{"id":641919,"date":"2026-04-21T23:45:57","date_gmt":"2026-04-21T21:45:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1870-20-1t8lsb-l2-s1-2023-04-26\/"},"modified":"2026-04-21T23:45:57","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T21:45:57","slug":"acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1870-20-1t8lsb-l2-s1-2023-04-26","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1870-20-1t8lsb-l2-s1-2023-04-26\/","title":{"rendered":"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 1870\/20.1T8LSB.L2.S1 \u2013 2023-04-26"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Relator: PEDRO DE LIMA GON?ALVES. I. O facto do Tribunal de 1.? inst?ncia ter referido em despacho que foi ordenada a produ??o de nova prova ou a renova??o da prova quando determinou que as partes fossem ouvidas para requererem o que tivessem por conveniente ? um mero considerando que n?o vincula o Juiz de 1.? inst?ncia a proceder em conformidade com esse considerando; ali?s, n?o tendo as partes requerido qualquer nova prova (apesar de notificadas para esse efeito), nenhuma raz?o haveria para inquirir, de novo, as testemunhas sobre a mat?ria a que j? haviam deposto. II. O Tribunal de 1.? inst?ncia, perante o despacho anterior, ou melhor o considerando efetuado para concluir pelo agendamento da reabertura da audi?ncia ou pela alega??o por escrito pelas partes, n?o estava vinculado, aquando da prola??o da senten?a com a aprecia??o da mat?ria de facto, ?quele outro despacho que n?o decidiu que a prova testemunhal era irrelevante e que s? relevava a prova documental; na senten?a, apreciando a mat?ria de facto, o Tribunal de 1.? inst?ncia estava vinculado, sim, ? aprecia??o de toda a prova produzida (testemunhal e documental), o que o Tribunal de 1.? inst?ncia fez.<\/p>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Portails officiels portugais (DGSI \/ Tribunal Constitucional). Republication en metadata_only par prudence licencielle ; consulter la source officielle pour le texte authentique.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Relator: PEDRO DE LIMA GON?ALVES. I. O facto do Tribunal de 1.? inst?ncia ter referido em despacho que foi ordenada a produ??o de nova prova ou a renova??o da prova quando determinou que as partes fossem ouvidas para requererem o que tivessem por conveniente ? um mero considerando que n?o vincula o Juiz de 1.? inst?ncia a proceder em conformidade com esse considerando; ali?s, n?o tendo as partes requerido qualquer nova prova (apesar de notificadas para esse efeito), nenhuma raz?o haveria para inquirir, de novo, as testemunhas sobre a mat?ria a que j? haviam deposto. II. O Tribunal de 1.? inst?ncia, perante o despacho anterior, ou melhor o considerando efetuado para concluir pelo agendamento da reabertura da audi?ncia ou pela alega??o por escrito pelas partes, n?o estava vinculado, aquando da prola??o da senten?a com a aprecia??o da mat?ria de facto, ?quele outro despacho que n?o decidiu que a prova testemunhal era irrelevante e que s? relevava a prova documental; na senten?a, apreciando a mat?ria de facto, o Tribunal de 1.? inst?ncia estava vinculado, sim, ? aprecia??o de toda a prova produzida (testemunhal e documental), o que o Tribunal de 1.? inst?ncia fez.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7762],"kji_court":[7763],"kji_chamber":[9174],"kji_year":[24566],"kji_subject":[7724],"kji_keyword":[7772,7774,7771,7773,7636],"kji_language":[7770],"class_list":["post-641919","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-portugal","kji_court-supremo-tribunal-de-justica","kji_chamber-1-seco","kji_year-24566","kji_subject-civil","kji_keyword-acordao","kji_keyword-justica","kji_keyword-processo","kji_keyword-supremo","kji_keyword-tribunal","kji_language-pt"],"yoast_head":"\nAc\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 1870\/20.1T8LSB.L2.S1 \u2013 2023-04-26 - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1870-20-1t8lsb-l2-s1-2023-04-26\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 1870\/20.1T8LSB.L2.S1 \u2013 2023-04-26\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Relator: PEDRO DE LIMA GON?ALVES. I. O facto do Tribunal de 1.? inst?ncia ter referido em despacho que foi ordenada a produ??o de nova prova ou a renova??o da prova quando determinou que as partes fossem ouvidas para requererem o que tivessem por conveniente ? um mero considerando que n?o vincula o Juiz de 1.? inst?ncia a proceder em conformidade com esse considerando; ali?s, n?o tendo as partes requerido qualquer nova prova (apesar de notificadas para esse efeito), nenhuma raz?o haveria para inquirir, de novo, as testemunhas sobre a mat?ria a que j? haviam deposto. II. O Tribunal de 1.? inst?ncia, perante o despacho anterior, ou melhor o considerando efetuado para concluir pelo agendamento da reabertura da audi?ncia ou pela alega??o por escrito pelas partes, n?o estava vinculado, aquando da prola??o da senten?a com a aprecia??o da mat?ria de facto, ?quele outro despacho que n?o decidiu que a prova testemunhal era irrelevante e que s? relevava a prova documental; na senten?a, apreciando a mat?ria de facto, o Tribunal de 1.? inst?ncia estava vinculado, sim, ? aprecia??o de toda a prova produzida (testemunhal e documental), o que o Tribunal de 1.? inst?ncia fez.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1870-20-1t8lsb-l2-s1-2023-04-26\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"1 \u5206\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1870-20-1t8lsb-l2-s1-2023-04-26\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1870-20-1t8lsb-l2-s1-2023-04-26\\\/\",\"name\":\"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 1870\\\/20.1T8LSB.L2.S1 \u2013 2023-04-26 - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-21T21:45:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1870-20-1t8lsb-l2-s1-2023-04-26\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1870-20-1t8lsb-l2-s1-2023-04-26\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1870-20-1t8lsb-l2-s1-2023-04-26\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 1870\\\/20.1T8LSB.L2.S1 \u2013 2023-04-26\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 1870\/20.1T8LSB.L2.S1 \u2013 2023-04-26 - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1870-20-1t8lsb-l2-s1-2023-04-26\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 1870\/20.1T8LSB.L2.S1 \u2013 2023-04-26","og_description":"Relator: PEDRO DE LIMA GON?ALVES. I. O facto do Tribunal de 1.? inst?ncia ter referido em despacho que foi ordenada a produ??o de nova prova ou a renova??o da prova quando determinou que as partes fossem ouvidas para requererem o que tivessem por conveniente ? um mero considerando que n?o vincula o Juiz de 1.? inst?ncia a proceder em conformidade com esse considerando; ali?s, n?o tendo as partes requerido qualquer nova prova (apesar de notificadas para esse efeito), nenhuma raz?o haveria para inquirir, de novo, as testemunhas sobre a mat?ria a que j? haviam deposto. II. O Tribunal de 1.? inst?ncia, perante o despacho anterior, ou melhor o considerando efetuado para concluir pelo agendamento da reabertura da audi?ncia ou pela alega??o por escrito pelas partes, n?o estava vinculado, aquando da prola??o da senten?a com a aprecia??o da mat?ria de facto, ?quele outro despacho que n?o decidiu que a prova testemunhal era irrelevante e que s? relevava a prova documental; na senten?a, apreciando a mat?ria de facto, o Tribunal de 1.? inst?ncia estava vinculado, sim, ? aprecia??o de toda a prova produzida (testemunhal e documental), o que o Tribunal de 1.? inst?ncia fez.","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1870-20-1t8lsb-l2-s1-2023-04-26\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4":"1 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1870-20-1t8lsb-l2-s1-2023-04-26\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1870-20-1t8lsb-l2-s1-2023-04-26\/","name":"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 1870\/20.1T8LSB.L2.S1 \u2013 2023-04-26 - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-21T21:45:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1870-20-1t8lsb-l2-s1-2023-04-26\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1870-20-1t8lsb-l2-s1-2023-04-26\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1870-20-1t8lsb-l2-s1-2023-04-26\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 1870\/20.1T8LSB.L2.S1 \u2013 2023-04-26"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"zh-Hans"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"zh-Hans","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/641919","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=641919"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=641919"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=641919"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=641919"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=641919"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=641919"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=641919"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=641919"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}