COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2021-07-20
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Portugal, administrative transparency, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.7.2021  SWD(2021) 723 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report   Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report   The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2021) 700 final} - {SWD(2021) 701 final} - {SWD(2021) 702 final} - {SWD(2021) 703 final} - {SWD(2021) 704 final} - {SWD(2021) 705 final} - {SWD(2021) 706 final} - {SWD(2021) 707 final} - {SWD(2021) 708 final} - {SWD(2021) 709 final} - {SWD(2021) 710 final} - {SWD(2021) 711 final} - {SWD(2021) 712 final} - {SWD(2021) 713 final} - {SWD(2021) 714 final} - {SWD(2021) 715 final} - {SWD(2021) 716 final} - {SWD(2021) 717 final} - {SWD(2021) 718 final} - {SWD(2021) 719 final} - {SWD(2021) 720 final} - {SWD(2021) 721 final} - {SWD(2021) 722 final} - {SWD(2021) 724 final} - {SWD(2021) 725 final} - {SWD(2021) 726 final} - {SWD(2021) 727 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The  efficiency  of  the  Portuguese  justice  system  remains  a  challenge,  especially  for 
administrative and tax courts. The Government is taking measures to address this challenge, 
in particular reinforcing administrative arbitration centres and creating rapid  reaction teams. 
Measures  are  also  under  way  to  address  the  human  resource  deficit,  and  to  invest  in 
digitalisation.  Following  repeated  concerns  regarding  the  allocation  of  cases  in  courts,  the 
High  Council  for  the  Judiciary  is  taking  steps  to  improve  case  management,  through 
enhanced transparency in the allocation system.  Initiatives to  strengthen  the integrity in  the 
justice  system  are  ongoing,  in  particular  through  the  preparation  of  codes  of  conduct  for 
magistrates.  Hierarchical  relations  within  the  prosecution  service  remain  subject  of 
discussion,  and  the  issue  is  under  consideration  in  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court. 
Reforms of criminal procedure are under discussion to allow for a more timely treatment of 
complex cases. It is important that these issues are addressed in consultation with all relevant 
stakeholders and take into account European standards.  

The Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2020-2024, approved by the Government, is awaiting a vote 
in the Parliament. It aims at answering a long-standing need to create a robust anti-corruption 
framework. The Government has proposed measures to ensure a more efficient treatment of 
complex corruption cases. While the efforts to improve the track record of investigations and 
prosecutions of corruption continue, prosecution authorities consider the lack of resources for 
police and prosecution to be a concern. A new amendment completed the 2019 reform of the 
asset  declaration  system,  but  the  Transparency  Entity  mandated  to  verify  disclosures  is  not 
yet  operational.  While  revolving  doors  rules  updated  in  2019  still  need  to  be  implemented, 
new lobbying legislation is  under discussion in Parliament  and there are plans to  revise the 
whistleblower  legislation.  Resources  attributed  to  the  Council  for  Prevention  of  Corruption 
remain  limited.  An  Anti-Corruption  Mechanism  has  been  created  to  contribute  to  the 
prevention  capacity.  Corruption  risks,  including  conflicts  of  interest,  under  the  COVID-19 
pandemic, have been the subject of several recommendations at national level. 

The media regulator has seen its competences extended in line with the revised Audiovisual 
Media  Services  Directive  to  include  video  sharing  platforms,  media  literacy,  and  new 
reporting  and  registry  obligations.  The  Government  put  in  place  media-specific  support 
measures  to  mitigate  the  difficulties  faced  by  media  due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The 
legislative  framework  ensures  the  protection  of  journalists.  Nevertheless,  there  have  been 
instances of threats and limitations to journalists’ professional activities, including a case of 
surveillance  seeking  to  identify  journalists’  sources,  into  which  the  Prosecutor-General’s 
Office  launched  an  investigation  to  be  examined  by  the  High  Council  of  the  Public 
Prosecution  Service.  Stakeholders  also  point  to  a  lack  of  any  systemic  collecting  of  data 
related to threats or violence against journalists in particular online. 

Measures to improve the transparency of law-making and the quality of legislation have been 
adopted.  In  particular,  the  new  Parliamentary  Rules  of  Procedure  aim  at  strengthening 
stakeholders’  involvement  in  the  legislative  process.  The  use  of  emergency  powers  by  the 
Government  during  the  state  of  emergency  in  the  context  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  was 
subject  to  authorisation  by  Parliament,  and  ex  post  control  by  Parliament,  courts  and  the 
Ombudsperson. The COVID-19 pandemic and the emergency measures have had an impact 
on the work of civil society organisations, and specific support was allocated. A new law on 
the statute of public utility aims at streamlining the legislative framework. While civil society 
space is considered to be open, new challenges are emerging, in particular due to instances of 
hostility and pressure against civil society organisations and human rights defenders. 

1 

 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The  Portuguese  justice  system  is  characterised  by  a  court  system  comprising  the 
Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Justice and the judicial courts of first and second 
instance, the Supreme Administrative Court and the administrative and tax courts of first and 
second  instance,  and  the  Court  of  Auditors1.  The  High  Council  for  the  Judiciary,  the  High 
Council for Administrative and Tax Courts and the High Council for the Public Prosecution 
exercise  disciplinary  action  over  the  respective  magistrates  and  are  entrusted  with  relevant 
managerial  functions.  Furthermore,  they  are  competent  to  nominate,  transfer  and  promote 
judges  and  prosecutors.  Judges  and  prosecutors  are  appointed  by  the  respective  Council, 
following  an  open  competition  and  according  to  the  grades  obtained  in  mandatory  training 
courses at the Centre for Judicial Studies. The public prosecution service is independent from 
the  judicial  power  and  operates  autonomously  from  the  executive  branch.  It  has  its  own 
governance  system  in  which  the  Prosecutor  General’s  Office  is  the  highest  body.  Portugal 
participates  in  the  European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office.  The  Bar  Association  is  an 
independent  legal  entity  governed  by  public  law  and,  in  the  exercise  of  its  public  powers, 
performs regulatory functions. 

Independence  

The level of perceived judicial independence in Portugal is average to low, with no clear 
trend  identified  during  the  last  five  years.  In  2021,  the  level  of  perceived  judicial 
independence among companies decreased, with only 39% perceiving it to be ‘fairly or very 
good’, and is considered to be low2. Among the general public, the level of perceived judicial 
independence  among  the  general  public  increased  while  remaining  average,  with  48% 
perceiving it to be ‘fairly or very good’3. This represents an inversion of the decreasing trend 
registered since 2018.  

The system of allocation of cases in courts was subject to scrutiny by the High Council 
for  the  Judiciary,  which  has  adopted  measures  to  improve  its  transparency.  Although 
the  allocation  of  cases  is  done  electronically,  through  a  system  that  provides  random 
allocation, manual allocation is possible in exceptional circumstances4. In order to ensure the 
transparency of the situations in which manual distribution occurs and prevent irregularities, 
the High Council for the Judiciary adopted Regulation No. 269/2021, which establishes the 
principles, criteria, requirements and procedures  for situations of modification, reduction or 
suspension  of  the  distribution  of  cases  in  judicial  courts5.  The  new  regulation  aims,  in  line 
with European standards6, at ensuring the principles of the natural judge, legality, prohibition 
of transfer of the case, independence and impartiality of the courts. As referred to in the 2020 

1   Execution of criminal sentences courts, maritime courts, intellectual property courts, competition, regulation 
and  supervision  courts,  central  instruction  courts,  arbitration  tribunals  and  justices  of  the  peace  exist  and 
their number and jurisdiction  is  mainly established in their  respective legal regimes (Law No. 62/2013, of 
26/8 and Law No. 78/2001, of 13/7). 

2   Figure  50,  2021  EU  Justice  Scoreboard.  The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  is  categorised  as 
follows: very low (below 30% of respondents perceive judicial independence as fairly good and very good); 
low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

3   Figure 48, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
4   These  include,  for  instance,  reallocation  of  cases  during  sick  leaves,  or  for  the  purposes  of  ensuring  the 

caseload balance among judges or respond to incompatibilities. 
5   The regulation is not applicable to Administrative and tax courts. 
6   According  to  European  standards,  the  allocation  of  cases  should  follow  objective  pre-established  criteria 
(Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 24). 

2 

 
                                                 
Rule of Law Report7, allegations of interference with the random allocation of cases in courts 
led the High Council to conduct investigations as regards possible irregularities. In July 2020, 
following an investigation to the instances of manual allocation of cases in high courts from 
2017  to  2020,  the  High  Council  found  no  evidence  of  unjustified  manual  allocation,  and 
closed  the  investigation  without  any  disciplinary  proceedings8.  However,  following  an 
investigation  where  irregularities  in  the  allocation  of  cases  in  the  Lisbon  Court  of  Appeal 
were detected in three cases, with indications of abuse of power, the High Council decided to 
initiate disciplinary proceedings against judges, including the presiding judge and the former 
presiding  judge  of  that  court9.  In  April  2021,  after  new  concerns  emerged  regarding  the 
allocation of cases in the Central  Instruction Court of Lisbon10, the High Council ordered a 
new  investigation11,  which  revealed  no  facts  pointing  at  the  existence  of  disciplinary 
breaches12. 

