PORTUGAL Law and Practice Contributed by: José Luís da Cruz Vilaça and Mariana Tavares, Antas da Cunha Ecija
by a competition authority, the action is considered standalone, requiring the claimant to establish before the court not only that a competition law infringe - ment has occurred but also that it caused measur - able harm and that a causal link exists between the two. Alternatively, in cases where the infringement has already been definitively established by the AdC or the European Commission, the claimant may rely on those findings in a follow-on action, focusing primarily on demonstrating the resulting damage. In practice, some claims may combine both scenarios, where certain aspects of the conduct have been publicly sanctioned, but further legal or factual issues remain unresolved by regulators. These are typically referred to as hybrid actions. Portuguese law also permits the adoption of interim measures within private enforcement proceedings. These may serve to preserve evidence or to secure the payment of compensation that may be awarded at the conclusion of the case. In terms of remedies, a claim - ant may seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief to prevent or terminate anti-competitive conduct, and judicial declarations that specific agreements, clauses or practices are null and void due to their incompat - ibility with competition law. More than one form of relief may be granted within the same proceedings, depending on the circumstances of the case. 2.2 Courts The Competition, Regulation and Supervision Court, established under Law No 46/2011 of 24 June, holds jurisdiction at first instance over private antitrust claims. This includes actions for damages arising from competition law infringements, claims against co-infringers, and applications for access to evidence. As a dedicated court, it is equipped to adjudicate complex matters relating to competition, regulatory oversight and supervisory frameworks. Appeals from decisions of the Competition, Regulation and Supervision Court are heard by the Lisbon Court of Appeal, which includes a specialised chamber for competition and regulatory matters. While appellate review is generally limited to matters of law, the Court may also examine factual findings in exceptional cas - es – particularly where evidentiary assessments by the lower court are alleged to breach specific legal
standards governing the admissibility or probative value of evidence. In cases that raise purely legal questions, and sub - ject to procedural requirements, parties may further appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice, providing an additional layer of scrutiny to ensure uniform interpre - tation and application of competition law. Additionally, where proceedings involve questions concerning the interpretation of EU law, Portuguese courts may, and sometimes must, refer such matters to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, in accordance with Article 267 of the TFEU. This mechanism ensures consistency between domestic adjudication and EU legal standards. Finally, claims involving competition law breaches may also be submitted to arbitration, and there is at least one known instance of high-value arbitration proceedings centred on alleged anti-competitive con - duct, confirming the potential for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in this field. 2.3 Impact of Competition Authorities A prior infringement decision by a competition author - ity is not a prerequisite for bringing a private antitrust action in Portugal. Claimants are entitled to initiate standalone proceedings regardless of whether a pub - lic enforcement authority has ruled on the matter. However, a decision of the AdC that is final consti - tutes an irrebuttable presumption of the infringement, including its material, personal, temporal and territo - rial scope. In such cases, the court adjudicating the private claim is bound by the findings of the AdC or the appellate court with respect to the existence and characteristics of the violation. By contrast, final decisions issued by competition authorities in other EU member states give rise to a rebuttable presumption regarding the same elements of infringement. While these findings are persuasive and benefit from a presumption of accuracy, they do not bind the Portuguese courts and may be chal - lenged by the defendant.
125 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook