PORTUGAL Law and Practice Contributed by: José Luís da Cruz Vilaça and Mariana Tavares, Antas da Cunha Ecija
these claims are generally conducted on an opt- out basis, meaning all affected parties are included unless they actively choose otherwise. • No certification phase : Unlike some jurisdictions where class certification can delay proceedings, Portugal does not require prior court approval to define the class. Instead, this is assessed at the final judgment stage, allowing claims to proceed without preliminary procedural hurdles. • Lower financial barriers : The cost of litigating class actions is relatively modest. Court fees are payable only after a judgment is delivered. If the claim suc - ceeds in full or in part, the claimant is exempt from paying court costs. Even if the claim fails entirely, Portuguese courts tend to limit adverse cost orders, reducing financial risk for claimants. • Strict procedural deadlines for defendants : The Portuguese system imposes tight timeframes for responding to claims. Domestic defendants must file their full defence. including both legal and factual arguments, within 30 days of service on the last defendant; foreign defendants have 60 days. There are no later stages to introduce new defenc - es, which places pressure on defendants to be fully prepared early in the process. These procedural dynamics make Portugal a strategi - cally important jurisdiction for claimants, especially in cross-border litigation. While defendants may still be litigating preliminary issues like class certification in other countries, in Portugal they must already be defending the case on the merits, making it a poten - tially high-stakes and front-loaded venue for antitrust litigation.
Three further developments deserve close attention. First, the preliminary reference by the Competition, Regulation and Supervision Court pending in Case C-431/26 relates to the compatibility with EU law of a representative action brought by a qualified entity whose only sources of income as registered in its accounts originate from litigation funders. Neverthe - less, the funding agreement guarantees the represent - ative’s exclusive control over the proceedings. The reference arose in the specific context of the funding arrangements of Associação Ius Omnibus and should permit to clarify the extent to which its funding struc - tures are compatible with Directive (EU) 2020/1828 and the EU private enforcement framework. The Court has also been asked whether EU law per - mits a funding model under which the funder’s remu - neration may depend on consumers not claiming all or part of the compensation awarded, and whether that assessment is affected by the Portuguese opt- out collective redress regime. Under this regime, con - sumers are automatically represented unless they opt out, and parallel representative actions are effectively precluded. Second, the emergence of labour-market, or no- poach, cartel enforcement has become a new source of AdC activity and prospective follow-on damages claims. Third, the Melia ruling is likely to front-load evidentiary disputes even earlier in the Portuguese litigation timeline, reinforcing Portugal’s position as a front-loaded venue for antitrust litigation.
133 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook