Portugal is a unitary State in which legislative power is vested in both the Assembly of the Republic and the Government. Legislative competence is constitutionally allocated between these bodies by reference to subject matter, determining the areas in which each holds exclusive or concurrent legislative powers. Portugal operates within a civil law legal tradition, structured around a comprehensive body of codified legislation. Statutory law represents the primary source of legal authority, with customary law playing a residual role. Judicial proceedings follow a mixed procedural model, combining written submissions with oral hearings, particularly at the evidentiary and trial stages.

In Portuguese civil proceedings, the procedural framework is primarily party-driven, reflecting the principle of party autonomy. The parties are responsible for defining the subject matter of the dispute, setting out the relevant factual allegations and identifying the evidence upon which their claims and defences rely. The court’s role is to direct and supervise the proceedings, ensure compliance with procedural rules and assess the evidence in accordance with legally defined standards, including those governing the allocation of the burden of proof. Notwithstanding this structure, judges are vested with ex officio investigatory powers, which may be exercised where necessary to establish the relevant facts and ensure a fair resolution of the dispute, including ordering additional evidence, hearing parties or witnesses, appointing experts or requiring the disclosure of documents from the parties or third parties.

Judicial decisions may, in cases expressly provided for by law or by agreement of the parties, be rendered on the basis of equity rather than strict legal rules. The Portuguese legal system does not adhere to a doctrine of binding precedent. Judicial decisions and legal scholarship do not constitute independent sources of law, serving instead as interpretative tools. Although the Supreme Court of Justice may, in specific circumstances, intervene to address conflicting lines of case law, its rulings are generally confined in effect to the case in which they are issued.

Portugal has a single, nationwide court system, within which courts exercise sovereign authority to administer justice in the name of the people. The Constitution guarantees the independence of the judiciary, subject only to the law, and provides that judicial decisions are binding on all public and private entities. The Portuguese court system is organised into two distinct judicial orders (common and administrative), each with its own hierarchical structure.

The Constitution distinguishes primarily between Common Courts, which have general jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters, and Administrative and Tax Courts, which have jurisdiction over disputes involving public law and taxation.

In addition, Portugal has a Constitutional Court, responsible for constitutional review, as well as specialised courts such as the Court of Auditors and military courts, each with constitutionally defined competencies. The system further includes justices of the peace (julgados de paz), which deal with low-value disputes under simplified procedures, arbitral tribunals, and a Conflicts Court tasked with resolving jurisdictional disputes between courts.

The Courts of Law constitute the general judicial order and exercise jurisdiction in all matters not expressly assigned to another judicial order. They are structured hierarchically into District Courts (first instance); Courts of Appeal; and the Supreme Court of Justice. As a rule, cases are heard at first instance before the District Courts. These courts may be internally organised into divisions or specialised courts, depending on the subject matter, including, among others, civil, criminal, labour, family and children, maritime and enforcement matters. Most first-instance decisions are subject to appeal before the Courts of Appeal. In certain cases, further review by the Supreme Court of Justice is available, although any such review is typically limited to legal issues rather than a full reconsideration of the facts.

Unlike systems that draw a strict distinction between courts of appeal and courts of cassation, the Portuguese appellate system combines both functions, allowing appellate courts to review both factual and legal aspects of lower court decisions.

Administrative and tax disputes fall under a separate judicial order. Most cases are decided at first instance by Administrative and Tax Courts, with appeals lying to the Central Administrative Courts. In specific circumstances, decisions may be further appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, primarily on points of law.

Providing a standard timeframe for court proceedings in Portugal is challenging, as the duration of a case is influenced by a range of variables. These include the level and workload of the court seized of the matter, the procedural calendar, the factual and legal complexity of the dispute, the number of parties involved and their procedural conduct, the need to hear witnesses, and whether expert evidence is required.

As a general indication, proceedings typically take at least one year to reach the trial stage. More complex and long-running cases may extend over several years, particularly in large-scale proceedings, notably in the field of criminal law, where so-called “mega-cases” often involve extensive evidence, numerous parties and multiple procedural incidents.

As a general principle, court proceedings in Portugal are public, in line with the constitutional principle of transparency in the administration of justice. This principle applies in particular to hearings and judicial decisions, subject to statutory limitations.

Courts are empowered to limit public access where justified by overriding interests, either on their own initiative or at the request of the parties. Such restrictions may be imposed to safeguard sensitive or confidential information, trade secrets, personal data, the privacy and dignity of the parties, or matters relating to family and private life. These measures may include conducting hearings wholly or partially in camera, redacting or sealing specific documents or information, or restricting access to evidence and proceedings to a limited group of persons, such as the parties, their counsel and appointed experts.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the general rule is that court hearings are open to the public. In civil proceedings, this principle is reflected in the general accessibility of court filings and hearings, save for specific procedural stages or measures that are legally protected. In criminal proceedings, Portuguese procedural law also recognises the principle of publicity, under which proceedings are, as a rule, public, subject to statutory exceptions, notably at earlier stages of the process where confidentiality may be imposed in order to protect the investigation, the rights of the parties or other legally relevant interests.

Public access to court proceedings entails concrete procedural rights, notably the ability to consult the case file and to obtain copies or certificates of non-confidential documents. Lawyers may, as a rule, access such files even in proceedings in which they do not act for any of the parties, whereas non-lawyers are generally required to demonstrate a legitimate interest in order to consult procedural records that are not subject to confidentiality restrictions.

Accordingly, while openness remains the default position, Portuguese procedural law provides courts with flexible mechanisms to balance transparency against the protection of confidential and legally sensitive interests, on a case-by-case basis.

In civil proceedings, legal representation by a lawyer is mandatory in cases that fall within the jurisdiction of higher courts or where the value or complexity of the claim exceeds statutory thresholds. Mandatory representation is also required in certain procedural stages, such as appeals. In lower-value or less complex civil matters, including certain simplified proceedings, parties may appear without legal counsel.

In criminal proceedings, the assistance of defence counsel is mandatory in a range of situations defined by law, including, among others, where the defendant is deprived of liberty, where the proceedings may result in the imposition of a custodial sentence, or at specific procedural stages considered particularly sensitive.

In administrative and tax proceedings, legal representation is generally required in proceedings before higher courts and in appellate stages, while representation may be optional at first instance in certain cases, depending on the nature of the dispute and the applicable procedural framework.

Only lawyers admitted to the Portuguese Bar Association have full rights of audience before Portuguese courts. Foreign lawyers may appear in Portuguese courts under the terms set out in applicable EU law and international agreements, or through registration with the Portuguese Bar, and typically act in co-operation with a locally admitted lawyer, particularly when conducting litigation rather than providing legal advice.

Third-party litigation funding is expressly permitted under Portuguese law in the context of consumer representative actions, following the transposition of Directive (EU) 2020/1828 by Decree-Law No 114-A/2023 of December 5th, which applies to collective actions concerning disputes between consumers and professionals. Under this framework, the use of third-party funding is subject to a set of statutory safeguards designed to ensure procedural fairness and the independence of the claimant.

In particular, the claimant entity must disclose the existence of the funding arrangement to the court and submit the relevant funding agreement, together with a financial overview of the funding structure, subject to limitations necessary to preserve equality of arms. The funding arrangement must guarantee the claimant’s independence, notably in decisions to bring, withdraw or settle the action, and may not confer any form of control over the proceedings on the funder. Any contractual provision to the contrary is null and void.

Funding arrangements must also provide for fair and reasonable remuneration, assessed by reference to the characteristics and risks of the collective action and prevailing market conditions. Representative actions are inadmissible where a defendant is a competitor of, or economically dependent on, the funder. Where the statutory requirements are not met, courts may order the amendment or refusal of the funding arrangement and, ultimately, deny standing to the claimant entity.

Outside the specific regime applicable to consumer representative actions, third-party litigation funding remains largely unregulated under Portuguese law. While not expressly prohibited, its admissibility is assessed on a case-by-case basis by reference to general principles of public policy, procedural fairness, independence of counsel and absence of conflicts of interest.

At present, third-party litigation funding is expressly regulated and permitted only in a specific category of proceedings, namely, consumer representative (collective) actions brought against professionals, as governed by Decree-Law No 114-A/2023, which transposed Directive (EU) 2020/1828. Within this framework, third-party funding may be used subject to the statutory safeguards laid down to ensure the independence of the claimant and the integrity of the proceedings.

Outside the scope of consumer representative actions, Portuguese law does not define or limit the types of lawsuits that may be funded by third parties, nor does it expressly prohibit such arrangements. As a result, third-party funding may, in principle, be used in other types of civil or commercial litigation, as well as in arbitration, provided that the funding structure complies with general principles of public policy, procedural fairness, independence of legal counsel and the absence of conflicts of interest.

In practice, however, the absence of a specific regulatory framework outside collective consumer actions means that the admissibility and scope of third-party funding in other types of proceedings remain uncertain and largely assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Portuguese law does not restrict third-party litigation funding to claimants only. As third-party funding is largely unregulated outside the specific framework of consumer representative actions, it may, in principle, be made available to either plaintiffs or defendants, subject to compliance with general legal principles, including good faith, public policy and good morals, as well as the proper administration of justice.

Portuguese law does not impose any minimum or maximum funding thresholds for third-party litigation funding. Any limits on the amount funded derive from the terms of the funding arrangement itself, subject to general principles of law.

Portuguese law does not prescribe or limit the categories of costs that may be covered by a third-party litigation funder. In practice, the scope of funding is determined by the funding agreement and may include, among others, court fees, lawyers’ fees, expert and witness costs, procedural expenses and, where agreed, adverse costs exposure, subject to compliance with general legal principles and procedural rules.

Pure contingency fees (quota litis) are not permitted in Portugal. The prohibition arises from the Statute and professional conduct rules of the Portuguese Bar Association, which prevent lawyers from agreeing to remuneration that depends exclusively on the outcome of the proceedings.

However, Portuguese law allows for success-based fee components to be agreed as a supplement to a fixed or time-based fee, provided that the lawyer’s remuneration does not depend solely on the result of the proceedings and that the agreement complies with the rules of the Portuguese Bar Association, including principles of independence, proportionality and professional ethics.

Portuguese law does not impose any specific time limits by which a party must obtain third-party litigation funding. Where funding is permitted, it may, in principle, be arranged at any stage of the proceedings, subject to compliance with general procedural principles, including good faith, procedural fairness and, where applicable, disclosure requirements imposed by law or ordered by the court.

Portuguese procedural law does not generally impose mandatory pre-action conduct requirements comparable to pre-action protocols in other jurisdictions. As a rule, parties are not required to take specific steps, such as sending a formal pre-action letter or engaging in negotiations, before commencing judicial proceedings.

That said, limited and sector-specific exceptions apply. In particular, in administrative and tax litigation, prior steps may be required before accessing the courts, such as the exhaustion of mandatory administrative remedies or the filing of a prior administrative claim or complaint. Failure to comply with such requirements may result in the inadmissibility of the action. In certain labour disputes, preliminary conciliation or administrative phases may also apply, depending on the nature of the claim.

Outside these specific contexts, the absence of pre-action conduct does not generally attract procedural penalties, although bad-faith or abusive conduct may be taken into account by the court when allocating costs or assessing procedural behaviour.

There is no general obligation on a potential defendant to respond to a pre-action letter, and failure to do so does not, in itself, give rise to sanctions or adverse procedural consequences.

Portuguese civil law provides for statutory limitation periods (statutes of limitations) that vary depending on the nature of the right or claim asserted. As a general rule, civil claims are subject to a 20-year limitation period, unless a shorter period is expressly provided by law.

Shorter limitation periods apply to specific categories of claims. Common examples include claims arising from contractual or non-contractual liability, which are generally subject to a three-year limitation period, as well as certain commercial, consumer and professional liability claims, for which specific statutory time limits may apply.

As regards the triggering event, limitation periods typically begin to run from the moment the claimant becomes aware of the right to claim, including knowledge of the relevant facts and, where applicable, the identity of the liable party, rather than from the mere occurrence of the underlying event. In other cases, particularly in contractual matters, the limitation period may commence when the obligation becomes due and enforceable.

Portuguese law also provides for mechanisms that may suspend or interrupt limitation periods, including the filing of a judicial claim, the formal acknowledgment of the debt or right by the debtor, or other acts expressly provided for by law. Once interrupted, the limitation period generally begins to run anew.

Portuguese procedural law adopts a broad concept of standing to be sued, without imposing restrictive personal criteria on defendants. Proceedings may be brought against natural or legal persons, and, where expressly permitted by law, also against certain entities lacking legal personality, such as unincorporated associations, partnerships, condominiums or local establishments.

The ability to bring proceedings before Portuguese courts reflects a general right of access to justice, which operates independently from any assessment of the substantive validity of the claim. Jurisdictional admissibility is therefore not conditioned on the merits of the action.

In disputes involving an international element, the jurisdiction of Portuguese courts is determined in accordance with binding EU instruments, in particular Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast), where applicable. Outside the scope of EU law, jurisdiction is assessed under Portuguese procedural rules, which recognise jurisdiction in situations where there is a sufficiently close connection to Portugal or where the effectiveness of the right invoked depends on proceedings being brought before Portuguese courts.

These jurisdictional rules are applied uniformly across the court system, irrespective of the court seized of the matter. Portuguese law does not provide for discretionary doctrines allowing courts to decline jurisdiction, such as forum non conveniens, once the relevant jurisdictional criteria are met.

Civil proceedings in Portugal are commenced by filing an initial statement of claim with the competent court. This pleading must contain the essential elements required to define the scope of the dispute, including the identification of the court and the parties, the type of proceedings, a clear statement of the material facts relied upon, the corresponding legal grounds, the relief sought and the value of the claim. The claimant must also indicate the evidence to be relied upon, including witnesses and other means of proof.

As a general rule, documentary evidence and powers of attorney are filed together with the statement of claim, although Portuguese procedural law allows for documents to be submitted at a later stage in certain circumstances expressly provided for by law. Where the initial pleading does not comply with formal or substantive requirements, the court may invite the claimant to remedy deficiencies or clarify factual allegations before the proceedings continue.

Portuguese law also permits the introduction of new facts after the initial filing where such facts arise subsequently or only become known to the parties at a later stage. In those circumstances, supervening facts may be brought before the court, subject to procedural rules, up to the conclusion of the trial at first instance.

Under Portuguese procedural law, there is no general requirement to notify a prospective defendant in advance that judicial proceedings will be initiated. Proceedings are formally commenced by filing the claim with the competent court, and it is through formal service of process that the defendant is informed that it has been sued.

An exception exists at the level of professional conduct: where the defendant is a lawyer, the ethical rules of the Portuguese Bar Association require counsel for the claimant to give prior notice of the intended action.

Once proceedings are filed and admitted, service of process is a judicial act carried out under the responsibility and supervision of the court. The defendant is formally notified through a court-issued notice, using methods prescribed by law, which may include registered mail, service by a court clerk or enforcement officer, or other legally authorised means. Where the defendant’s address cannot be ascertained despite reasonable efforts, the court may order service by public notice.

Defendants located outside Portugal may be sued where Portuguese courts have jurisdiction, with service effected in accordance with the applicable international framework. Within the European Union, service is carried out pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, while service in non-EU jurisdictions is governed by the Hague Service Convention, relevant bilateral treaties or, where no treaty applies, diplomatic or consular channels under Portuguese law.

If a defendant does not take part in the proceedings by filing a defence, Portuguese courts will first assess whether the defendant was properly and effectively notified of the action. Where irregularities are identified in the service of process, the court will require that service be corrected before the proceedings may continue.

Where service has been validly effected and the defendant remains inactive, the proceedings may continue in the absence of a defence. In such cases, Portuguese procedural law generally allows the court to proceed on the basis that the claimant’s factual allegations are uncontested. This procedural consequence is not automatic in all situations and does not apply, for example, where the law requires proof regardless of admission, where service was carried out by public notice, or where the relevant facts have been disputed by another defendant in multi-party proceedings.

Following the establishment of default, the case typically advances directly to its final stage, with the parties being given the opportunity to submit final written observations, after which the court may issue a judgment in default, assessing the claim in light of the admitted facts and applicable legal rules.

Portuguese procedural law adopts a broad concept of standing to be sued, without imposing restrictive personal criteria on defendants. Proceedings may be brought against natural or legal persons, and, where expressly permitted by law, also against certain entities lacking legal personality, such as unincorporated associations, partnerships, condominiums or local establishments.

The ability to bring proceedings before Portuguese courts reflects a general right of access to justice, which operates independently from any assessment of the substantive validity of the claim. Jurisdictional admissibility is therefore not conditioned on the merits of the action.

In disputes involving an international element, the jurisdiction of Portuguese courts is determined in accordance with binding EU instruments, in particular Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast), where applicable. Outside the scope of EU law, jurisdiction is assessed under Portuguese procedural rules, which recognise jurisdiction in situations where there is a sufficiently close connection to Portugal or where the effectiveness of the right invoked depends on proceedings being brought before Portuguese courts.

These jurisdictional rules are applied uniformly across the court system, irrespective of the court seized of the matter. Portuguese law does not provide for discretionary doctrines allowing courts to decline jurisdiction, such as forum non conveniens, once the relevant jurisdictional criteria are met.

Portuguese law does not impose a general obligation on lawyers to provide clients with a detailed estimate of the total costs of potential litigation at the outset of a matter. Court fees and procedural costs are largely set by statute and depend on factors that may evolve during the proceedings.

That said, the professional rules of the Portuguese Bar Association require lawyers to act with transparency and loyalty towards their clients, which includes informing clients in advance of the basis on which fees will be charged and, where possible, providing an indication of expected costs. Fee arrangements must be clear and agreed with the client, typically in writing.

Accordingly, while a precise cost estimate is not mandatory, lawyers are expected to provide sufficient information to enable clients to understand the likely financial implications of the proceedings and to keep clients appropriately informed as the case develops.

Portuguese procedural law allows parties to make interim applications before trial or before a substantive hearing. Such applications are not limited to case-management matters and may also be used to obtain substantive interim relief from the court.

Courts may grant a range of interim and precautionary measures (medidas cautelares), including injunctions, asset-freezing orders, orders to preserve evidence, or measures aimed at preventing imminent harm or securing the practical effectiveness of a future judgment. These remedies are available where the applicant demonstrates, in general terms, a likelihood of success on the merits and a risk of serious or irreparable harm if the measure is not granted.

In addition, interim applications may also address procedural and case-management issues, such as the organisation of proceedings, evidentiary matters or procedural deadlines. Interim measures may be sought either before the main proceedings are commenced or in parallel with them, subject to statutory requirements.

Accordingly, interim applications play both a procedural and a protective role in Portuguese litigation, allowing courts to manage cases efficiently while also granting effective provisional remedies where justified.

Portuguese procedural law does not provide for early judgment or strike-out mechanisms in the same manner as common-law jurisdictions. However, it does allow for certain procedural tools that may lead to an early disposal of all or part of the dispute, where the legal requirements are met.

A court may render a decision without a full trial where the issues in dispute are purely legal, where the relevant facts are not genuinely contested, or where the available evidence already allows the court to decide the case. In such circumstances, the court may decide the merits of some or all of the claims at an early stage of the proceedings, following written submissions by the parties.

In addition, Portuguese law allows for the dismissal of claims on procedural grounds prior to trial. This may occur where there are defects affecting the admissibility of the action, such as lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction, res judicata, limitation periods, or other preliminary objections (exceções dilatórias). If upheld, these objections may result in the dismissal of the claim without examination of the merits.

The initiative for such decisions may arise from applications by the parties or from the court acting ex officio, depending on the nature of the issue. The applicable procedure is governed by the general rules of civil procedure, typically following the exchange of written pleadings. There is no fixed timing equivalent to summary judgment motions; rather, these issues are addressed at the earliest procedural stage at which they can be properly assessed.

The legal standard applied by the court is whether the case can be resolved as a matter of law or procedural admissibility, without the need for further evidentiary production or a full hearing on the merits.

Portuguese procedural law does not provide for formal dispositive motions before trial comparable to those in common-law systems. However, parties commonly raise preliminary procedural objections at an early stage of the proceedings, typically in their initial pleadings.

These objections may relate to issues such as lack of jurisdiction or standing, res judicata, limitation periods or other defects affecting the admissibility of the claim and, if upheld, may result in the dismissal of the action without a trial on the merits.

Portuguese procedural law allows interested third parties to join ongoing proceedings, provided they demonstrate a legally relevant interest in the outcome of the case.

Third-party intervention may take different forms, including voluntary intervention, where a third party joins the proceedings to support one of the existing parties, and mandatory or forced intervention, where a party or the court brings a third party into the proceedings because the decision may directly affect that party’s legal position. In addition, Portuguese law allows for the joinder of parties where multiple claims or parties are connected by the same factual or legal grounds.

Intervention is generally effected by filing a request with the court, subject to the applicable procedural stage and statutory requirements. Once admitted, the intervening party acquires procedural rights consistent with the nature of the intervention, subject to the limits imposed by law.

Portuguese law does not allow a defendant to apply for an order requiring the claimant to provide security for the defendant’s legal costs. There is no general mechanism equivalent to a security for costs order under Portuguese civil procedure, and access to the courts is not conditional upon the prior provision of any such security.

Portuguese law does not recognise interim applications or motions as standalone procedural mechanisms in the sense commonly used in common-law jurisdictions. Nevertheless, interim procedural incidents and precautionary measures may arise during the course of proceedings.

The costs associated with such incidents are generally treated as part of the overall costs of the main proceedings and are allocated in accordance with the general rule that costs are borne by the unsuccessful party. Where an interim incident is decided independently and produces a clear outcome, the court may allocate the costs of that incident at the time of the decision, taking into account the outcome and the conduct of the parties.

There is no separate or distinct costs' regime applicable specifically to interim incidents; costs are assessed under the general procedural rules governing court fees and recoverable expenses.

Portuguese law does not establish fixed deadlines for courts to rule on procedural applications or incidental requests. The time required for a decision depends on a number of factors, including the nature of the application, the complexity of the issues raised, the procedural stage of the case and the workload of the court.

In practice, applications are generally dealt with within a relatively short timeframe, although this may vary significantly from case to case. Where an application concerns urgent matters, such as interim or precautionary relief or proceedings that are legally classified as urgent, courts may give it priority treatment and rule on it on an expedited basis.

A party may expressly request urgent handling of an application, even where urgency is not inherent in the nature of the proceedings. The timing of the court’s decision will nonetheless depend on procedural requirements, including the need to ensure adversarial proceedings and allow the opposing party an opportunity to be heard.

Portuguese civil procedure does not provide for discovery in the broad sense known in common-law jurisdictions. There is no general right to extensive pre-trial disclosure or party-driven discovery. Instead, the taking of evidence is governed by the principle of relevance and necessity, under close judicial control.

The production of documents and the taking of witness testimony are both permitted, but only to the extent they are deemed relevant to the issues in dispute. Parties are required to submit the evidence on which they rely, including documents and witness lists, within the procedural stages defined by law. Documentary evidence may also be ordered by the court, either at the request of a party or ex officio, where the court considers it necessary for the resolution of the case. However, requests for documents must be specific and justified: Portuguese law does not allow broad or speculative document requests.

Witness testimony is taken during the trial hearing, under the direction of the court. The number of witnesses and the scope of testimony may be limited by the judge to what is considered proportionate and relevant. Expert evidence may also be ordered where technical or specialised knowledge is required.

The evidentiary process is administered primarily by the court, not by the litigants. Judges play an active role in managing the taking of evidence, determining admissibility, and ensuring that the proceedings remain focused and proportionate. Parties may request the production of evidence, but the court ultimately decides whether such evidence will be admitted.

Portuguese civil procedure allows the court to order the production of documents or other evidence held by third parties who are not named as plaintiffs or defendants, where this is considered necessary for the resolution of the dispute.

A party seeking disclosure from a third party must submit a specific and reasoned request to the court, identifying the documents or evidence sought and explaining their relevance to the facts in issue. As with disclosure between parties, requests must not be vague, overly broad or exploratory. The court will generally only grant the request where the evidence cannot reasonably be obtained by other means or where there is serious difficulty in doing so.

The order is issued and supervised by the court, which may impose appropriate safeguards, including confidentiality measures, to protect sensitive or privileged information. Failure by a third party to comply with a lawful disclosure order may give rise to procedural sanctions under the general rules of civil procedure.

Portuguese law does not provide for a discovery process comparable to that found in common-law jurisdictions. There is no general duty of disclosure of documents relevant to the dispute; evidence is produced only through specific, court-controlled mechanisms, limited to identified and justified documents deemed necessary for the resolution of the case.

In the absence of discovery mechanisms, evidence in Portuguese civil proceedings is developed and admitted through a structured, court-controlled evidentiary process. As a rule, parties must submit the evidence on which they rely, including documents, witness lists and expert evidence, at the procedural stages defined by law, together with their pleadings or at subsequent stages expressly permitted by the court.

