{"id":140206,"date":"2026-04-21T13:38:55","date_gmt":"2026-04-21T13:38:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=140206"},"modified":"2026-04-29T13:45:26","modified_gmt":"2026-04-29T13:45:26","slug":"portugal-cartels","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/portugal-cartels\/","title":{"rendered":"Portugal: Cartels"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-140206","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-cartels","jurisdictions-portugal"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Linklaters LLP<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2018\/11\/linklaters-logo.png\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Linklaters LLP<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2018\/11\/linklaters-logo.png\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Cartels laws and regulations applicable in Portugal<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the relevant legislative framework respect of cartel agreements and\/or conduct ?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The legislative framework for cartels in Portugal is established by Law 19\/2012, of 8 May (<strong>Competition Act<\/strong>), as amended by Law 23\/2018 of 5 June, Decree-Law 108\/2021 of 7 December, and Law 17\/2022 of 17 August.<\/p>\n<p>Article 9 of the Competition Act prohibits (i) agreements between undertakings, (ii) concerted practices between undertakings, and (iii) decisions by associations of undertakings, when their object or effect is to prevent, distort, or significantly restrict competition within the whole or part of the national market. This article mirrors the prohibition outlined in Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (<strong>TFEU<\/strong>) and additionally prohibits the inclusion of best-price clauses in agreements between intermediaries using electronic platforms and suppliers in the tourism sector.<\/p>\n<p>Article 10 of the Competition Act, aligned with Article 101(3) of the TFEU, provides a framework for justifying the prohibited practices specified in Article 9. These practices may be exempted if their efficiencies contribute to the improvement of production or distribution of goods or services, or foster technical or economic development.<\/p>\n<p>To qualify, specific cumulative criteria must be met:(i)consumers must receive a fair share of the resulting benefit<\/p>\n<p>(ii)restrictions must be indispensable to achieve the efficiencies; and<\/p>\n<p>(iii)it must not be possible to eliminate competition in a substantial part of the market for the relevant products.<\/p>\n<p>As cartels represent serious infringements of competition law, exemptions for such practices will be granted only in exceptional cases.<\/p>\n<p>The Portuguese Competition Authority (PCA) has adopted additional regulations and guidelines applicable to cartels, including: (i) Regulation 747\/2024 on the procedure for obtaining immunity or reduction of fines (Regulation 747\/2024) (ii) guidelines on the methodology of application of fines (issued in July 2024); and (iii) guidelines on the handling of antitrust proceedings (issued in December 2023).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How is a cartel defined?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Article 9 of the Competition Act prohibits agreements and practices whose object or effect is to prevent, distort, or significantly restrict competition. If a cartel practice is deemed an infringement by object \u2013 as is often the case \u2013 it is not necessary to demonstrate its effect on the market in other to establish an infringement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">To establish an infringement, does there need to have been an effect on the market?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Article 9 of the Competition Act prohibits agreements and practices whose object or effect is to prevent, distort, or significantly restrict competition. If a cartel practice is deemed an infringement by object \u2013 as is often the case \u2013 it is not necessary to demonstrate its effect on the market in other to establish an infringement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does the law apply to conduct that occurs outside the jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Competition Act, a conduct occurring outside of Portugal may fall under the scope of the Competition Act if it has, or may have, the effect of restricting competition within the national market.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Which authorities can investigate cartels?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The PCA, established in 2003, is the public entity responsible for investigating cartels in Portugal. Its governance framework is outlined in its bylaws, set out in Decree-Law 125\/2014, of 18 August. The PCA operates as an independent and autonomous authority, with sanctioning, supervisory and regulatory powers. Specifically in relation to the authority\u2019s independence, the government cannot make recommendations or issue directives to the PCA\u2019s board of directors regarding its activities or strategic priorities, which are set solely by the PCA.