Portugal: A Competition/European Law Overview

Economic Overview and Legislative Developments

In the next couple of years, the Portuguese economy is expected to grow 2.3% in 2026 and 1.7% in 2027, driven mainly by domestic demand (consumption and investment) and EU funds. Private consumption benefits from rising incomes and improved confidence, while investment is boosted by the execution of, inter alia, the Recovery and Resilience Plan.

The Portuguese Competition Authority (PCA) has launched a public consultation on its draft Guidelines on Ancillary Restraints and has additionally set out for its 2026 priorities the revision of the merger control Guidelines on Commitments.

Landmark rulings from the Portuguese Constitutional Court, and the Supreme Court, have had a profound impact on competition enforcement in Portugal. These rulings all reached the same stark conclusion: email seizures authorised by public prosecutors, rather than by a criminal judge, violate the Portuguese Constitution.

The fallout has been immediate and far-reaching. Several cases already before the courts have been sent back to the PCA, stripped of the contested email evidence, forcing the authority to rebuild its files from the ground up.

The Portuguese Competition Court, confronted with a string of cases tainted by the same constitutional defect, has turned to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for guidance, filing multiple preliminary references. One of the most closely watched of these – joint cases C 258/23 and C 260/23 – has already drawn two sets of conclusions from AG Laila Medina.

While the ECJ’s rulings are pending, the PCA has recalibrated its enforcement seeking dual warrants – from both prosecutors and judges – and encouraging undertakings to produce evidence voluntarily.

The ECJ has yet to deliver its judgment in Case C 133/24, CD Tondela and Others v Autoridade da Concorrência, a case related to no-poach agreements in professional football, which is likely to provide guidance on the characterisation of such agreements as restrictions of competition by object. AG Nicholas Emiliou rendered his Opinion on 15 May 2025.

PCA Action

Over the past year, the PCA has issued three infringement decisions, imposing a total of approximately EUR3.7 million in fines for restrictive agreements and abuse of dominance. One decision addressed a bilateral no-poach agreement between multinational technology consulting firms. Another targeted a consultancy services association for drafting and implementing minimum price-fixing; the association settled and voluntarily paid the fine.

Cases involving alleged abuse of a dominant position, though fewer in number, have also progressed over the past year. The PCA wrapped up a settlement in the Madeira banana market, sanctioning a company for abusing its dominant position in the market for the collection, distribution and commercialisation of Madeira bananas. Separately, the authority issued a statement of objections to the country’s leading online property listings portal.

Additional statements of objections have been issued, including two concerning no-poach agreements and one related to minimum pricing by a tourism sector association. A fourth statement was reissued involving the healthcare sector, following the Competition Court’s decision to return the case to the investigation phase due to the PCA’s reliance on emails deemed inadmissible.

Merger Control

The PCA received 96 merger control filings in 2025 and decided 101 cases. Out of the total decisions, three were inapplicability decisions, four transitioned to in-depth investigations and five merger notifications were withdrawn, including two Phase II procedures, one related to advertising platforms for the real estate sector and another concerning products for veterinary industries and chemicals. One of the other pending Phase II cases, in the private healthcare sector, was conditionally cleared in 2026.

Judicial Action

2025 marked the closing chapter of one of the most protracted enforcement proceedings in the Portuguese banking sector concerning exchanges of information between banks. The Portuguese Constitutional Court ultimately rejected the appeal brought by the PCA, bringing the case to a definitive end. The Lisbon Court of Appeals’ (LCA) earlier finding that the proceedings were time-barred remains in force, and the annulment of the fines imposed by the Portuguese Competition Court on 11 banks is now final.

Another long-running enforcement dispute remains active in the energy sector, involving EDP Produção’s alleged abuse of dominance regarding CMEC-covered hydroelectric plants. The PCA alleges EDP exploited the CMEC (Custos de Manutenção do Equilíbrio Contratual) compensation regime by restricting capacity at publicly compensated hydro plants, favouring market-regime generation units. In 2019, the PCA imposed a EUR48 million fine, reduced in 2025 to EUR40 million by the LCA.

Following a Portuguese Competition Court order in late 2024, the LCA rejected EDP’s attempt to annul the fine on limitation grounds. EDP has appealed to the Constitutional Court and initiated further procedural challenges.

Merger control also saw litigation developments in 2025. Everything is New challenged before the Portuguese Competition Court the conditional clearance decision of the PCA related to the acquisition by Live Nation of Ritmos & Blues Produções, Lda. and Arena Atlântico – Gestão de Recintos Multiusos, S.A. The Court dismissed the appeal in the same year. The Midsid/Dois Lados merger in the tobacco market, on the other hand, was annulled.

Additionally, private enforcement continues its upward trajectory in Portugal. In a consumer opt out case linked to an alleged hub and spoke scheme, the LCA dismissed, in January 2026, the defendant’s appeal against a procedural ruling of the Portuguese Competition Court. The appeal concerned the lower court’s refusal to allow the defendant to bring into the proceedings the remaining participants in the alleged hub-and-spoke arrangement involving supermarket retailers. The ruling confirms that claimants seeking damages for competition law infringements may pursue their claims against a single participant in a cartel without being required to sue all other alleged co-infringers. A different procedural outcome might arise only in specific circumstances, namely if the defendant acknowledged the infringement and sought to have the remaining cartel members ordered to contribute to the payment of compensation.

On the same day, the LCA partly upheld the appeals in a follow-on damages action arising from the European Commission’s “Trucks cartel” decision. The Court confirmed that the infringement established at EU level could support a presumption that purchasers paid artificially inflated prices during the cartel period, accepting that it was “much more likely than not” that the collusive conduct caused an overcharge.

However, because the claimants failed to prove the exact amount of the damage, the Court rejected the higher overcharge estimates advanced in expert reports and instead relied on judicial estimation. The Court also clarified that the burden of proving the quantum of harm lies with the claimant and declined to extend presumptions of overcharge beyond the cartel period without specific evidence.

State Aid

In 2025, the General Court of the European Union rejected an appeal filed by airline Ryanair requesting the annulment of a decision by the European Commission that granted TAP EUR2.55 billion in state aid for its restructuring. The General Court considered that the Commission demonstrated that TAP was eligible to benefit from the restructuring aid and that the measure responded to an objective of common interest and was necessary, adequate and proportionate, thus dismissing the appeal filed by Ryanair.