The admissibility and scope of evidence are determined by the court, based on the criteria of relevance, necessity and proportionality. Documentary evidence may be produced by the parties or ordered by the court, either at a party’s request or ex officio, where necessary to clarify the facts. Witness testimony is taken at trial, under judicial direction, and expert evidence may be ordered where specialised knowledge is required.

Overall, evidence-taking is not party-driven, but managed by the court, which plays an active role in supervising the process and ensuring that the evidentiary record remains focused on the matters genuinely in dispute.

Portuguese law recognises legal professional privilege, primarily in the form of attorney-client confidentiality, which is a fundamental principle of the legal system and a core duty of the legal profession.

Legal privilege is governed mainly by the Statute of the Portuguese Bar Association and covers all communications between a lawyer and their client made in the context of legal advice or legal representation, as well as documents and information obtained by the lawyer in the course of exercising their professional duties. This obligation of secrecy is broad and applies irrespective of whether the information is favourable or unfavourable to the client. As a rule, lawyers may not disclose privileged information and may not be compelled to do so, subject only to very limited statutory exceptions.

Portuguese law does not recognise a separate “work product” doctrine equivalent to that found in some common-law jurisdictions. Protection instead derives from legal professional secrecy and from procedural rules governing the admissibility and disclosure of evidence.

A distinction is drawn between external counsel and in-house counsel. Legal privilege applies fully to lawyers who are members of the Portuguese Bar Association and act in an independent professional capacity. By contrast, communications with in-house legal advisers who are employed by a company and are not registered as practising lawyers with the Portuguese Bar do not benefit from the same level of legal professional privilege, as such advisers are not regarded as independent members of the legal profession for these purposes.

In addition to legal professional privilege, Portuguese law recognises other grounds that may justify non-disclosure of documents. These include, in particular, state or official secrecy, the protection of trade secrets and confidential commercial information, personal data and privacy rights, and situations where disclosure would infringe the privilege against self-incrimination, especially in criminal or sanctioning proceedings.

Where such grounds are invoked, the court will assess the claim on a case-by-case basis, balancing the relevance of the document to the dispute against the protected interest. Courts may also adopt protective measures, such as limiting access to the document, ordering partial disclosure or redaction, or excluding the document from the evidentiary record altogether.

Portuguese law allows courts to grant injunctive and precautionary relief (providências cautelares) where such measures are necessary to protect a right or legally protected interest pending a final decision on the merits.

As a general rule, injunctive relief may be awarded where the applicant demonstrates, on a prima facie basis, (i) the likelihood of the right invoked (fumus boni iuris) and (ii) a risk of serious or irreparable harm (periculum in mora) if the measure is not granted. Courts also assess whether the relief sought is proportionate and appropriate in light of the interests at stake.

Portuguese law provides for a broad range of injunctions, which are not limited to a closed list. Common forms of injunctive relief include orders to preserve the status quo, to prevent or compel specific conduct, and to secure the effectiveness of a future judgment. Courts may also grant asset-freezing measures, such as attachments or seizures (arresto), aimed at preventing the dissipation of assets and ensuring the enforcement of a potential monetary judgment.

In addition, courts may order measures to preserve or secure evidence, as well as interim relief with anticipatory effects where expressly permitted by law. Injunctions may be granted before proceedings are commenced or during the course of the main action, and, in cases of urgency, may be ordered ex parte, subject to subsequent adversarial review.

Portuguese courts do not generally issue injunctions aimed at restraining parallel proceedings in another jurisdiction. Anti-suit injunctions are not a recognised feature of Portuguese procedural law, particularly in matters governed by EU law, where jurisdictional conflicts are resolved through the applicable European regulations and principles of mutual trust.

Where circumstances are urgent, injunctive relief may be obtained very rapidly under Portuguese law. Courts are empowered to deal with applications for precautionary measures on an expedited basis where there is a risk of serious or irreparable harm.

In cases of particular urgency, courts may grant interim relief on a provisional or ex parte basis, without first hearing the opposing party, provided that the applicant demonstrates the requisite urgency and prima facie grounds. The respondent will subsequently be given the opportunity to be heard, and the court may confirm, amend or revoke the measure.

Portuguese law does not provide for a formal system of out-of-hours or duty judges comparable to those found in some common-law jurisdictions. However, urgent matters are prioritised within the ordinary court structure, and judges may take immediate procedural steps, including issuing interim orders, where the circumstances so require.

The actual timeframe for obtaining injunctive relief depends on factors such as the nature of the measure sought, the urgency demonstrated and the court’s workload, but urgent applications may be addressed within a very short period, including, in appropriate cases, within days.

Portuguese law allows injunctive relief to be granted on an ex parte basis where the circumstances so require. Courts may issue precautionary measures without prior notice to the respondent where giving notice would jeopardise the effectiveness of the relief or where there is a risk of serious or irreparable harm.

Ex parte measures are exceptional and subject to strict requirements. The respondent must subsequently be given an opportunity to be heard, and the court may confirm, amend or revoke the injunction after adversarial proceedings have taken place.

Under Portuguese law, an applicant may incur liability for damages suffered by the respondent if an injunction is subsequently discharged, revoked or found to have been unjustified. Such a liability arises where it is determined that the measure was sought without sufficient grounds or that it caused harm which, in light of the final outcome, should not have been borne by the respondent.

Courts are empowered to require the applicant to provide security (caução) to cover potential losses resulting from the injunction. Whether security is ordered is assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the nature of the measure, the likelihood and extent of potential damage and proportionality considerations.

The same principles apply where injunctive relief is granted on an ex parte basis. In those circumstances, courts tend to exercise heightened caution, and the provision of security is particularly relevant given the absence of prior adversarial proceedings. Once the respondent is heard, the court may confirm, amend or revoke the injunction and reassess both liability and any security provided.

Portuguese courts do not generally grant injunctions with worldwide effect equivalent to worldwide freezing orders found in some common-law jurisdictions. Injunctive relief is, as a rule, territorial in scope and limited to assets located in Portugal.

That said, where Portuguese courts have jurisdiction over the respondent, asset-freezing measures may indirectly affect assets abroad through applicable EU instruments or international co-operation mechanisms, particularly within the EU, but this results from recognition and enforcement regimes, not from the extraterritorial reach of the injunction itself.

Accordingly, Portuguese law does not recognise standalone worldwide injunctions against assets located outside its jurisdiction.

Injunctive relief is generally directed against the respondent to the proceedings, namely, the party whose conduct is alleged to threaten or infringe the applicant’s rights. As a rule, such measures are not issued against unrelated third parties.

That said, injunctions may extend to or affect third parties in limited circumstances, where this is expressly permitted by law or where the third party is closely connected to the legal relationship at issue or plays a role in ensuring the effectiveness of the measure. This may include, for example, third parties holding assets subject to preservation or attachment measures, or third parties required to co-operate in the securing of evidence.

Any injunctive relief involving third parties is subject to strict judicial control and procedural safeguards, and cannot be used to impose substantive obligations on persons who are not legally connected to the underlying dispute.

Failure to comply with the terms of an injunction may give rise to serious procedural and substantive consequences. Non-compliance may result in the imposition of coercive monetary penalties, fines or other enforcement measures aimed at compelling compliance with the court’s order.

In addition, persistent or intentional non-compliance may constitute the criminal offence of disobedience, exposing the respondent to criminal liability where the statutory requirements are met. The respondent may also be held civilly liable for damages caused by the breach of the injunction.

Courts retain broad powers to ensure the effectiveness of injunctive relief, including ordering forced execution measures and reassessing sanctions as necessary to secure compliance.

Portuguese civil proceedings follow a mixed written and oral model. The case is developed primarily through written pleadings, while trial hearings are held where facts are disputed.

At trial, evidence is produced mainly through the oral examination of witnesses and experts, under judicial direction. Legal arguments may also be presented orally, although the final decision is always issued in writing. Where the dispute turns solely on points of law or undisputed facts, the court may decide the case without a trial hearing, based on the written record alone.

Short hearings may be held in Portuguese civil proceedings for procedural incidents or interim applications where oral discussion is considered useful. These hearings are judge-led and narrowly focused, usually limited to brief oral submissions, with most interim matters decided on the basis of written submissions.

In more complex cases, courts may hold a pre-trial case-management hearing to organise the proceedings, rule on procedural issues, admit evidence and set the timetable leading up to trial. Such hearings are held at the court’s discretion and may be dispensed with, where unnecessary.

Jury trials are not available in civil cases in Portugal. Civil proceedings are decided exclusively by professional judges, who determine both issues of fact and law.

Juries exist only in very limited criminal law contexts, and even then, their use is exceptional and subject to strict statutory conditions.

The admission of evidence at trial in Portugal is governed by principles of relevance, necessity and legality. Evidence must be lawfully obtained and directly related to the disputed facts, unlawfully obtained evidence is generally inadmissible.

Evidence is presented at the procedural stages set by law, and the court exercises active control, with discretion to admit, exclude or limit evidence on proportionality grounds. Witness and expert evidence is produced under judicial direction, and its probative value is freely assessed by the court, subject to statutory rules on the burden of proof.

Expert testimony is permitted in Portuguese civil trials where specialised or technical knowledge is required to assist the court.

Experts may be appointed by the court, either at the request of the parties or on the court’s own initiative, and their opinions are usually provided in written reports, which may be supplemented by oral clarification at trial. Parties may also appoint their own experts and submit expert reports to support their positions.

Expert evidence is subject to judicial control, and the court is not bound by the expert’s conclusions, assessing their probative value freely in light of the evidence as a whole.

Court hearings in Portugal are generally open to the public, in line with the constitutional principle of transparency. The court may, however, restrict or exclude public access where necessary to protect overriding interests, such as privacy, family matters, public morals or the proper conduct of the proceedings.

Hearings are audio-recorded, but verbatim transcripts are not routinely produced or publicly available. Access to recordings is generally limited to the parties and subject to judicial authorisation.

Judges play an active and interventionist role during hearings and trials in Portugal. The judge directs the proceedings, controls the taking of evidence, may question witnesses and experts directly, and ensures that the hearing remains focused on the relevant issues. Judicial intervention is aimed at clarifying the facts, enforcing procedural discipline and ensuring efficiency and fairness.

As a general rule, judgment is reserved and delivered at a later date in writing, after the hearing and completion of the evidentiary phase. This is the standard approach in cases involving disputed facts or complex legal issues.

However, the court may issue oral or immediate decisions at the hearing in procedural matters or where the issue can be resolved without further deliberation, such as rulings on incidental applications, evidentiary matters or purely legal issues. In limited cases, where the matter is straightforward and no further evidence is required, the court may also decide the merits at the hearing, although this is less common.

The duration of commercial proceedings in Portugal varies, depending on factors such as complexity, procedural incidents and court workload. As a general indication, cases typically take at least one year from commencement to trial, with more complex disputes often lasting several years.

Trials are usually short, often completed in one to a few hearing days, although complex cases may be heard over multiple sessions.

In Portugal, court approval is not generally required to settle a lawsuit, as parties are free to settle disputes by agreement. However, where a settlement is reached within pending court proceedings, it must be submitted to the court for ratification in order to terminate the case and render the settlement judicially enforceable.

Court approval is mandatory in specific situations, including settlements involving minors or legally incapacitated persons, matters affecting non-disposable rights, and collective or representative actions, where judicial scrutiny is required to protect third-party or public interests. Court approval may also be required in insolvency proceedings or other contexts expressly provided for by law.

Outside these circumstances, settlements reached out of court remain valid as private agreements but do not benefit from direct enforceability unless specific legal requirements have been fulfilled or judicially ratified.

Settlements may remain confidential under Portuguese law, particularly where they are reached out of court, in which case confidentiality depends on the terms agreed between the parties.

Where a settlement is reached within pending court proceedings and submitted for judicial ratification, the existence and essential terms of the settlement generally become part of the court record and are therefore not fully confidential, although the court may restrict access to sensitive information where justified. The parties may also choose to withdraw the claim without disclosing the terms of an out-of-court settlement, thereby preserving confidentiality.

Accordingly, confidentiality is more easily preserved in out-of-court settlements, while court-approved settlements are subject to the applicable rules on publicity of judicial proceedings.

Settlement agreements are enforced in Portugal depending on how they are concluded. Court-approved settlements constitute enforceable titles and may be enforced directly through enforcement proceedings.

Out-of-court settlements are treated as private contracts and generally require a separate court action for enforcement, unless they are executed in a form recognised by law as an enforceable title (such as a notarial deed or authenticated document).

Settlement agreements may be set aside in Portugal under the general rules of contract law, including on grounds such as lack of capacity, defects of consent (eg, error, fraud or duress), illegality or where the agreement concerns non-disposable rights.

Where a settlement has been judicially ratified, it may only be challenged through the appropriate procedural means and on limited grounds. In the absence of such grounds, settlement agreements are binding and cannot be unilaterally revoked.

At the full trial stage, Portuguese courts may grant a range of remedies depending on the nature of the claim and the rights at issue. The most common form of relief is a monetary award, including compensation for damages, which may cover both actual loss and loss of profit, subject to proof and the applicable rules on causation and fault.

Courts may also grant non-monetary remedies, such as orders for specific performance, declarations of rights, injunctive relief, or orders requiring a party to refrain from or perform a specific act. In appropriate cases, courts may issue constitutive judgments that create, modify or extinguish legal relationships.

In addition, a successful litigant is generally entitled to recover a portion of legal costs and court fees, in accordance with statutory rules. Punitive or exemplary damages are not recognised under Portuguese law.

Portuguese law recognises compensatory damages only, aimed at placing the injured party, as far as possible, in the position it would have been in had the damage not occurred. Punitive or exemplary damages are not available.

As a general rule, damages cover both actual loss (damnum emergens) and loss of profit (lucrum cessans), provided there is a causal link and the damage is proven. There are no statutory caps on damages under Portuguese law, although compensation is limited by principles of causation, foreseeability and proportionality, and may be reduced where the injured party contributed to the damage.

In certain circumstances, courts may award equitable damages where the exact amount cannot be precisely determined, but always within the compensatory framework.

A successful party may recover pre-judgment interest on monetary claims, generally accruing from the date the debtor is in default, such as upon a formal demand for payment or, in tort claims, from the service of the claim.

Post-judgment interest is also available and accrues automatically from the date of the judgment until full payment. Both are calculated at the statutory interest rates applicable to civil or commercial obligations, unless a different rate has been validly agreed.

There are no statutory caps on pre- or post-judgment interest, which is limited by the applicable statutory rates and general principles of proportionality and good faith.

Domestic judgments are enforced in Portugal through enforcement proceedings where voluntary compliance does not occur. A final judgment constitutes an enforcement title.

Enforcement may involve attachment and sale of assets, garnishment of bank accounts or receivables, or measures compelling specific performance, depending on the nature of the obligation.

The enforcement of a foreign judgment in Portugal depends on its country of origin.

Judgments from EU Member States are enforced in accordance with the applicable EU instruments, in particular Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast), under which judgments are generally automatically recognised and enforceable in Portugal without the need for a recognition (exequatur) procedure, subject to limited grounds for refusal.

Judgments from non-EU countries must, as a rule, undergo a recognition (exequatur) procedure before the Portuguese courts. Recognition is granted provided that certain requirements are met, including jurisdiction of the foreign court, proper service and defence rights, absence of conflicting Portuguese judgments, and compliance with Portuguese public policy.

Once recognised or declared enforceable, the foreign judgment may be enforced in Portugal through ordinary enforcement proceedings, in the same manner as a domestic judgment.

As a general rule, the system provides for two ordinary levels of appeal: to the Courts of Appeal and, in limited circumstances, to the Supreme Court of Justice.

Appeals to the Courts of Appeal are available subject to statutory thresholds, and allow for a review of both facts and law. Further appeals to the Supreme Court of Justice are subject to stricter admissibility requirements, typically linked to the value of the dispute and the relevance of the legal issues raised, and are generally limited to points of law.

Once ordinary appeals have been exhausted, parties may also seek review before the Constitutional Court where issues of constitutional interpretation or validity arise.

As a rule, appeals do not have suspensory effect. However, a suspensive effect may be granted by the court upon request where immediate enforcement would cause serious harm, usually subject to the provision of security.

Judgments may be appealed subject to statutory admissibility requirements, primarily linked to the value of the dispute, the amount of the unsuccessful claim, and the nature of the decision. As a general rule, first-instance judgments may be appealed to the Courts of Appeal, which are competent to review both matters of fact and law, within the limits defined by procedural law.

Further appeals to the Supreme Court of Justice are available only in restricted circumstances, typically where specific thresholds are met or where the case raises issues of particular legal relevance. Review at this level is generally limited to points of law, and admissibility is assessed by the court.

Appeals are lodged by the unsuccessful party and are subject to judicial scrutiny as to their admissibility. As a rule, appeals do not have suspensory effect, although a suspensive effect may be granted by the court upon request where immediate enforcement would cause serious harm, usually subject to the provision of security.

An appeal is lodged by the unsuccessful party by filing a notice of appeal with the court that issued the decision, which conducts an initial review of admissibility before transmitting the case to the higher court.

Appeals must be filed within the statutory time limits, which generally run from the formal notification of the judgment or decision to the party. In civil proceedings, the ordinary deadline is typically 30 days, although shorter or longer periods may apply in specific cases or for certain types of decisions.

The triggering event for the appeal period is the service or notification of the decision on the party or its counsel. Failure to appeal within the applicable deadline results in the decision becoming final and binding, subject only to extraordinary remedies where available.

On appeal, the appellate court may review issues of fact and law, within the limits defined by procedural law and by the scope of the appeal. Appeals are generally not a full re-hearing of the case, but a review of the first-instance decision based on the record and the grounds raised by the appellant.

As a rule, new facts, arguments or claims may not be introduced on appeal. The appellate court’s review is confined to matters that were raised and decided at first instance. Exceptions are limited and typically relate to issues of public policy, matters that arose after the first-instance decision, or defects that the court may consider ex officio.

The appellate court may uphold, amend or overturn the decision under appeal, and, where permitted by law, may also reassess the evidence already produced, but it will not ordinarily admit new evidence or conduct a new trial.

Courts may impose certain conditions on the granting or effects of an appeal, depending on the circumstances. In particular, where an appellant seeks suspensive effect, the court may require the provision of security to protect the respondent against potential losses resulting from the delay in enforcement.

In addition, appeals are subject to statutory admissibility requirements, such as thresholds relating to the value of the dispute or the nature of the issues raised. Failure to meet these requirements may lead the court to refuse admission of the appeal.

Accordingly, while the right to appeal is recognised, its admissibility and effects are subject to judicial control and compliance with procedural conditions.