<\/p>\n<p>The PCA can also cooperate with sectoral regulatory authorities in the enforcement of competition legislation specifically for activities subject to sectoral regulation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How do authorities typically learn of the existence of a potential cartel and to what extent do they have discretion over the cases that they open?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In recent years, leniency applications and complaints have served as the primary triggers for cartel investigations.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, the PCA proactively initiates investigations on its own initiative (<em>ex officio<\/em>) if it has reasonable grounds for suspecting of an anticompetitive practice. The PCA holds significant discretion in selecting cases to pursue, considering factors such as the nature of the conduct, its impact on the market and available evidence. The decision to initiate an investigation may be influenced by its priorities, resources and strategic objectives.<\/p>\n<p>The PCA has set up online tools to report anticompetitive practices, including a whistleblower tool that allow individuals or undertakings to report anticompetitive practices. The PCA may assign different levels of priority to the matters it is asked to analyse and is not obliged to investigate all potential restrictive practices of which it becomes aware.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the key steps in a cartel investigation?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p><strong>(i)How an investigation is initiated<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Pursuant to Article 17 of the Competition Act, the PCA can initiate an investigation in three ways: (i) following a complaint (which may be made via the PCA\u2019s online complaints portal and anonymously); (ii) on its own initiative (<em>ex officio<\/em>); or (iii) following a leniency application.<\/p>\n<p><strong>(ii) <\/strong><strong>Decision to open formal proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>If the PCA decides to open formal proceedings, they will be conducted in two phases: (i) an investigation phase, and (ii) an enquiry phase.<\/p>\n<p><strong>(iii) <\/strong><strong>Investigation phase<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The investigation phase can initially last up to 18 months from the opening of the proceedings. However, this timeframe is indicative and may be extended if necessary.<\/p>\n<p>During the investigation phase, the PCA usually undertakes a variety of evidence-gathering activities. Typically, it is while conducting these activities that the investigated undertakings become aware of the formal proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>In cartel investigations, the initial investigatory measure typically consists of dawn raids. Following a dawn raid, the PCA may address further requests for information, question relevant people. It is also usual for the PCA to summon the undertakings investigated to discuss the facts of the case and possible outcomes, especially if a settlement is possible.<\/p>\n<p>At the conclusion of this phase, the PCA has several options: (i) terminate the investigation if there is insufficient evidence for a conviction; (ii) close the proceedings by issuing a settlement decision; (iii) terminate the investigation by adopting a decision imposing specific conditions, or (iv) proceed with the investigation by initiating its second stage, the enquiry phase, by issuing a Statement of Objections (<strong>SO<\/strong>) to the undertakings under investigation.<\/p>\n<p><strong>(iv)<\/strong><strong>Enquiry phase<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The enquiry phase typically extends up to 12 months from the notification of the SO, but the PCA may also extend the duration of this phase.<\/p>\n<p>During the enquiry phase, the undertakings under investigation have the right to submit their written defence within no less than 30 working days from receiving the SO. This period can be extended if there are valid reasons. Additionally, the investigated undertakings may request further evidence-gathering measures they deem necessary and\/or an oral hearing, where the undertaking concerned offers its defence orally in a hearing conducted by the case handlers.<\/p>\n<p>While the PCA typically does not conduct additional evidence-gathering, it reserves the right to do so at any point during the enquiry phase, namely after the undertakings concerned submit their own written (or oral) defences. If such measures result in a significant alteration to the initial charges, the PCA must issue a new SO.<\/p>\n<p><strong>(v)<\/strong><strong>Final decision<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The formal proceedings conclude with a final decision from the PCA. The decision may have one of several outcomes: (i) declaring the existence of an anticompetitive practice, which leads to the imposition of a fine, unless the practice is deemed justified; (ii) imposing a fine in settlement proceedings; (iii) setting conditions for the undertakings; (iv) concluding the case without imposing any conditions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the key investigative powers that are available to the relevant authorities?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The PCA has the following key investigative powers:<\/p>\n<p><strong>(i)\u00a0 <\/strong><strong>Interviews and requests for information<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The PCA can interview any individual or entity, including third parties and public authorities, and request any documents and\/or information deemed relevant for investigating the facts of a case. Typically, these requests are issued in writing. While there is a general obligation to cooperate with the PCA, respondents have the right to refuse to answer questions that may lead to self-incrimination.<\/p>\n<p><strong>(ii) <\/strong><strong>Search and seizure procedures (dawn raids)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The PCA can carry out dawn raids either with or without prior notice. For conducting unannounced dawn raids, the PCA is required to obtain a judicial warrant issued in advance. This warrant must be issued by the competent judicial authority (typically, a judge).<\/p>\n<p>Until 2023, the PCA customarily obtained judicial warrants from public prosecutors. However, since March 2023, the Constitutional Court has consistently ruled that certain provisions in the Competition Act allowing the PCA to conduct searches and seize emails with authorisation solely from a public prosecutor are unconstitutional. As a result, the PCA has shifted its practice and now requests judicial warrants for dawn raids involving the seizure of correspondence from a judge, rather than from a public prosecutor, as it had done previously.<\/p>\n<p>Dawn raids can be conducted at the premises, land or means of transport either of undertakings or associations of undertakings or of partners, members of management bodies or other individuals associated with these entities, including private residences. These procedures can include all forms of written materials and documentation, regardless of their format or storage method. During a dawn raid, the PCA has the power to request access to documents and require explanations for any such materials. The PCA can also make copies of any relevant documents. Typically, a copy of all documents taken is provided to the parties involved at the conclusion of the dawn raid.<\/p>\n<p>While conducting a dawn raid, and to the extent strictly necessary, the PCA has the power to seal any business premises where written records or other documentation are or might be located, including the media storing them, such as computers and other electronic data storage devices.<\/p>\n<p>Non-cooperation or obstructing the PCA\u2019s exercise of its powers \u2013 such as supplying inaccurate, incomplete and misleading information \u2013 can result in the imposition of fines. Individuals may face fines ranging from EUR 1,020 to EUR 5,100.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, failing to cooperate with the PCA during a dawn raid can lead to criminal liability for obstructing an investigation by a public authority.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">On what grounds can legal privilege be invoked to withhold the production of certain documents in the context of a request by the relevant authorities?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The Statutes of the Portuguese Bar Association state that legal privilege includes all information that lawyers become aware of while working or providing services and any documents related to those facts.<\/p>\n<p>Despite this, the PCA has adopted a narrow and debatable view of legal privilege, arguing that it only covers documents containing legal advice. Additionally, in recent years, the PCA has claimed the authority to examine emails shared between an undertaking and its lawyers to decide if those communications fall under legal privilege. No distinction is made between external and in-house lawyers, as long as they are active members of the Portuguese Bar Association.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the conditions for a granting of full immunity? What evidence does the applicant need to provide? Is a formal admission required?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The leniency programme is set out in (i) articles 75 to 82 of the Competition Act, which set out the criteria for leniency, and (ii) Regulation 747\/2024, which sets out the procedures for obtaining immunity or reduction of fines.<\/p>\n<p>The first company to inform the PCA of its participation in a cartel may be granted complete immunity from fines. To achieve this, it must supply the PCA with information enabling it to carry out a dawn raid or confirm a competition law infringement, provided the authority lacks adequate information to request a search warrant for a dawn raid or to uncover such anticompetitive behaviour, or has not yet conducted a dawn raid. Directors, managers and individuals in equivalent roles within the business units involved in the cartel may also receive full immunity.<\/p>\n<p>To obtain immunity, the applicant must:<\/p>\n<p>i) immediately cease involvement in the cartel (unless otherwise directed by the PCA);<\/p>\n<p>ii) collaborate with the PCA in its investigation;<\/p>\n<p>iii) not have compelled other companies to join the practice;<\/p>\n<p>iv) refrain from destroying, falsifying, or concealing information or evidence linked to the breach; and<\/p>\n<p>v) avoid disclosing the intent or content of the waiver request except to the European Commission, another national competition authority, or competition authorities in third countries.<\/p>\n<p>Leniency applications can be submitted in either writing or oral form, and in Portuguese or English. In specific and well-justified circumstances, applicants can use a summary application template for immunity from fines.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What level of leniency, if any, is available to subsequent applicants and what are the eligibility conditions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Applicants that do not meet the immunity criteria (such as subsequent leniency applicants), but nevertheless provide information and evidence on an infringement that has significant added value, may be granted a fine reduction.<\/p>\n<p>These applicants must also comply with criteria i), ii), iv) and v) above.<\/p>\n<p>Fine reductions are available according with the following levels:<\/p>\n<p>i) first applicant: from 30% to 50%;<\/p>\n<p>ii) second applicant: from 20% to 30%;<\/p>\n<p>iii) subsequent applicants: up to 20%.<\/p>\n<p>These statutory percentages are reduced by half if the leniency application is submitted after the issuance of the SO.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are markers available and, if so, in what circumstances?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Markers are available to ensure ranking by the order in which leniency applications are received. Once the PCA receives the leniency application, it can grant the applicant a marker, either at its own request or on the initiative of the PCA.<\/p>\n<p>This marker allows a period of at least 15 days for the applicant to complete its request with the remaining details.<\/p>\n<p>To qualify for a marker, the applicant must provide at least the following information:<\/p>\n<p>i) its name and address;<\/p>\n<p>ii) information relating to the participants in the alleged cartel;<\/p>\n<p>iii) information on the products and\/or services concerned, the affected territories and an estimate of the duration and nature of the alleged cartel;<\/p>\n<p>iv) information on any other leniency applications; and<\/p>\n<p>v) the rationale for its marker request.<\/p>\n<p>Failure to complete the initial request will result in the rejection of the leniency application. Any documents provided will either be returned to the applicant or, if expressly requested, kept by the PCA for evaluation under the cooperation criteria.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is required of immunity\/leniency applicants in terms of ongoing cooperation with the relevant authorities?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Immunity\/leniency applicants must fully cooperate with the PCA throughout the investigation to be considered for immunity or a fine reduction. As part of this cooperation, applicants are required to provide complete and accurate information or evidence to which they have access and answer any question that may help clarify the facts. Additionally, applicants must avoid any actions that could impede the investigation, such as destroying, falsifying, or suppressing information).<\/p>\n<p>Immunity\/leniency applicants are also subject to ongoing confidentiality obligations, unless the PCA explicitly releases them from this obligation in writing.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does the grant of immunity\/leniency extend to immunity from criminal prosecution (if any) for current\/former employees and directors?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Pursuant to Article 79 of the Competition Act, the leniency programme is available to individuals who are liable for competition law infringements in similar terms to those offered to undertakings, and follows a similar procedure, provided these individuals cooperate fully and continuously with the PCA. This includes directors, managers and individuals in equivalent roles in the business units involved in the cartel. Individuals can apply for leniency on behalf of the company or individually.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does the investigating authority have the ability to enter into a settlement agreement or plea bargain and, if so, what is the process for doing so?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The PCA may initiate settlement procedures under the Competition Act, either on its own initiative or upon request of the undertaking concerned. Nonetheless, the PCA holds substantial discretion in determining if a case is apt for settlement and in selecting cases for settlement based on the discussions conducted. No court approval is necessary.<\/p>\n<p>Settlement discussions may begin either before or after issuance of the SO. Typically, the PCA is more inclined to enter into settlement discussions at the earlier investigative stages since it promotes procedural efficiency and saves resources.<\/p>\n<p>Hybrid settlements are permitted in Portugal and have already received PCA approval.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the key pros and cons for a party that is considering entering into a settlement with the relevant authority?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>When settlement discussions succeed, undertakings receive a reduction in the fine that would otherwise be imposed. Since the Competition Act does not specify the reduction amount, the undertakings concerned do not know the exact reduction upfront. Any settlement reduction can be additional to potential leniency reduction. Settlement can also expedite administrative proceedings, consequently lowering the undertakings\u2019 own case costs.<\/p>\n<p>Settling can be beneficial, as the PCA\u2019s decision will be considerably less exhaustive, which might potentially influence follow-on damage claims.<\/p>\n<p>However, undertakings that choose to settle must accept liability for the infringement and renounce their right to challenge their involvement and responsibility for the infringement. They must also renounce their right to judicial review concerning the acknowledged or uncontested facts and their legal qualification (but not in relation to the fine imposed by the PCA, which the settling undertakings may appeal). Consequently, settlement might restrict the undertakings\u2019 position before other authorities and civil claimants. Other potential issues concerning reputation and ongoing business relationships should also be considered when considering entering into settlement discussions with the PCA.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the nature and extent of any cooperation with other investigating authorities, including from other jurisdictions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>At the national level, the PCA works closely with sector-specific regulators on competition law issues. Both the PCA and sector regulators are required to promptly share information with one another when they identify activities that might represent anticompetitive infringements. Additionally, the PCA has established memoranda of understanding with various entities, including INFARMED (the National Authority for Medicines and Health Products) and IMPIC (the Institute of Public Markets, Real Estate and Construction).<\/p>\n<p>Most recently, the PCA entered into a Cooperation Protocol with the Attorney General\u2019s Office (<em>Procuradoria-Geral da Rep\u00fablica<\/em>) to support their respective roles in enforcing competition rules and conducting criminal investigations and prosecutions. The protocol seeks to strengthen cooperation, particularly on evidence-gathering authorisations, the judicial phase of competition proceedings, the sharing of forensic tools, and joint training. It provides for working meetings on procedural matters, exchange of experience and best practice in forensic and digital investigations, joint procedural manuals, and shared training events and seminars. The protocol took effect on signature on 17 March 2026 for an initial term of three years, renewable by agreement.<\/p>\n<p>In Europe, the PCA actively collaborates with other competition law enforcers, particularly through the European Competition Network (ECN), which includes the European Commission and other EU national competition authorities. The PCA is also part of the European Competition Authorities (ECA) and maintains bilateral relations with European competition authorities, most notably with Spain\u2019s CNMC.<\/p>\n<p>The PCA is actively involved in international cooperation with organisations like the OECD and UNCTAD. It also participates in multilateral cooperation networks such as the International Competition Network (ICN) and the Lusophone Competition Network. The latter network comprises the entities responsible for competition matters in Portuguese-speaking countries: Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Portugal, S\u00e3o Tom\u00e9 e Pr\u00edncipe, and Timor-Leste, and the PCA is actively engaged in providing assistance, namely in terms of know-how and training, to these authorities. Additionally, the PCA engages in bilateral cooperation with competition authorities such as the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People\u2019s Republic of China, the Moroccan Competition Council, the Turkish Competition Authority, and the Argentinian National Competition Commission.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the potential civil and criminal sanctions if cartel activity is established?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Portugal cartels are considered administrative offences (misdemeanours), instead of criminal offences. Therefore, only civil or administrative sanctions may be triggered. The Competition Act is complemented on a subsidiary basis by the Code of Administrative Procedure (Decree-Law 442\/91) and the Misdemeanours Regime (Decree-Law 433\/82).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Civil sanctions:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Cartel practices are null and void pursuant to Article 9(2) of the Competition Act. Both legal entities and individuals may face damage claims (see Questions 7.1 and 7.2 below).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Administrative sanctions:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The PCA can impose fines up to 10% of the turnover of the entire group or, for associations of undertakings, up to 10% of the combined turnover of all associated undertakings in the year preceding the PCA\u2019s final decision. This statutory limit is based on the turnover of the \u2018economic unit\u2019, which encompasses the entire corporate group behind the infringing entity. However, this calculation cannot result in a maximum fine that exceeds what would be determined by referring to the turnover of the economic year prior to the commission of the infringement.<\/p>\n<p>For individuals, fines can be up to 10% of their annual income in the undertaking concerned in the last full year of cartel involvement.<\/p>\n<p>These statutory limits for fines may be increased (i) if the economic benefit obtained from the infringement is greater than the maximum applicable fine, up to the amount of the benefit, provided that it does not exceed one-third of the maximum applicable threshold (i.e., 13.33%), and (ii) in the case of multiple concurrent infringements, up to double (i.e., up to 20%).<\/p>\n<p>The PCA usually demands that companies or associations in breach of competition laws publish extracts from the final decision in the Portuguese Official Journal and a national newspaper. These entities must also cease breaching competition laws and might be disqualified from public tenders for up to two years.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What factors are taken into account when the fine is set?  Does the existence of an effective corporate compliance strategy impact the determination of the fine? Please provide some examples of recent fines?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The framework for the setting of fines for competition infringements is set out in the Competition Act and the PCA\u2019s guidelines on the method for setting fines, published in July 2024.<\/p>\n<p>Several factors can influence fine amounts: (i) the gravity and duration of the infringement; (ii) the affected market\u2019s nature and dimension; (iii) the extent of the involvement of the undertaking concerned; (iv) its economic conditions; (v) its cooperation during the investigation; and (vi) history of prior infringements. The PCA calculates the exact fine amount based on its guidelines. Recent PCA rulings reveal a pattern of increasingly strict penalties against cartels, often imposing fines approximately equal to 10% of the Portuguese entity\u2019s turnover involved in the infringement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are parent companies presumed to be jointly and severally liable with an infringing subsidiary?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Parent companies holding 90% or more of shares in a subsidiary may be presumed to share joint and several liability for infringements committed by the subsidiary. This means the parent company can be held accountable for the subsidiary\u2019s actions. However, this presumption can be challenged and overturned with adequate evidence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are private actions and\/or class actions available for infringement of the cartel rules?  Are opt out class actions available?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. The legal framework for this regime is established in Law 23\/2018 (Private Enforcement Act), which transposed Directive 2014\/104\/EU (Private Enforcement Directive).<\/p>\n<p>Both private and class actions are available for infringement of the Competition Act. These types of legal actions have been increasingly prevalent in Portugal. In certain instances, the damages sought in these civil cases have greatly exceeded the fines imposed during administrative proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What type of damages can be recovered by claimants and how are they quantified?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Claimants are entitled to seek compensation for any damages suffered due to a cartel, including direct losses, lost profits, and interest. The aim is to restore them to the financial state they would have been in had the infringement not taken place. Claimants are not permitted to receive more than their actual losses. Overcompensation is prohibited.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">On what grounds can a decision of the relevant authority be appealed?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The undertakings concerned can challenge PCA decisions by lodging an appeal to the Portuguese Competition, Regulation and Supervision Court (<strong>CRSC<\/strong>, or<strong> Competition Court<\/strong>). Further appeals focusing on legal arguments of CRSC decisions can be made to the Lisbon Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n<p>An appeal against a PCA decision imposing a fine may be lodged at the Competition Court (acting as a court of first instance) on points of fact and law. The Competition Court has full jurisdiction over the PCA\u2019s decisions. An additional appeal on points of law may be lodged to the Lisbon Court of Appeal against judgments of the Competition Court.<\/p>\n<p>The CRSC typically aligns with the PCA\u2019s decisions, although it often lowers the fines imposed. Notably, in 2023, the CRSC issued a groundbreaking judgment, fully exonerating the undertakings concerned. This marked the first instance of such a ruling since the court\u2019s establishment in 2013.<\/p>\n<p>Interlocutory decisions issued by the PCA can also be appealed, typically concerning procedural errors, especially during dawn raids, access to file and confidentiality issues.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the process for filing an appeal?