PORTUGAL Trends and Developments Contributed by: José Luís da Cruz Vilaça and Mariana Tavares, Antas da Cunha Ecija
Competition Law in Portugal: Dual Momentum in Public and Private Enforcement Competition law enforcement in Portugal continues to evolve along two parallel tracks. On the one hand, the Portuguese Competition Authority (AdC) has rein - forced its role as a public enforcer, with a proactive agenda and an increasingly sophisticated toolkit. On the other hand, private enforcement, particularly through collective redress mechanisms, has acceler - ated considerably, positioning Portugal as a growing hub for antitrust litigation in Europe. Public enforcement In recent years, public enforcement has remained focused on sectors with significant consumer impact and systemic economic relevance. The AdC has pri - oritised anti-cartel efforts, particularly bid rigging in public procurement and collusion in consumer-fac - ing sectors such as retail distribution, insurance and healthcare. Its enforcement strategy now includes structured co-operation with contracting authorities to detect bid rigging and a continued focus on agree - ments involving price co-ordination and data sharing. Digital markets have drawn attention also. The AdC intensified oversight of online platforms and the align - ing of its regulatory stance with European initiatives such as the Digital Markets Act. The authority has also ramped up abuse of dominance investigations, tar - geting conduct including discriminatory pricing and margin squeeze. Several recent decisions have underscored the AdC’s willingness to pursue high-profile and complex cases. Among them are a series of so-called hub-and-spoke decisions in which the authority imposed significant fines on suppliers and retailers for resale price main - tenance facilitated through shared distribution struc - tures. In the insurance sector, multiple companies were sanctioned for engaging in a horizontal cartel involving the exchange of commercially sensitive information. Over the past year, the AdC has strengthened its enforcement toolkit by revising key regulatory frame - works. Notable updates include new regulations on leniency and settlement procedures, as well as revised guidelines on the methodology for calculating fines.
These developments aim to enhance procedural clar - ity, encourage co-operation, and support more effec - tive and consistent enforcement of competition rules. New procedural guidelines I) AdC updated leniency procedure The AdC has adopted Regulation No. 747/2024, replacing the previous framework set out in Regulation No. 1/2013 concerning fine exemptions and reduc - tions under its leniency programme. The revised regu - lation enhances legal certainty and expands the scope for co-operation in antitrust investigations, reflecting a more flexible and comprehensive approach to tackling horizontal infringements. Important changes include substituting the term “car - tels” with “horizontal dimension” to reflect a wider range of competitor conduct, clarifying the evidentiary thresholds for fine reductions and introducing an obli - gation of consistency for applicants throughout the process. The regulation also confirms that successful leniency applicants are exempt not only from fines but also from ancillary sanctions, including restrictions on The AdC published ‘Terms of the Settlement Proce - dure’, clarifying how settlements work under Articles 22 and 27 of the Competition Law. This mechanism allows companies under investigation to co-operate with the AdC in exchange for a reduced fine. To benefit, companies must either admit to the infringement or waive their right to contest it. If initi - ated during the investigation phase, ie, before a state - ment of objections is issued, the party may help clarify facts and legal classifications, which are reflected in a proposed settlement draft. The AdC will outline the alleged facts, supporting evidence, legal basis and fine range, including potential reductions based on procedural efficiency. However, the AdC retains discretion to reject a settle - ment if it fails to meet the goals of procedural clarity or enforcement effectiveness. public procurement and licensing. II) AdC clarified settlement procedure
170 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook