Portugal's Parliament has amended pending criminal procedure reforms to exclude lawyers from a controversial fine system, addressing concerns from the Bar Association while leaving questions about defendant liability unresolved.
Why This Matters
• Lawyers excluded from fines: In committee votes on June 3, 2026, advocates were excluded from direct liability for fines—only defendants, complainants, civil parties, and affected persons face penalties under the amended proposal.
• Fines reach €10,200: Penalties for obstructive behavior are capped at 100 units of account (roughly €10,200), up from the previous €816 maximum under aggravated court fees.
• Constitutional doubts persist: Even with the lawyer exemption, concerns about the vagueness of "manifestly unfounded or dilatory acts" and the risk to defense rights remain unresolved.
• Final votes pending: The Criminal Procedure Code amendments still require final approval in plenary and Presidential promulgation before taking effect.
Legislative Amendment Protects Lawyers
When Portugal's Social Democratic Party (PSD) tabled amendments to the government's Criminal Procedure Code (CPP) and Procedural Costs Regulation (RCP) reform package in committee on June 3, it carved out a critical exception: lawyers would not be subject to fines for procedural delays. Instead, the penalties will fall exclusively on parties to criminal cases—defendants, complainants, civil litigants, and affected third parties.
The Ordem dos Advogados (Portugal Bar Association) issued a statement welcoming the revision, arguing that the original proposal would have "generated pressure on the practice of law and compromised the freedom and independence of legal counsel, jeopardizing the effectiveness of citizens' right to defense." The Bar had consistently opposed the inclusion of advocates in the penalty framework since the government's proposal cleared the Council of Ministers in December 2025.
Under the amended text, lawyers retain exposure to disciplinary proceedings through the Bar's own regulatory mechanisms, but they cannot be hit with court-imposed fines for filing motions or appeals deemed obstructive. This distinction mirrors the approach taken in Portugal's civil procedure, where bad-faith litigation sanctions target parties, not their counsel.
A Reform Born of Frustration
Portugal's Ministry of Justice, led by Minister Rita Alarcão Júdice, pitched the overhaul as essential to cutting average resolution times that place the country among the slowest in the European Union. Portugal's administrative courts take an average of 928 days in first instance and 1,015 days on appeal—more than triple the 323-day European average tracked by the Council of Europe's Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ).
The reform introduces a "duty of active case management" for judges and prosecutors, empowering them to reject filings or requests they deem manifestly baseless. It also allows confessions in serious crimes to substitute for trial evidence in certain circumstances—a provision that drew constitutional objections from Assembly President José Pedro Aguiar-Branco and opposition benches in February's general vote.
PS, Livre, PCP, BE, PAN, and JPP argued the package violates the principle of material truth and the right to mount a full defense, warning that speed cannot override due process. PSD, Chega, IL, and CDS-PP countered that the measures align with practices already in civil litigation and merely extend anti-delay tools to criminal dockets, sending the bill to committee for refinement.
What Could Trigger a Fine
If you are a defendant, complainant, or civil party in a criminal case in Portugal, understanding what might trigger these fines is critical. Based on the reform language, penalties could potentially apply to actions such as:
• Filing multiple requests for procedural delays without substantive legal grounds
• Submitting motions for evidence review that a judge determines have no factual or legal basis
• Requesting witness testimony when a magistrate deems the testimony clearly irrelevant to the case
• Filing appeals on procedural grounds that lack genuine legal foundation or appear designed solely to postpone proceedings
The key threshold is whether a judge or prosecutor determines the action is "manifestly unfounded or dilatory." Penalties can range from 2 to 100 units of account—currently about €10,200 at the upper end. For residents, that amount represents roughly 12 months of rent in Lisbon's mid-range neighborhoods or the equivalent of a small car.
The Bar Association warns that the subjective nature of this threshold poses real risk. Article 542(2) of the Civil Procedure Code defines bad-faith litigation as conduct involving "serious negligence or deliberate intent" to obstruct justice, delay final judgment, or pursue an illegal objective. But criminal procedure traditionally grants broader latitude for defense strategies, and the new CPP amendments do not replicate the civil code's detailed criteria.
Nuno Matos, a representative of the Portuguese Judges' Association (ASJP), has said magistrates support the fines only when applied to manifest bad faith, with proportionality and clear reasoning. Yet without statutory guidance on what separates a legitimate—if unsuccessful—legal argument from a sanctionable delay, litigants and their counsel face a grey zone that could affect how they exercise procedural rights.
How Portugal Stacks Up Internationally
European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence and the European Convention on Human Rights guarantee a "reasonable time" for judicial decisions, and most EU member states deploy some mix of strict procedural deadlines, judicial case-management powers, and financial penalties for abusive filings. Portugal's civil courts have long imposed fines for bad-faith litigation; the novelty lies in transplanting that framework into criminal law, where defense prerogatives traditionally enjoy stronger constitutional shelter.
In Brazil, the Supreme Federal Court and Superior Court of Justice routinely uphold fines for "manifestly dilatory appeals" in both civil and criminal matters, provided the abuse is indisputable. Germany and France grant presiding judges broad discretion to expedite hearings and sanction frivolous motions, though defense counsel there benefit from clearer statutory safe harbors.
Portugal's €10,200 cap is steep by regional standards: France's civil-procedure penalties for abusive appeals max out around €10,000, but criminal fines for obstruction are rarer and lower. The Portuguese reform's novelty—and its constitutional vulnerability—lies in applying such high penalties to a procedural arena where the presumption of innocence and the right to contest evidence are sacrosanct.
Constitutional Crossfire and Next Steps
Minister Alarcão Júdice insisted during the February debate that the package is constitutionally sound and urged lawmakers to "conduct the legislative process exclusively in the public interest." Yet the Assembly President's public reservations and the unified opposition from left and center-left parties signal that a referral to the Constitutional Court remains possible if the final text survives plenary and Presidential review.
The Ordem dos Advogados has called for lawmakers to define "manifestly unfounded or dilatory" with precision before the bill reaches President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa. Without that clarity, the Bar argues, judges will apply subjective standards that vary by court and case type, creating unpredictability and potentially affecting how residents and litigants approach criminal proceedings.
The reform still requires final global voting in the Assembly and promulgation by the President. If it clears those hurdles, Portugal's criminal courts will gain a new tool to manage case timelines—but magistrates will have discretionary authority over conduct that, until now, has been regulated primarily through professional discipline and appellate review.
What Happens Next
Expect the final plenary vote within weeks, followed by Presidential scrutiny. Rebelo de Sousa has shown willingness to refer ambiguous legislation to the Constitutional Court, and the Assembly President's earlier objections may weigh in that calculus. If the President promulgates, the fines take effect immediately, though transitional provisions have not yet been published.
For now, lawyers are protected from direct fine liability under the amended proposal, but defendants and complainants should monitor the final legislative outcome. If the reform becomes law, the cost of exercising procedural rights in a system already notorious for lengthy timelines could represent a significant financial consideration.