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>To challenge a PCA decision that imposes a fine, the appeal must be filed with the CRSC within 60 working days from the date the decision is served. The appeal must first be submitted to the PCA, which must forward it, along with the case file, to the CRSC. This appeal does not have suspensive effects, but offering a bank guarantee of 50% of the fine might prevent immediate payment if the CRSC accepts it.<\/p>\n<p>For appeals against interlocutory decisions by the PCA, the appeal must be lodged within 20 working days from when the decision is served.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Practitioner points specific to the jurisdiction<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p><strong>(i) Recent notable cartel cases (limited to one or two key examples, with a very short summary of the facts, decision and sanctions\/level of fine);<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In the most notable case of last year, three companies from a multinational technology consulting group were held liable and fined a total of EUR 3,092,000 for engaging in bilateral no-poach agreements over a period of at least seven years. These companies mutually committed to refraining from recruiting and\/or spontaneously approaching each other\u2019s employees, thereby restricting competition in the labour market. In the same proceeding, the PCA had previously sanctioned three other companies operating within the same market \u2013 two multinational companies and one national consultancy firm in the technology sector \u2013 for similar conduct between 2014 and 2022. Those three companies opted for the settlement procedure and, as a result of their cooperation during the investigation, their fines were reduced to a total of EUR 4,082,000. The PCA\u2019s final decision was issued in February 2025 and was subsequently appealed. In March 2026, the CRSC issued a judgment fully dismissing the appeal and upholding the PCA\u2019s decision in its entirety, including the fine of EUR 3,092,000.<\/p>\n<p><strong>(ii) Key recent trends (e.g. in terms of fines, sectors under investigation, any novel areas of investigation, applications for leniency, approach to settlement, number of appeals, impact of hybrid working in enforcement practice \u2013 e.g. dawn raids of domestic premises, \u2018hybrid\u2019 in-person\/virtual dawn raids and interviews, access to personal devices and instant messaging apps, prevalence of private class actions etc.); and<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Since 2023, the PCA\u2019s enforcement activity has fluctuated significantly. In 2022, the PCA set a record by imposing fines totalling EUR 488 million. This amount decreased sharply to EUR 34.3 million in 2023, before rising to EUR 67.2 million in 2024 and at least EUR 7.8 million in 2025 .<\/p>\n<p>This fluctuation can be partially attributed to the shift in PCA leadership in 2023 and, most importantly, to the series of rulings from the Constitutional Court concerning the seizure of electronic correspondence during dawn raids, which had been a longstanding point of dispute between undertakings and the PCA.<\/p>\n<p>The PCA\u2019s cartel enforcement continues to expand into labour markets, particularly in relation to no-poach agreements, with new cases emerging in the beverages industry; further decisions and investigations are expected before the end of the year.<\/p>\n<p>The PCA has also been proactive in addressing price-fixing and sales restriction infringements, initiating investigations and imposing fines across various sectors. In addition, the PCA has fined associations of undertakings \u2013 including in the temporary work and tourism sectors \u2013 for anti-competitive practices such as price-fixing.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the PCA has invested significantly in AI-powered enforcement tools, including the ScreenIT platform for detecting potential collusion in public procurement and a separate tool for identifying price-fixing among competitors, both of which have already led to the opening of investigations and the issuance of Statements of Objections.<\/p>\n<p><strong>(iii) Key expected developments over the next 12 months (e.g. imminent statutory changes, procedural changes, upcoming decisions, etc.).<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>For 2026, the PCA\u2019s priorities focus on several key initiatives, among others:<\/p>\n<p>i) tackling the most harmful anti-competitive practices, with a focus on cartels and other horizontal practices \u2013 including those affecting public procurement, labour markets and liberal professions \u2013 while optimising the ex officio detection of infringements through enhanced digital tools and artificial intelligence;<\/p>\n<p>ii) fostering the role of competition in promoting contestability in digital markets, particularly in the generative AI sector, including through continued research on access to computing capacity (chips), in close collaboration with the European Union and in the context of the Digital Markets Act;<\/p>\n<p>iii) leveraging innovative digital tools \u2013 including the ScreenIT platform and machine learning applications \u2013 to enhance the detection of illicit practices and support investigations, as well as implementing new internal knowledge management tools powered by artificial intelligence;<\/p>\n<p>iv) reinforcing inter-institutional dialogue and engagement with strategic sectors of the national economy \u2013 including defence, national security, civil protection and local authorities \u2013 to promote pro-competitive public policies and foster awareness of the benefits of competition and compliance with competition law.