Following an appeal, the appellate court may confirm the decision, modify it, or set it aside, within the limits of the issues raised on appeal.

Depending on the circumstances and the applicable procedural rules, the court may re-examine the evidence on the record, decide the case itself, or refer the matter back to the first-instance court for further proceedings where additional factual assessment is required. The appellate court may also issue binding rulings on legal or procedural matters to be applied going forward.

As a general rule, each party bears its own legal costs during the proceedings, including attorneys’ fees and expenses, subject to later allocation by the court. Court fees are initially paid by the party performing the procedural act, in accordance with statutory rules.

At the end of the case, the losing party is generally ordered to reimburse the prevailing party for litigation costs, within the limits set by law. Recoverable costs typically include court fees paid, certain procedural expenses and a statutory contribution towards attorneys’ fees, calculated on a fixed-scale basis. Full recovery of actual attorneys’ fees is not available.

The amount of recoverable costs is subject to judicial control, and the losing party may challenge the cost account, including on grounds that the costs claimed are excessive, unnecessary or disproportionate. The court ultimately determines the costs to be reimbursed in accordance with statutory criteria.

When awarding costs, the court primarily considers the outcome of the proceedings, applying the principle that costs generally follow the event, in proportion to each party’s degree of success or failure.

The court also takes into account the procedural conduct of the parties, including whether costs were caused unnecessarily, the complexity of the case, and the reasonableness and proportionality of the expenses incurred. In cases of procedural misconduct or bad faith, the court may adjust the allocation of costs accordingly.

Interest is not generally awarded on costs.

Only once costs have been quantified and become payable, and if payment is delayed, may interest accrue, calculated at the statutory civil interest rate applicable to monetary obligations.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), including mediation, is generally viewed positively and is actively encouraged in Portugal as a means of resolving disputes efficiently and reducing court congestion. Courts may invite or encourage parties to consider ADR at different stages of the proceedings, particularly in civil and commercial matters.

The most commonly used ADR methods are arbitration and mediation. Arbitration is widely used, especially in commercial, corporate, construction and international disputes, and is supported by a modern legal framework aligned with international standards. Mediation is also increasingly used, both through court-annexed schemes and private mediation, notably in family, labour, consumer and civil disputes.

Conciliation mechanisms may also be available in specific contexts, but arbitration and mediation remain the predominant ADR tools in practice.

The legal system actively encourages the use of ADR, including mediation and arbitration, but ADR is not generally compulsory in civil or commercial litigation. Courts may invite or encourage parties to attempt ADR at various stages of the proceedings, including at early hearings, but participation remains voluntary in most cases.

In certain specific areas, such as consumer disputes, family matters or labour disputes, ADR mechanisms, including mediation or conciliation, may be mandatory or form part of a pre-litigation or court-annexed procedure, as expressly provided by law.

There are no general sanctions for refusing to engage in ADR. However, an unreasonable refusal may be taken into account by the court when assessing procedural conduct, potentially influencing the allocation of costs or findings of bad faith in exceptional cases.

ADR institutions in Portugal are well organised and supported by a modern legal framework. Arbitration centres are well established and widely used, while mediation is offered through both public and private structures with defined rules and trained professionals.

Arbitration in Portugal is governed primarily by the Voluntary Arbitration Law (Law No 63/2011), which is largely based on the UNCITRAL Model Law and applies to both domestic and international arbitrations seated in Portugal. The law reflects core principles such as party autonomy, kompetenz-kompetenz, separability of the arbitration agreement, and limited court intervention.

Portuguese courts may intervene in arbitration only in supportive or supervisory roles, including the appointment or challenge of arbitrators, the granting of interim measures where appropriate, and the setting aside of arbitral awards on limited and exhaustively listed grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction, serious procedural irregularities or violation of public policy.

Arbitral awards rendered in Portugal are directly enforceable in the same manner as court judgments. Portugal is a party to the New York Convention, and foreign arbitral awards are recognised and enforced subject to the Convention’s grounds for refusal, which are applied restrictively by Portuguese courts.

Overall, the legal framework is regarded as arbitration-friendly and aligned with international standards.

Only disputes concerning disposable rights may be referred to arbitration. As a general rule, matters involving non-disposable rights are not arbitrable.

Accordingly, disputes relating to personal status, family law, succession, and other matters governed by mandatory public law rules are excluded from arbitration. Certain areas of administrative and public law are also non-arbitrable, except where arbitration is expressly permitted by statute.

By contrast, disputes of an economic or commercial nature are generally arbitrable, unless specific legislation provides otherwise.

An arbitral award may be challenged before the courts only through an application to set aside, and solely on limited statutory grounds. These grounds are narrowly defined and do not allow for a review of the merits of the dispute.

Challenges may be brought where, for example, the arbitration agreement is invalid, the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction, there was a serious breach of due process or equality of the parties, the tribunal was irregularly constituted, or the award violates public policy.

Courts apply these grounds restrictively, and an arbitral award will not be set aside merely because of an alleged error of fact or law.

Domestic arbitral awards are directly enforceable and have the same effect as final court judgments. Where voluntary compliance does not occur, enforcement is pursued through enforcement proceedings before the state courts, without the need for prior recognition or confirmation.

Foreign arbitral awards must first be recognised by the Portuguese courts before enforcement. Portugal is a party to the New York Convention, which governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Recognition may be refused only on the limited grounds set out in the Convention, such as invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of due process, excess of jurisdiction or violation of public policy. Once recognised, a foreign arbitral award is enforceable in the same manner as a domestic award.

Portuguese courts generally adopt a pro-enforcement approach, applying the grounds for refusal restrictively and without reviewing the merits of the award.

There are no major dispute resolution reforms currently pending in Portugal.

Growth in commercial disputes in Portugal has been particularly evident in corporate and M&A-related litigation, including shareholder disputes, directors’ liability and post-acquisition claims. Construction and infrastructure disputes also remain a significant and consistent area of activity, often involving complex contractual and technical issues.

There has also been a notable increase in banking and financial litigation, as well as disputes arising in regulated sectors, such as energy, telecommunications and transport, reflecting regulatory enforcement and large-scale investment projects. In parallel, cross-border commercial disputes with an international dimension have continued to grow and are frequently referred to arbitration.

In addition, consumer-related disputes, including collective actions and mass claims, have emerged as a developing area within the commercial disputes landscape, particularly in connection with competition, digital services and data-related matters.