PORTUGAL Law and Practice Contributed by: Mark Kirkby, Francisca Mendes da Costa and Gonçalo Sá Gomes, Sérvulo & Associados
examination of the witness must be allowed (Article 521, ex vi, Article 1 of the CPTA). Exceptionally, if it is impossible or very difficult for the witness to personally attend the pro - ceedings, the court may allow for the witness to testify in writing (Article 518 of the CPC, ex vi, Article 1 of the CPTA). Cross-examination still applies, however. 9. Time Limits and Preliminary Steps 9.1 Preliminary Requirements There are no preliminary steps (eg, pre-action correspondence) required to issue a challenge. 9.2 Exhausting Internal Appeals It is not necessary for the administrative pro - ceeding to be finalised to challenge a decision (Article 51, No 1 of the CPTA). It is expressly permitted to challenge a decision that cannot be re-examined at a later stage of the same proce - dure or one that may jeopardise the conditions for the subsequent exercise of legally conferred competences (Article 51, No 2 of the CPTA). Facing any illegal action or omission, one can file a complaint (addressed to the issuing body) or a hierarchical appeal (addressed to its hierarchical superior) as means of an administrative appeal, which suspends the time limit for filing a conten - tious claim in a court of law (Article 190, No 3 of the CPA). Generally, filing an administrative appeal is not a prerequisite for contentious challenges but there are some exceptions – for example, errors in a tax reverse charge (Article 131 of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process ( Código de Pro- cedimento e de Processo Tributário , or CPPT). In
those cases, the administrative appeal suspends the effect of the administrative act (Article 189,
No 1 of the CPA). 9.3 Time Limits
The time limit for challenging an administrative act is quite fleeting – three months in the case of an administrative act (Article 58, No 1(b) of the CPTA) or one year in the case of omissions (Article 69, No 1 of the CPTA). However, per Article 58, No 3 of the CPTA, this time limit can be extended: • if there is a justifiable impediment (Article 140 of the CPC); • within three months of the date on which the error ceased, when it is shown – with due respect for the adversarial process – that, in the specific case, the timely submission of the petition was not required of a normally diligent citizen because the administration misled the interested party; or • when, not yet one year after the date of the act or its publication (when mandatory), the delay should be considered excus - able – given the ambiguity of the applicable legal framework or the difficulties that, in the specific case, arose as to the identification of the contested act or its qualification as an administrative act or as a norm. If the claim is directed at a rule, then there is no time limit (Article 74, No 1 of the CPTA), unless the rule is challenged on grounds of a formal or procedural illegality (74, No 2 of the CPTA) – in which case, a time limit of six months is imposed. This six-month exception cannot apply if the formal or procedural transgression is unconstitutional, if no procedural steps were taken, or there was no previous consultation (required by law).
195 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook