Soares Campos and Others v. Portugal

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 22479/24 José Carlos SOARES CAMPOS and Others against Portugal

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7 July 2026 as a Committee composed of:

Anne Louise Bormann , President , Ana Maria Guerra Martins, Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 22479/24) against the Portuguese Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 2 August 2024 by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), who were represented by Mr V. Parente Ribeiro, a lawyer practising in Lisbon;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1 The case concerns the drowning of the applicants’ children while taking part in an activity linked to Praxe (a university student tradition that includes hazing activities). The applicants relied on Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention.

2 At the material time, the applicants’ children, who were aged between 21 and 24 years old, were, or had been until recently, students at Lusófona University, a private university managed by the C. cooperative. The applicants’ children, as well as J.B. and J.G. were part of a group of students responsible for organising Praxe activities at the university. J.G. was the highest ‑ ranking member of the group .

3 On the night of 14 December 2013 the applicants’ children, as well as J.B. and J.G. were swept out to sea at Meco Beach. Only J.G. managed to get back to the beach and survived. The criminal proceedings concerning those events were discontinued and the case was not committed for trial.

4 . On 27 May 2016 the first applicant lodged application no. 30878/16 with the Court, complaining of a violation of his son’s right to life in respect of the facts mentioned above. By a judgment of 14 January 2020, the Court found a violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 on account of shortcomings in the criminal investigation ( Soares Campos v. Portugal , no. 30878/16, §§ 152-53, 14 January 2020). It further held that no legal vacuum existed with regard to hazing activities in Portugal, as the domestic law set out a series of criminal, civil and disciplinary provisions designed to prevent, suppress and punish offences endangering individuals’ lives, and their physical or psychological integrity. While acknowledging the tragic nature of the case, the Court did not find it established that the State had failed in its positive obligations under Article 2 and could thus be held responsible for the death of the applicant’s son. It therefore found that there had been no violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 172-73). Under Article 41 of the Convention, the Court granted the first applicant 13,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage and EUR 7,118.51 in respect of costs and expenses. Those amounts were paid on 29 September 2020. The execution of the judgment is still ongoing before the Committee of Ministers.

5 . Between December 2015 and August 2016 the applicants brought liability actions with the Setúbal Civil Court against J.G. and the C. cooperative, seeking damages for the death of their children, the suffering which the children had endured before their deaths, and the suffering which the applicants, as parents of the deceased, had endured.

6 . On 13 October 2021 the actions were dismissed. The court held, inter alia , that it had not been proven that the applicants’ children had been involved in a hazing activity when the tragic event occurred, or that J.G. had subjected them to humiliating acts. It noted that the facts had taken place outside the premises of the university and were beyond its control. It also noted that the university had taken measures to ensure security on its premises and had appointed a Student Ombudsperson, who had never received any complaints regarding violent hazing activities. It further rejected the argument that either J.G. or the C. cooperative could be held responsible for having acted with negligence. It asserted that J.G. had not been required to exercise a special duty of care, as all the participants had been adults and had been involved in the preparation of the gathering which they had attended willingly.

7 . On 30 June 2022 the Évora Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicants. It concluded that it had not been established that J.G. had endangered the lives of their children or that he had been required to exercise a special duty of care to protect them. The Court of Appeal also held that the deaths were not within the scope of the university’s contractual obligations and had not been caused by a risk created by the university, as they had occurred in a location over which the C. cooperative had had no control whatsoever.

8 . On 18 April 2024 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicants. It held, inter alia , that all those involved in the facts had acted collectively in exposing themselves to danger and that it had not been demonstrated that the applicant’s children had been unable to make their own decisions in an autonomous and responsible manner, or that J.G. had played a special role in the events leading to their deaths. It further held that it had not been established that J.G. had been exerting a leadership or command role, thus imposing on him a specific duty of care. The Supreme Court took the view that there were risks associated with Praxe , and that universities have a duty to adopt measures capable of preventing violations of their students’ rights. It observed, however, that their ability to take action in response to incidents occurring outside their premises was limited to measures such as raising awareness, setting up reporting channels, and liaising with relevant groups. In so far as the facts complained of had occurred outside the premises of the university and during an activity that had not been organised by it, the Supreme Court concluded that it had not been proven that the C. cooperative had violated its duty.

9 . Relying on Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention, the applicants alleged that the deaths of their children had been caused by the lack of a specific legal framework regulating, controlling and prohibiting Praxe , and that the decisions of the domestic courts in the liability proceedings had amounted to a breach of their children’s right to life.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

10 . The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 126, 20 March 2018), considers that the applicants’ complaints (see paragraph 9 above) are to be examined solely from the standpoint of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 2 of the Convention.

11 The Court further notes that the supervision procedure in respect of the execution of its judgment of 14 January 2020 is still ongoing before the Committee of Ministers (see paragraph 4 above). That does not, however, prevent the Court from considering a new application in so far as it includes new aspects which were not determined in the initial judgment (see, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 57-58, 11 July 2017).

12 As far as the first applicant is concerned, the Court considers that the present complaint is essentially the same as the complaint already examined by the Court in its judgment of 14 January 2020 (see paragraph 4 above) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 2 (b) and 4 of the Convention.

13 As regards the remaining applicants, the Court finds that the outcome of the liability proceedings (see paragraph 15 below) does not change the conclusion reached in the judgment concerning the application lodged by the first applicant vis ‑ à ‑ vis the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention. The Court therefore concludes that the complaint is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

14 The Court finds at the outset that Article 46 of the Convention does not preclude it from examining the first applicant’s new complaint under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention, in so far as it concerns liability proceedings which were not examined in its judgment of 14 January 2020.

15 . The Court reiterates that in cases concerning unintentional infliction of death, the requirement to have in place an effective judicial system will be satisfied if the legal system affords victims (or their next of kin) a remedy in the civil courts, either alone or in conjunction with a remedy in the criminal courts, enabling any responsibility to be established and any appropriate civil redress to be obtained (see Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 159, 25 June 2019). This is not, however, an obligation of result but of means only. The fact that proceedings end unfavourably for the victim (or the next of kin) does not in itself mean that the respondent State has failed in its positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention (ibid., § 170).

16 In the present case, the Court begins by noting that the applicants do not allege that the liability proceedings in issue were in any way unfair, but rather complain about their outcome. Indeed, it appears that the domestic courts conducted a thorough examination of the applicants’ claims and of the evidence before them, notably the accounts of witnesses and experts, including those called by the applicants. The decisions taken are well ‑ reasoned and do not appear arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see paragraphs 6-8 above).

17 As such, while acknowledging the tragic nature of the present case, the Court finds that, in the light of all the material in its possession, it does not appear that the State failed to fulfil its positive procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention.

18 It follows that this complaint is also manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 10 September 2026.

Simeon Petrovski Anne Louise Bormann Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

No.

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Nationality

Place of residence

1.

José Carlos SOARES CAMPOS

1971

Portuguese

Lisbon

2.

António Manuel CIPRIANO SOARES

1957

Barreiro

3.

Maria da Assunção CORREIA HORTA

1958

Fernão Ferro

4.

Maria de Fátima FERREIRA MARTINS TITO NEGRÃO

1960

Lisbon

5.

Sílvia GUERREIRO

1967

Loulé