<\/p>\n<p>In the upcoming months, significant progress is expected in various ongoing competition infringement cases involving different companies, sectors, and infringements. Many of these cases share a common element: the PCA used search warrants issued by a public prosecutor to seize electronic correspondence during dawn raids, a practice that has since been the subject of multiple Constitutional Court rulings.<\/p>\n<p>As stated above, since March 2023, the Constitutional Court has repeatedly ruled that certain provisions in the Competition Act allowing the PCA to conduct searches and seize emails with authorisation solely from a public prosecutor are unconstitutional. In response to these legal rulings, the PCA changed its method and now obtains search warrants from a judge. With more than three decisions from the Constitutional Court reaching the same conclusion, a process for successive abstract review of constitutionality may be initiated, which could declare the rule unconstitutional with general binding effect.<\/p>\n<p>The legal debate over the seizure of correspondence continues at the CJEU, where similar issues are under examination.<\/p>\n<p>In the context of preliminary ruling cases C-258\/23 to C-260\/23, which focus on the legality of actions taken by the PCA during investigations into alleged breaches of national competition laws and Articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU, Advocate General Laila Medina has issued her Opinion in October 2025. The CRSC referred the questions to the CJEU, concentrating on the interpretation of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. A judgment from the CJEU is anticipated in 2026.<\/p>\n<p>Even after the Constitutional Court\u2019s decisions, the debate over the seizure of electronic correspondence remains active in Portugal and is expected to continue, with further preliminary references to the CJEU anticipated in 2026.<\/p>\n<p>Also, in the context of the electronic correspondence cases, the CRSC has submitted additional preliminary references to the CJEU concerning the compatibility with EU law of national rules on limitation and prescription periods applicable to competition law infringement proceedings. These new references raise two key questions: first, whether the pendency of a preliminary reference automatically suspends all judicial time limits; and second, whether a three-year cap on the suspension of prescription during judicial review is compatible with Article 267 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness. The outcome of these references is expected to have a significant impact on several ongoing judgements, namely the so-called hub-and-spoke cases in the distribution sector, which have been suspended since 2023 due to the evidentiary challenges arising from the Constitutional Court\u2019s rulings on the seizure of electronic correspondence.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, in 2026, developments are anticipated in various class actions claiming damages for competition law breaches before the CRSC.<\/p>\n<p>Despite a steady flow of collective actions since 2020, few decisions have been handed down to date, and those that have been issued relate to the trucks cartel proceedings.<br \/>\nIn February 2025, the Supreme Court of Justice handed down its first ruling in a private enforcement action in the context of the trucks cartel, confirming the Lisbon Court of Appeal\u2019s judgment on key issues regarding the quantification of damages. The Supreme Court held that (i) it is not permissible to cumulate the increase in indemnity resulting from currency depreciation with late payment interest legally due, and (ii) the judicial estimate setting the overcharge at 5% of the purchase price of each truck actually paid by the claimants was appropriate, providing useful guidance for the proceedings currently pending at first instance.<\/p>\n<p>Portugal is expected to continue attracting the attention of potential litigants and litigation funders, given the relatively low costs of initiating proceedings and the potential for significant returns in a legal regime that is still maturing.<\/p>\n<p>The clarification of key preliminary issues remains pending, including the legality of third-party litigation funding, the scope of disclosure obligations and the admissibility of evidence obtained during potentially unlawful PCA inspections. In this regard, the CRSC has submitted preliminary references to the CJEU concerning the independence requirements applicable to claimant associations and the legality of third-party litigation funding arrangements, including whether EU law precludes national legislation permitting collective actions to be brought by associations whose revenues derive almost exclusively from the investment fund financing the action, and whether the repayment of such funding may be made contingent on the non-recovery of compensation by the injured consumers.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">5855<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/140206","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=140206"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}