6.2.2. Ombudsman’s decisions non favourable to complainants Case Q-3258/16 Entity addressed: CTCV – Centro Tecnológico da Cerâmica e do Vidro Date: 2016.07.27 Subject: Economic matters. Trade. General contractual terms and conditions The Ombudsman has been requested to require the Prosecutor to initiate an action aimed at obtaining a conviction regarding a clause included in a contract for the provision of services concluded between private entities, in accordance with Decree-Law No. 446/85, of 25 October (Legal scheme of general contractual terms and conditions). The Ombudsman concluded that he had not elements allowing, with legal certainty, the use of the prerogative assigned by item c), paragraph 1, article 26 of Decree-Law No. 446/85, i.e., to send the case to the Prosecutor. The case was closed and the complainant informed that it could itself request the intervention of the Prosecutor. • Case Q-5340/16 Entity addressed: Schools Grouping of Benedita Date: 2016.12.20 Subject: Tax. Tax enforcements. Seizure. Minimum threshold of unseizability. Christmas and holiday bonuses. Union due Ombudsman’s intervention was requested with regard to the alleged infringement of the legal minimum of unseizability by the Schools Grouping of Benedita who, as employer of the complainant, had been complying with the attachment order of the respective salary. The complainant appended copy of pay slips from May to September 2016, in which were detailed the amounts withheld on account of the seizure. Those pay slips evidenced that the net total remuneration was always below the amount equivalent to one national minimum wage. After hearing the addressed entity, it was found that the complainant based the complaint only in the pay slips respecting to the main salary, not including the Christmas and holiday bonuses, which were processed in separate pay slips. | 123