PORTUGAL Law and Practice Contributed by: Armando Martins Ferreira, Inês Sequeira Mendes and Margarida Calixto Kolmer, Abreu Advogados
or Article 101 or 102 of the TFEU can be found there. The judge must be present during the search of lawyers’ offices (if the judge is absent, the search is null and void) and a Bar Associa - tion representative must be notified to be pre - sent (the notification to be present is a necessary requirement of the validity of the search; their presence is not, however, necessary). Attorney-client privilege is recognised in Article 87 of the Portuguese Bar Association Rules, which covers all the facts, documents or infor - mation that directly or indirectly relate to pro - fessional matters disclosed by the client to its attorney. This privilege extends to any lawyers intervening in the matter and to their respective employees; it also extends to an in-house coun - sel. 2.7 Non-Cooperation One of the most direct forms is a refusal to pro - vide the requested information. In this case, a company may argue that the request is too broad, burdensome, or that the information is confidential or irrelevant to the investigation. In some cases, companies may also attempt to delay the process by requesting extensions or claiming difficulties in gathering the necessary information. Another way companies resist co-operation is by challenging the legality of the PCA’s request in court, arguing that it violates rights such as con - fidentiality or data protection. During dawn raids or inspections, resistance may also manifest as an attempt to prevent PCA officials from enter - ing premises, often by claiming that the search is not properly authorised or that its scope is too broad. Non-cooperation with the PCA can lead to sig - nificant consequences. Companies that obstruct
the investigation can face fines, which are typi - cally calculated based on the severity of the obstruction and the dimension of the company. These penalties can be substantial. Resist - ance can also result in increased scrutiny from the PCA, which may escalate the investigation, sometimes using more intrusive methods such as dawn raids or legal proceedings to force com - pliance. Additionally, non-cooperation can harm a com - pany’s chances of benefitting from leniency programmes. The programme allows compa - nies involved in anti-competitive behaviour to reduce penalties in exchange for co-operating with the investigation. Resistance to co-oper - ation can eliminate the possibility of leniency, making the company subject to higher fines and more severe consequences. In extreme cases, companies that obstruct investigations can face criminal liabilities, particularly if they are found to have destroyed evidence or engaged in other illegal activities to obstruct the investigation. Moreover, resistance to co-operation can dam - age a company’s reputation, both within the business community and in the public eye. The perception that a firm is obstructing an investi - gation can harm its image, potentially affecting its relationships with clients, partners, and regu - latory bodies. If non-cooperation continues, the PCA can initiate legal proceedings to compel the company to provide the necessary information or face additional sanctions. 2.8 Protection of Confidential/Proprietary Information Subjects of enforcement actions can designate and protect confidential or proprietary informa - tion during investigations by the PCA.
269 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook