unlawful retention in the judgment

One of the central points of the complaint is that the mother maintained, for about two years, the version that the child’s move to Portugal had occurred with the father’s consent, including in the filings of 31.01.2023, or 07.03.2023 or even 12.04.2023. However, at the recorded hearing of 14.11.2024 (audio), the mother allegedly adopted a version incompatible with that earlier narrative, confessing the retention and seeking to justify it on new grounds, and it is alleged that this significant shift was omitted from the judgment.

This relevant change was not properly assessed procedurally, and such omission may amount to a breach of the duty to provide reasons and to critically analyse the essential elements of the case.

Failure to confront the mother’s successive contradictions

The complaint states that, at the hearing of 03.08.2023, the judge herself stated that “one of the parties is certainly not telling the whole truth,” acknowledging the existence of relevant contradictions between the parents’ versions. Despite this, according to the submission, the mother was not effectively confronted with the successive incompatibilities in her accounts; instead, the hearings were conducted in a way that accommodated the change in narrative, notably at the hearing of 14.11.2024 (audio), where the issue is presented as if there were an agreement whose existence the mother had previously denied.

This circumstance, together with the conduct of the hearings, reveals an insufficient exploration of relevant contradictory elements.

It may constitute a breach of the duties of impartiality, rigour, and the discovery of material truth.

Judgments inconsistent with available expert evidence

The submission states that the NIJ report of 30.03.2023 concluded that the child was healthy and that both parents had good parenting capacities, and that, on 03.08.2023, the judge herself said she understood that either parent had the parenting skills to have the child with them. Nevertheless, the judgment allegedly adopted a disparaging formulation to the effect that the father “is also learning how to care”, which is at odds with the expert reports and with the fact that the father spent long periods with the child in Luxembourg.

Such divergence, without adequate explanation, may amount to a breach of the duty to give reasons and the duty to decide on the basis of objectively supported elements.

Temporal framework inconsistent with the procedural record

The start of the proceedings was taken to be 29.06.2023, the date on which the file entered the court, without reflecting the existence of a return request previously received by the Portuguese Central Authority on 24.01.2023, nor the subsequent communications. The Portuguese Central Authority received the request on 24.01.2023, the father notified the court on 30.01.2023, and the Central Authority requested suspension of the proceedings on 11.04.2023. The procedural chronology was discussed and confirmed in several recorded hearings (audio).

Such a temporal reconstruction, not aligned with the available documentary elements, may amount to a breach of the duties of rigour and objectivity in the conduct of the proceedings.

Disregard of the official communication from the Portuguese Central Authority

The Portuguese Central Authority formally informed the court, on 11.04.2023, of the existence of the return request and asked for the suspension of the parental-responsibility proceedings.

That institutional communication was not given proper consideration in the conduct of the proceedings.

Such omission may constitute a breach of the duties of institutional cooperation and proper consideration of relevant official material.

Systematic failure to respond to relevant filings

Several filings were submitted throughout the proceedings, namely on 11.08.2023, or on 28.09.2023, or even on 17.11.2023, warning of the urgency of the case and of already documented inconsistencies.

Those filings received no response.

Such repeated failure to rule may amount to a breach of the duty to decide and to respond to the parties.

Disregard of evidentiary elements concerning dual schooling

Documentary elements relating to the child’s life in Luxembourg were submitted, including attendance at nursery and pre-school, as well as institutional contacts.

Those elements were not given proper procedural consideration.

Such conduct may constitute a breach of the duties of rigour and of full assessment of the evidence.

Manifestly excessive duration of the proceedings in breach of the urgent nature of the Hague Convention

The child-return proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention lasted far beyond the internationally established reference period of six weeks, without such delay being justified by duly reasoned exceptional circumstances in the file.

Indeed, the return request was received by the Portuguese Central Authority on 25.01.2023, the court was informed of its existence in the immediately following days, on 30.01.2023, and yet the proceedings continued for a particularly long period, including the absence of any decision on the urgent interim measure for 17 months.

In addition, according to the official international statistical data HCCH relating to the application of the Hague Convention, the longest recorded case reached approximately 750 days until final judgment. In the present case, that magnitude is already reached or approached at first-instance stage, which shows an exceptionally high level of delay in international comparative terms.

The delay observed, together with procedural acts incompatible with the required urgency — in particular, the ordering of additional steps at a late stage and the failure to respond to filings expressly invoking that urgency — reveals case management that is inconsistent with the functional duties of diligence, efficiency, and proper administration of justice.

Such conduct may constitute a breach of the functional duties laid down in the Statute of Judicial Magistrates, undermining the effectiveness of an international legal instrument based on speed and contributing to the consolidation of a potentially unlawful factual situation.

Disciplinary summary

The facts described above are not isolated occurrences, but rather reveal a consistent pattern of conduct characterised by significant procedural delays, repeated failures to rule, disregard of relevant elements, and the adoption of acts incompatible with the urgent nature of the proceedings.

Particularly noteworthy is the overall duration of the proceedings, plainly incompatible with Hague Convention standards, as a transversal element that aggravates and contextualises the other conduct described.

Such a pattern, viewed as a whole, may reflect a breach of the functional duties of diligence, impartiality, rigour, and proper administration of justice, undermining the effectiveness of an international legal mechanism and contributing to the consolidation of a potentially unlawful factual situation.

SPECIFIC REQUESTS

Accordingly, it is respectfully requested:

  1. that the facts summarised above and the other elements contained in the original complaint be assessed autonomously and exclusively from a disciplinary standpoint
  2. that such disciplinary steps as may be considered appropriate be instituted in order to determine the possible functional responsibility of the judge concerned
  3. that the complainant be notified of the follow-up given to this submission and of the relevant case number, if applicable
  4. if dismissal is maintained, that this Council, in compliance with the duty to give reasons, explain in a concrete and individualised manner to what extent each of the facts presented falls exclusively within the jurisdictional sphere and not within a possible breach of functional duties liable to disciplinary assessment.

A separate disciplinary inquiry is requested, given the pattern of omissions and delay incompatible with functional duties.

Luxembourg, 13 February 2026

Topo PDF