The Portuguese competition law framework is established by the Competition Act (Law No 19/2012). The Act incorporates rules that are substantively identical to Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), prohibiting anti-competitive agreements, concerted practices, and abuses of dominant market positions.

Private enforcement of competition law is governed by the Private Damages Act (Law No 23/2018), which transposed the EU Damages Directive (2014/104/EU) into national law. This statute governs private antitrust litigation and is applicable to both EU and national competition law infringements.

Under this legislation, any undertaking or association of undertakings found to have breached competition rules is required to fully compensate affected parties for harm caused by the infringement. This obligation is grounded in Article 483 of the Portuguese Civil Code, which lays out the general principles of tort liability. These include the need to demonstrate unlawful conduct committed with fault (either intentionally or negligently), actual damage suffered by the claimant, and a causal connection between the misconduct and the harm incurred.

The substantive and procedural framework established by the Private Antitrust Act is further complemented by other legal sources, including Law No 19/2012 of 8 May (as amended by Law No 17/2022, which transposed Directive (EU) 2019/1 – the ECN+ Directive – into Portuguese law), as well as the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure.

Private antitrust enforcement in Portugal has evolved into a more mature and dynamic field, characterised by a notable rise in the number and complexity of damages actions. This momentum continued to build in 2024, driven in large part by a surge in damages claim litigation arising from both national enforcement by the Portuguese Competition Authority (AdC) and infringement decisions issued by the European Commission.

One of the main drivers of this growth has been the AdC’s robust enforcement activity, particularly in the area of hub-and-spoke cartels. Since 2020, the AdC has issued ten infringement decisions involving alleged vertical price co-ordination between major suppliers and Portugal’s leading supermarket chains. In the AdC’s view, these cases uncovered long-term practices whereby suppliers aligned retail prices through indirect contacts facilitated by shared distributors and retailers – effectively restricting intra-brand competition and resulting in inflated prices for consumers.

All ten decisions are currently under appeal before the Competition, Regulation and Supervision Court. Nevertheless, they have laid a substantial factual and evidentiary groundwork for subsequent claims for damages.

The AdC’s tenth and final round of hub-and-spoke sanctions in the retail sector brought the total fines issued throughout the series to over EUR686 million. Separately, Portuguese courts have upheld several AdC decisions on appeal relating to vertical restraints and abuse of dominance, including the Lisbon Court of Appeal’s confirmation of Super Bock’s EUR24 million fine for resale price fixing in the HORECA channel, the EDP/Sonae non-compete fine, and the EDP Produção fine for abuse of dominance. This pattern of appellate confirmation of AdC infringement findings reinforces the evidentiary basis for follow-on claims.

In late 2024, the consumer association Ius Omnibus brought a series of standalone actions for damages before the Competition, Regulation and Supervision Court against several suppliers that the AdC found to have participated in infringement practices. Although these actions are formally classified as standalone claims, they are substantively grounded in the AdC’s published findings and underlying factual evidence. The defendants in these proceedings include:

• Sociedade Central de Cervejas e Bebidas (SCC)
• Primedrinks – Comercialização de Bebidas Alcoólicas e Produtos Alimentares
• Beiersdorf Portuguesa
• Active Brands, Gestvinus and Sogevinus
• Sumol+Compal
• Bimbo
• Unilever
• Johnson & Johnson

These cases remain pending.

Portugal’s collective redress landscape has continued to expand beyond the retail sector, with new representative actions filed since 2025 against major car manufacturers, including the Volkswagen/Porsche Group, BMW and Nissan/Renault, as well as several pharmaceutical companies, including Stada, Haleon, Merck, Ratiopharma, Perrigo, Moreno, Vicks and Angelini. This trend underscores the continuing growth of Portugal’s claimant-friendly collective redress environment.

The Trucks Cartel Litigation – Supreme Court of Justice’s Ruling of 13 February 2025

Portugal has emerged as an active jurisdiction in the wave of follow-on claims arising from the European Commission’s decision in the trucks cartel case. These proceedings, which span multiple EU member states, have emphasised the role of national courts in enforcing the EU’s competition enforcement framework.

A milestone in Portugal was reached with the Supreme Court of Justice’s ruling of 13 February 2025 (Case No 54/19.6YQSTR.L1.S1), the first Supreme Court judgment in a civil damages claim relating to anti-competitive practices. The case concerned a claim against one of the truck manufacturers fined by the European Commission. The Supreme Court of Justice upheld two key points previously determined by the Lisbon Court of Appeal:

• Interest and inflation: Compensation should not be further adjusted for inflation when statutory default interest applies, since the interest itself fulfils a compensatory function.
• Judicial estimation of harm: In the absence of direct evidence of overcharging, the Court acknowledged that decisions from other EU member states, such as Spain, may serve as persuasive guidance. Specifically, the Spanish Supreme Court applied a 5% overcharge benchmark in similar cases, and the Portuguese Supreme Court deemed comparative analysis to be relevant given the lack of domestic case law.

This ruling is particularly significant as it reflects the Supreme Court of Justice’s first interpretation of key principles following Portugal’s implementation of the Private Enforcement Directive. It sets an important precedent for future damages claims.

The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 30 April 2026 in Case C-191/25, Wenzel Logistics v Mercedes-Benz Group, clarified that, in cartel damages actions, under Directive 2014/104/EU, national rules that delay the accrual of interest until notification of the claim, rather than from the date the harm occurred (ie, the date the inflated price was paid), undermine the effectiveness of Article 101 TFEU. The Court held that interest must run from the date each overcharge was paid and be assessed separately for each purchase. While this addresses a different specific question from the Supreme Court of Justice’s ruling on the inflation-indexation of statutory interest, both answers from the CJEU apply to the calculation of the interest component of full compensation in cartel damages claims. Portuguese courts are thus empowered to apply this precedent in a way consistent with EU law.

A claim for a breach of competition law in Portugal can be brought under Articles 101, 102, 107 and 108 of the TFEU. Claims can also be brought under the domestic Competition Act and the Private Damages Act. General substantive rules provided for in the Civil Code and the procedural rules of the Civil Procedure Code will apply when they are not addressed or fall outside the scope of the Private Damages Act.

Claimants may bring private actions either independently of any prior regulatory decision or following the conclusion of public enforcement proceedings. Where no prior infringement decision has been issued by a competition authority, the action is considered standalone, requiring the claimant to establish before the court not only that a competition law infringement has occurred but also that it caused measurable 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 claimant 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 incompatibility with competition law. More than one form of relief may be granted within the same proceedings, depending on the circumstances of the case.

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 cases – 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 subject to procedural requirements, parties may further appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice, providing an additional layer of scrutiny to ensure uniform interpretation 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 conduct, confirming the potential for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in this field.

A prior infringement decision by a competition authority is not a prerequisite for bringing a private antitrust action in Portugal. Claimants are entitled to initiate standalone proceedings regardless of whether a public enforcement authority has ruled on the matter.

However, a decision of the AdC that is final constitutes an irrebuttable presumption of the infringement, including its material, personal, temporal and territorial 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 challenged by the defendant.

The CJEU’s judgment of 29 January 2026 in Case C-286/24, Meliá Hotels International v Associação Ius Omnibus, delivered on a reference from the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice, clarified the threshold for obtaining disclosure of evidence under Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104/EU. The Court held that a European Commission decision finding an infringement by object, adopted under the settlement procedure, is sufficient only to establish the plausibility of the infringement itself, but not the plausibility of the damage or the causal link, both of which must be demonstrated. As regards the balance of probabilities, the Court confirmed that the standard of plausibility is not equivalent to proving liability; rather, it is sufficient for the claimant to show that it is reasonably plausible that the conditions for liability are met. Where a private action is brought in parallel with an ongoing investigation by a competition authority, or relies on a non-final administrative or judicial decision, the court may, at its discretion, suspend proceedings pending the outcome of the public enforcement process. This procedural mechanism ensures consistency between public and private enforcement while avoiding conflicting rulings.

In private antitrust litigation in Portugal, the allocation of the burden of proof is governed by general civil-law principles, according to which each party must substantiate the facts it alleges. This default rule is subject to modification where legal presumptions apply, potentially easing or shifting the evidentiary burden.

The evidentiary framework differs depending on the nature of the action. In standalone claims, where no prior infringement decision has been issued by a competition authority, the claimant must demonstrate that a competition law infringement occurred, that harm was suffered, and that a causal nexus exists between the two.

Conversely, in follow-on actions – initiated after a final infringement decision from the AdC or another competent authority – the existence of the infringement is presumed. While this presumption simplifies the claimant’s task, it does not dispense with the need to prove the existence and extent of the harm, as well as the causal link to the infringement.

The defendant bears the responsibility of countering the claimant’s assertions by presenting facts that negate or diminish the alleged infringement, damage or causality.

Courts may also draw on institutional support in quantifying damages. The AdC may assist the court in estimating the harm caused by the infringement. However, it retains the discretion to decline such assistance, provided it offers a reasoned justification for doing so.

Portuguese law expressly recognises the “pass-on” defence in the context of private antitrust damages actions. A defendant may argue that the claimant did not suffer the full extent of the alleged overcharge because part or all of it was passed on to customers further down the supply chain. Where this defence is invoked, the burden lies with the defendant to prove that the overcharge was, in fact, transmitted to subsequent purchasers.

In parallel, indirect purchasers, ie, those not directly affected by the original transaction but who claim to have ultimately borne the cost of the overcharge, may also bring damages claims. In such cases, the indirect purchaser must establish the existence of the overcharge and the extent to which it was passed through the supply chain to them.

To ease this evidentiary burden, the Private Damages Act introduces a rebuttable presumption in favour of the indirect purchaser. The court will presume that the overcharge was passed on, provided the claimant can demonstrate that the infringement resulted in an overcharge to the direct purchaser, and can demonstrate that the claimant acquired either the affected goods or services, or products derived from or incorporating them.

In Portugal, private damages actions for competition law infringements are subject to a five-year limitation period. This period does not begin until the claimant has, or reasonably should have, knowledge of four key elements: the conduct in question, its anti-competitive nature, the identity of the infringing party, and the fact that harm was suffered as a result. Importantly, the limitation period will not commence until the infringing behaviour has ceased.

The running of the limitation period may also be suspended under specific circumstances. If a competition authority initiates an investigation concerning the same conduct that underpins the damages claim, the limitation period is paused until one year after the final decision of the authority or any resulting court judgment becomes final and binding.

Suspension also applies where the parties are engaged in an ADR process, in which case the limitation period remains on hold for the duration of those proceedings.

In addition, the limitation period is interrupted when the alleged infringer is formally notified – whether through a summons or other judicial act – of the claimant’s intention to seek compensation. This interruption resets the limitation period, ensuring that claimants are not penalised for taking early legal steps to preserve their rights.

Private antitrust litigation in Portugal typically takes approximately five years to reach a final judgment, with this timeframe reflecting the experience of national courts, especially in complex or multiparty cases. Courts have the discretion to suspend proceedings when the case’s outcome depends on an ongoing competition authority investigation, a non-final administrative decision or an unresolved appeal. Additionally, courts may delay proceedings to ensure consistency with EU competition law and to avoid conflicting rulings or divergent interpretations. Parties may jointly request a temporary suspension, usually limited to three months, provided it does not affect the scheduling of the final hearing.

The right to bring class actions is enshrined in the Portuguese Constitution, which grants any citizen – whether acting individually or through associations established to protect collective interests – the ability to initiate such actions in accordance with the law. The general legal regime governing class actions is outlined in the Class Action Act, which applies broadly across areas including consumer protection, environmental law and public health. In the competition law context, collective claims for damages are governed by the Private Damages Act, which supplements the general framework with specific provisions tailored to antitrust cases.

In Portugal, the standard regime for collective redress follows an opt-out model. However, in competition damages actions, consumers residing outside Portuguese territory are subject to an opt-in mechanism, requiring them to expressly indicate their intention to be included in the proceedings.

Both direct and indirect purchasers are entitled to claim damages in private antitrust actions. However, individual consumers do not have standing to bring representative actions under the applicable legal framework. Such actions must be brought by qualified entities or associations acting on behalf of affected consumers.

Portuguese law does not provide for a formal class certification procedure. However, before a class action may proceed, the court conducts a preliminary assessment of the claim. At this stage, the court may summarily dismiss the action if it finds, for example, that the claim is manifestly unfounded or that the class has not been properly defined.

While there is no distinct certification phase, issues relating to the definition and composition of the class may be raised throughout the proceedings. These matters can be addressed in the initial claim, challenged by the defendant in the statement of defence, or examined during various stages of the process, including the preliminary or case management hearing, the final hearing, or in response to any request from the court for further clarification.

Jurisdictional rules are governed by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and Council, dated 12 December 2012 (Brussels I bis), which addresses jurisdiction as well as the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

The determination of the applicable law for tort claims is governed by Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), whereas contractual obligations fall under the scope of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I).

In situations where neither regulation nor any other international treaty applies, national conflict-of-law principles will be used to establish the relevant law. The party seeking to rely on foreign law bears the burden of proving its existence and content. This is without prejudice to the parties’ autonomy to select the applicable law, provided such choice is permitted under the applicable legal framework.

In Portugal, the discovery process differs significantly from that in common-law jurisdictions, as there is no general right to broad pre-trial disclosure. Portuguese law does not permit extensive fishing expeditions or indiscriminate requests for document production. Parties are not obliged to disclose all evidence in their possession, whether favourable or adverse to their case.

Under the Private Damages Act, however, both claimants and defendants must specify the evidence they intend to rely on to support their factual assertions. Either party may request the production of particular documents, provided these are clearly identified and the request satisfies the legal requirements of relevance, specificity and proportionality. In pre-litigation situations, claimants must also establish a plausible basis for their claims.

In the judgment of 29 January 2026 on the Melia case (Case C-286/24), the CJEU ruled on a request arising from Portugal’s pre-action disclosure mechanism under Article 13 of the Private Damages Act. The Court held, first, that Article 5(1) of the Damages Directive (2014/104/EU) applies to disclosure actions brought before a damages claim is filed, and not only to disclosure requests made within a pending action. Second, the Court held that the “plausibility” standard applicable to pre-action disclosure is a deliberately lower threshold than a “more likely than not” standard. This is intended to compensate for the information asymmetry inherent in antitrust cases, such that claimants need only to rely on facts and evidence that are reasonably available to them.

All document production requests are subject to judicial scrutiny and are conducted under adversarial principles, ensuring that the opposing party has the opportunity to respond, particularly regarding the scope, necessity and proportionality of the request. The court determines appropriate timelines for compliance, considering the nature and volume of the requested documents and generally accommodating reasonable limitations proposed by the parties. Moreover, courts have the discretion to order the production of documents or information on their own initiative at any stage of the proceedings.

Any facts, documents or information obtained in violation of attorney-client privilege are inadmissible as evidence in court proceedings. Communications and documents exchanged between lawyers and their clients are protected from seizure by the court.

Portuguese courts are prohibited under the Private Damages Act from ordering the disclosure of documents containing statements made to secure full immunity or fine reductions in competition proceedings, as well as any proposals or admissions exchanged during settlement negotiations.

In Portugal, the procedure for hearing witnesses in civil cases is governed by the Civil Procedure Code and includes several important features. Witnesses are usually heard during scheduled trial hearings, which focus on the presentation of testimonial and expert evidence, along with statements from the parties involved. First-instance cases are generally conducted before a single judge.

Witnesses must possess the mental capacity to provide testimony. Once a party designates a witness, that individual is generally obliged to appear and testify in court. Failure to do so may result in fines or, in certain circumstances, coercive measures such as detention.

Certain individuals, including close relatives of the parties or those bound by professional or legal confidentiality, have a lawful right to refuse to testify. Testimony is usually delivered orally, either in person or via teleconference, although the court may on rare occasions permit written statements.

Witnesses are subject to cross-examination by both parties in line with the adversarial nature of proceedings. Each party may nominate up to ten witnesses, though the court may authorise additional witnesses depending on the case’s complexity.

The court evaluates witness evidence at its discretion, without strict evidentiary constraints. It is important to note that giving false testimony constitutes a criminal offence under Portuguese law.

Expert evidence holds a crucial role in competition litigation in Portugal and is frequently relied upon in such cases. Courts generally accept expert testimony as a key tool for resolving complex factual and legal questions, encompassing both economic analyses and legal opinions from experts.

Experts may be appointed either by the court or directly by the parties involved. Assessments can be conducted by a single expert or by a panel of three experts – each party typically appoints one expert, while the third is either mutually agreed upon or designated by the judge.

Prior to trial, experts are required to submit a written report that may reflect consensus or differing opinions. They may also be called to hearings to clarify or elaborate on their findings. Parties have the right to challenge expert reports if they find them unclear or insufficiently reasoned and may request the appointment of a second expert to provide an additional opinion, which serves as a complement rather than a replacement.

Ultimately, expert evidence is subject to the court’s free evaluation, meaning judges are not obliged to accept the experts’ conclusions but consider them alongside all other evidence presented.

In Portugal, damages awarded in competition law cases are strictly compensatory; punitive or exemplary damages are not available.

The purpose of damages is to ensure full reparation for the harm suffered, which encompasses actual losses, lost profits, and interest accruing from the date the damage occurred until payment is made. When precise quantification of damages proves challenging or impossible, courts have the discretion to estimate the amount based on fairness and the evidence before them. In cartel cases, there is a legal presumption that harm has occurred, though defendants retain the right to challenge this presumption.

The passing-on defence is recognised under Portuguese law. Defendants may argue that claimants have passed on all or part of the overcharge to downstream customers, thereby reducing the damages payable. This defence also allows indirect purchasers to bring claims, reflecting losses passed further along the supply chain.

Interest is calculated from the date the damage was sustained until full payment is made, forming an integral part of the compensation awarded.

In Portugal, liability for competition law infringements committed jointly by undertakings – such as in cartel cases – is joint and several. This means that companies involved in the same anti-competitive conduct are collectively responsible for the full extent of the harm caused.

Parent companies or controlling entities that exercised decisive influence over the infringing company during the violation may also be held liable. The Private Damages Act establishes that a rebuttable presumption of such influence arises if the parent or controller owned 90% or more of the infringer’s share capital. Additionally, a subsidiary that is not directly named in the proceedings or the final decision can still be held liable if it forms part of the same economic unit as the parent company, as established by Case C-882/19, Sumal.

There are limited exceptions for certain small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which may benefit from reduced liability. Specifically, SMEs with a market share below 5% during the infringement period are only liable to their direct and indirect suppliers or customers, provided that applying full joint liability would threaten their viability or significantly reduce the value of their assets. Liability to other injured parties arises only if full compensation cannot be recovered from the other infringers. However, these exceptions do not apply if the SME led the infringement, coerced others into participating, or has a prior competition law infringement record.

Undertakings granted immunity from fines remain jointly and severally liable to their direct or indirect purchasers or suppliers. They may also be liable to other affected parties if compensation cannot be secured from the remaining infringers.

In Portuguese law, there is a clear legal framework for claiming contributions from third parties in competition damages cases. Article 5(5) of the Private Damages Act establishes that an infringer that has compensated harmed parties may seek contribution from co-infringers, proportionate to each party’s share of responsibility for the damage caused.

As a general rule, this share is presumed to correspond to the average market share held by each infringer in the relevant markets over the period of their participation in the infringement. This presumption, however, is rebuttable, and other factors, such as the specific role and conduct of each party, may be considered in determining relative liability.

This right to contribution is particularly relevant in cases where damages have been paid to individuals or entities that are not direct or indirect purchasers or suppliers of the infringers, as specified in Article 5(6) of the Act.

Injunctive relief is available under Portuguese law and plays an important role in ensuring the effectiveness of civil claims, including those relating to competition law. Such relief is granted through urgent proceedings, which are usually decided within weeks if the applicant can demonstrate sufficient legal and factual grounds.

To obtain an injunction, the applicant must credibly demonstrate the existence of a substantive right and show that this right is under threat due to the respondent’s conduct. The applicant must also show that the feared harm would be irreparable or difficult to remedy through subsequent legal action, and that urgent judicial intervention is required. In addition, the court will consider whether granting the injunction would cause disproportionate harm to the respondent’s interests, and may deny relief where the balance of hardships weighs against intervention.

Injunctive relief can be requested either before or during the main proceedings. If granted prior to the commencement of the main proceedings, the applicant must file the substantive claim within 30 days. In appropriate circumstances, the court may issue injunctive measures without prior notice to the respondent.

Applicants may be required to provide security to cover potential damages if the injunction is later found to be unjustified. If the claimant ultimately fails in the main action, the injunctive relief will lapse, and the respondent may claim compensation for any losses incurred.

In cases of private enforcement involving claims for compensation, Portuguese law allows creditors to request precautionary the seizure of the debtor’s assets if there is a credible risk of losing the patrimonial guarantee of a claim. This involves a judicial seizure intended to preserve assets in anticipation of a future judgment. Similarly, where there is a justified fear that relevant assets or documents may be concealed, dissipated or otherwise lost, creditors may request an official description and deposit of such items to ensure their preservation.

ADR methods are available in Portugal, but they are not mandatory.

Under Article 2(s) of the Private Damages Act, ADR methods include mechanisms such as mediation, arbitration, conciliation and settlement agreements that allow parties to resolve damages claims outside of court.

If parties engage in ADR, court proceedings between them are suspended for up to one year. Settlement agreements can limit further claims against settling infringers and restrict the right of non-settling co-infringers to seek contribution from those that have settled. Courts must also take prior settlements into account when determining contribution among co-infringers.

Third-party funding is available in Portugal, particularly in the context of class actions. It remains a developing area with ongoing judicial scrutiny and evolving legal standards.

While such funding was historically rare, its use has increased significantly, especially in consumer-focused collective actions. The law mandates that the funder’s compensation must be fair and proportionate, taking into account the nature and risk of the proceedings.

In class actions brought to protect consumer interests, the legal framework governing third-party funding is set out in Article 10 of the Private Damages Act on representative actions. The law requires claimants to submit a copy of the funding agreement to the court. This document must be written in Portuguese and include a financial summary detailing the sources of funding and a breakdown of costs and expenses covered by the funder. Any subsequent amendments or supplemental agreements must also be disclosed.

The funding arrangement must guarantee the independence of the claimant and the absence of any conflicts of interest. The claimant is expected to retain full control over the procedural aspects of the litigation, including the selection of legal counsel, litigation strategy, and decisions on whether to settle or appeal.

The funder is expressly prohibited from influencing these decisions. If the funder has a conflict of interest, such as being a competitor of the defendant, the representative action will be deemed inadmissible.

The general rule is that the losing party bears the costs associated with the proceedings.

In civil litigation, including actions for competition damages, the recoverable costs for opposing counsel’s fees are generally capped at 50% of the total court fees paid by both parties. However, in the context of class actions, this limitation does not automatically apply. Instead, the court has discretion to determine the appropriate amount of recoverable legal fees, taking into account factors such as the complexity of the case and its overall value.

As a general principle, cost allocation in civil proceedings is proportionate to the extent to which each party succeeds in the claim. In class actions, however, specific rules apply: if the court rules even partially in favour of the claimant, they are exempt from paying court costs. Conversely, if the claim is entirely unsuccessful, the court will determine a cost amount to be borne by the claimant, based on its discretion.

The amount payable by an unsuccessful claimant in a class action typically ranges from 10% to 50% of the court costs applicable in standard civil proceedings. When setting this amount, the court takes into account both the financial circumstances of the claimants and the reasons behind the claim’s failure. Where multiple claimants are involved, any cost order issued by the court will generally impose joint and several liability for payment.

In determining the specific amount to be paid by an unsuccessful claimant, the court will consider the economic situation of the claimants and the reasons why the claim did not succeed. In cases where there is more than one claimant and a cost order is rendered by the court, claimants will be jointly and severally liable for payment. Defendants in class actions must pay court costs, as is the case in any other civil proceedings.

In the case of a settlement, costs are split 50:50, unless otherwise agreed. Where the settlement is made between a party exempted from payment of costs and another party which is not exempted, the court, after hearing the public prosecutor, will set the proportion in which costs are to be paid.

First-instance decisions in private enforcement proceedings, including competition law cases, can be appealed.

An appeal must be lodged within 30 days from the date of the decision, or within 40 days if the appellant challenges the factual findings and seeks a review of the trial evidence.

The initial assessment of the appeal’s admissibility is conducted by the court of first instance, typically the Competition, Regulation and Supervision Court, though the Court of Appeal also carries out its own review of admissibility once the case is forwarded.

The admission of new evidence at the appellate stage is strictly limited. Only evidence that could not have been presented earlier, or that has become relevant due to the first-instance ruling, may be considered.

The Court of Appeal will then issue its judgment. That decision may be further appealed to the Supreme Court of Justice, but only on matters of law. This legal appeal must generally be filed within 30 days and is also subject to a review of admissibility by both the appellate and supreme courts.

In Portugal, competition litigation is experiencing notable growth and is expected to continue expanding in the near future, particularly in the areas of follow-on actions and collective claims. More than 100 follow-on actions have been lodged with the Competition, Regulation and Supervision Court since 2020.

A number of factors are contributing to this trend, making the Portuguese system especially claimant-friendly:

• Open access to class actions: Any individual or entity has standing to initiate a class action, and 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 succeeds 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 defences, which places pressure on defendants to be fully prepared early in the process.

These procedural dynamics make Portugal a strategically 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 potentially 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. Nevertheless, the funding agreement guarantees the representative’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 structures are compatible with Directive (EU) 2020/1828 and the EU private enforcement framework.

The Court has also been asked whether EU law permits a funding model under which the funder’s remuneration 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, consumers 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.