Initiatives  to  strengthen  the  integrity  in  the  justice  system  are  ongoing.  The  Statute  of 
Public  Prosecution  and  the  Statute  of  Judicial  Magistrates13  enshrine  rules  regarding  the 
duties  and  incompatibilities  applicable  to  prosecutors14  and  judges15.  According  to  the 
respective statutes, the High Council for the Judiciary16 and the High Council for the Public 
Prosecution17 are competent to control the declarations of income and assets of magistrates, 
and to approve the necessary legal instruments for these effects. Accordingly, on 12 January 
2021, the High Council for the Judiciary approved a Regulation on Declaratory obligations18. 
The  High  Council  for  the  Public  Prosecution  has  also  approved  a  project  for  a  code  of 
conduct on 20 October 2020, which was subject to public consultation19. The final version of 
the  code  of  conduct  has  not  been  adopted  yet.  A  code  of  conduct  of  magistrates  of  the 
administrative  and  tax  jurisdiction,  aimed  at  defining  a  framework  of  ethical  standards, 
principles and duties  regarding the exercise of the judiciary function and  the observance of 
obligations  on  the  declaration  of  income,  conflicting  interests  and  in  matters  referring  to 
institutional  offerings  and  hospitality,  is  also  pending  approval  by  the  High  Council  for 
Administrative and Tax Courts20. The High Council  for Administrative and Tax Courts has 
also  approved  a  Project  for  the  Regulation  on  reporting  obligations  of  magistrates  of  the 
administrative and tax jurisdiction on the matter of income, assets, interests, incompatibilities 
and impediments as well as procedures and inspections21. Moreover, in November 2020 the 

7   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 3. 
8   Input  from  Portugal  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  4;  Annual  Report  2020  –  High  Council  for  the 

Judiciary, p. 17. 

9   Contribution from the High Council for the Judiciary for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 12. 
10   Prior concerns had been raised in 2019, which led to an investigation closed in 2019 without any disciplinary 

proceedings. 

11   High Council for the Judiciary, press release of 14 April 2021. 
12   High Council for the Judiciary, press release of 4 May 2021. 
13   See also 2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 3. 
14   Law No. 68/2019, of 27 August 2019, Chapter II, Section I. 
15   Law No. 67/2019, of 27 August 2019, Chapter II, Section I. 
16   Ibid., Art. 149(1)(x). 
17   Law No. 68/2019, of 27 August 2019, Art. 21(3)(a). 
18   In June 2020, the High Council for the Judiciary approved a project for a code of conduct. In January 2021, 
the project was divided into two parts – ‘Code of conduct’ and ‘Code of Ethics’. The Council approved the 
first  part  under  the  designation  ‘Regulation  on  Declaratory  obligations’,  and  decided  to  postpone  the 
appreciation of the ‘Code of Ethics’ (Input from Portugal for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 4). 

19   Input from Portugal for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 4. See also Section II. 
20   Contribution from the Portuguese Supreme and Administrative Court for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 

10. 
21   Ibid. 

3 

 
                                                 
Professional  Association of Judges presented  a  comprehensive set  of proposals to  reinforce 
the  transparency  and  integrity  in  the  justice  system,  including,  among  others,  the 
reinforcement of the reporting channels both for citizens and judges, especially for cases of 
undue  influence,  or  attempts  thereof22.  The  High  Council  for  the  Judiciary  has  so  far  not 
addressed the proposals presented by the Professional Association of Judges. 

The  regime  of  hierarchical  instructions  to  prosecutors  is  under  judicial  review.  As 
referred  in  the  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report23,  the  new  Statute  of  Public  Prosecution,  which 
entered  into  force  in  2020,  contains  provisions  clarifying  the  limits  of  hierarchical 
intervention in criminal proceedings24. In November 2020, a new binding Directive from the 
Prosecutor  General25  established  the  possibility  to  give  concrete  orders  in  the  criminal 
procedure  to  a  prosecutor  subordinate.  According  to  the  new  directive,  such  orders  should 
always be registered in writing, in the accompanying administrative file, and the possibility to 
refuse orders is ensured. Stakeholders within the judiciary have expressed concerns that this 
directive  may  interfere  with  the  internal  autonomy  of  prosecutors,  and  be  in  direct 
contradiction  with  the provisions of the Statute of Public Prosecution26. A case is  currently 
pending  before  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court  following  legal  action  introduced  by  the 
Union of Prosecutors27. 

Reforms  to  the  system  of  criminal  procedure  to  allow  for  a  more  timely  treatment  of 
complex criminal cases are under debate. In the context of criminal cases deemed of high 
complexity, a discussion has been launched as to the need to amend the rules governing the 
criminal  procedure,  in  order  to  allow  for  a  more  expedite  treatment  of  such  cases28.  There 
have been instances of complex cases, notably involving high-level corruption, in which, due 
to  delays  in  the  investigation  and  instruction  phase,  the  offences  became  time  barred  and 
criminal charges have been dropped29. Stakeholders expressed concerns that the perception of 
the lack of capacity of the justice system to deal with prominent cases may lead to a negative 
perception of the public towards the system30. In this context, several proposals to modify the 
rules  governing  the  criminal  procedure  are  being  discussed.  In  particular,  the  Government 
proposed  to  Parliament,  in  May  2021,  measures  to  increase  the  efficiency  of  criminal 
prosecution  and  criminal  trials31.  These  include  the  possibility  of  organising  individual 
procedural measures32, and allowing for the negotiation, within trial phase, of the maximum 
limit  of  the  penalty  subject  to  the  confession  of  the  facts  contained  in  the  indictment33. 
Furthermore, there are also discussions regarding the judicial organisation of the instruction 
courts, and in particular the Central Instruction Court. Currently, this specialised court, which 
counts with only two acting judges, is competent for the instruction of cases of complex or 
organised  crimes,  including  corruption,  and  has  jurisdiction  over  the  whole  national 

22   Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses (2020), Reforço da Transparência e Integridade na Justiça. 
23   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 3. 
24   Art. 97(4). 
25   Directive No. 4/2020, of 25 November. 
26   Contribution from Magistrats Européens pour la Démocracie et les Libertés (MEDEL) for the 2021 Rule of 

Law Report, pp. 57-58. 

27   Sindicato dos Magistrados do Ministério Público, press release of 6 April 2021. 
28   Contribution from the Portuguese High Council for the Judiciary for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 11. 
29   See also Section II.  
30   Ibid.; Information provided in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
31   See also Section II. 
32   Currently, the same procedural measures apply to all crimes. 
33   Legislative  proposal  No.  90/XIV/2,  of  5  May  2021.  Stakeholders  contributions  to  the  consultation  on  this 

legislation can be consulted online on the website of the Parliament. 

4 

 
                                                 
territory34.  Its  broad  competences  and  limited  pool  of  judges  are,  in  particular,  a  source  of 
criticism35. In this context, on 4 May 2021, the High Council for the Judiciary announced to 
be favourable to changes to the current organisation and structure of the Central Instruction 
Court,  excluding  however  the  possibility  to  reinforce  the  number  of  judges36.  A  formal 
proposal  in  this  regard  will  be  presented  by  the  High  Council  for  the  Judiciary  to  the 
Government37.  On  17  June  2021  the  Government  approved  a  draft  bill  which  will  be 
submitted to Parliament proposing to dissolve the Lisbon Criminal Investigation Court and to 
integrate  its  powers  in  the  Central  Criminal  Investigation  Court.  The  proposed  measure 
envisages the increase of the number of judges assigned to the latter Court (from the previous 
2 to 9), ensuring the rationalisation of resources and strengthening the fight against economic 
and financial crime. It is important that the legal reforms are carried out in consultation with 
all the relevant stakeholders38, and take into account the relevant European standards. 

Quality  

There have been increases in the human  resources allocated to the justice system, but 
concerns  remain.  In  December  2020,  recruitment  procedures  for  40  judges  and  65 
prosecutors were launched39. However, stakeholders continue to report a significant deficit of 
judges  and  prosecutors40.  In  particular,  tax  and  administrative  courts  report  that  the  total 
number of judges in first instance tax and administrative courts remains significantly below 
the level established in the legal framework, with over 13% of the positions vacant41. At the 
end  of  2019,  11  positions  for  the  office  of  appeal  judges  in  administrative  and  tax  courts 
remained  vacant42.  The  recruitment  procedure  for  the  creation  of  advisory  cabinets  to  aid 
judges, which had been pending for several years43, was launched in December 202044. The 
first advisory cabinets are expected to be installed in September 202145, and the advisors will 
provide  technical  assistance  and  expertise  in  the  areas  of  law,  psychology,  accounting, 
finances and economy. However, these cabinets will only be installed in first instance judicial 
courts,  while  stakeholders  highlight  the  need  to  extend  them  to  administrative  and  tax 
courts46, where the disposition time and case backlogs are higher47, and technical expertise is 

34   Law No. 62/2013, of 26 August, Arts. 116 and 120. 
35   Information provided in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
36   High Council for the Judiciary, press release of 4 May 2021. 
37   Information received from the High Council for the Judiciary in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
Calls for a wider revision of the instruction phase have also been discussed. On 7 April 2021, the President 
of the Supreme Court announced he would propose to the High Council a revision of the instruction phase, 
narrowing the possibilities to trigger this phase, but the High Council has not adopted an official position in 
this respect. 

38   Opinion  no.10(2007)  of  the  Consultative  Council  of  European  Judges  (CCJE)  to  the  attention  of  the 
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the Council for the Judiciary at the service of society, 
of  23  November  2007,  para  87;  CCJE  Opinion  No.  23  (2020)  The  role  of  associations  of  judges  in 
supporting judicial independence, para. 41. 

39   Input from Portugal for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 5. 
40   Contribution from MEDEL for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 58-59. 
41   High  Council  for  the  Administrative  and  Tax  Courts,  Annual  Report  2019,  p.  35;  Contribution  from  the 
Portuguese Supreme and Administrative Court for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 11. See also 2020 Rule 
of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 4. 

42   Contribution from the Portuguese Supreme and Administrative Court for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 

11. 

43   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 4. 
44   Input from Portugal for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 5. 
45   Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
46   Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 

5 

 
                                                 
demanded in a high number of cases. The recruitment of technical advisers to support public 
prosecutors  is  also  in  preparation  by  the  Public  Prosecution  Service48.  However,  budget 
constraints have hindered the development of the recruitment process49. 

Measures  to  improve  the  quality  of  the  justice  system  continue  to  be  implemented,  in 
particular  with  regards  to  digitalisation.  The  budget  allocated  to  information  and 
communication  technologies  in  the  justice  system  increased  by  23.4%  in  2021,  and  a 
dedicated fund to support projects aiming at modernising the justice system is in place50, with 
an allocated budget of EUR 5.1 million51. The number of videoconference systems in courts 
has  also  increased,  in  order  to  respond  to  the  increasing  number  of  procedural  diligences 
conducted remotely52. Procedural rules already allow the use of digital technology in courts 
for a significant number of acts in civil, commercial, administrative and criminal cases53. The 
implementation  of  the  ‘Justiça  +  Próxima’  Programme,  aiming  at  the  modernisation  of  the 
justice  system,  has  also  continued  in  2020  and  202154.  The  measures  foreseen  in  the 
‘Tribunal+’ project, related to administrative simplification and optimisation of back office, 
have also been extended to more courts, and it is expected that the number of ordinary courts, 
such as general jurisdiction courts and proximity courts, covered will amount to 300 by the 
end of 2021. The ‘Tribunal + 360º’ project55, which aims at implementing full digitalisation 
and a paperless  system  in  courts, including regarding the submission  of evidence, is  still in 
the preparation phase. In the context of the national Recovery and Resilience Plan, Portugal 
has  presented  the  reform  ‘Digital  Transition  in  Justice’,  which  will  focus  on  improving  the 
use of digital tools in the justice system,  with particular emphasis in administrative and tax 
courts56.  Portugal  has  also  submitted  a  request  for  technical  support  for  a  project  aimed  at 
assisting the Ministry of Justice in advancing the country’s user-driven justice modernisation 
agenda and the development of key policy strategies57. 

The  COVID-19  pandemic  has  had  a  limited  impact  on  the  functioning  of  the  justice 
system.  In  March  2020,  deadlines  in  non-urgent  cases  in  courts  were  suspended,  and  non-
urgent  acts  were  adjourned.  However,  according  to  the  High  Council  for  the  Judiciary, 
ordinary  courts  have  coped  well  with  backlogs  and  the  clearance  rate  has  remained  stable 
throughout 202058. Measures already introduced during the first state of emergency continued 
to be in place59, such as a law introduced on 19 March 2020 setting an exceptional regime for 

47   See also Section I. 
48   Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
49   Ibid. 
50   Support  is  granted  to  projects  related  to  equipment  and  modernisation  of  courts,  training  and  scientific 

research. 

51   Input from Portugal for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 5. 
52   Ibid. 
53   Figure 40, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
54   The project focuses on four pillars – efficiency, innovation, proximity and humanisation (2020 Rule of Law 

Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 4). 

55   Ibid. 
56   Input from Portugal for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 7. The estimated amount of this reform is EUR 267 

million. 

57   TSI  Project  “Modernisation  of  the  justice  sector  in  Portugal”.  The  themes  covered  are:  design  and 
implementation of user-centred dispute resolution pathways and broader legal/justice services, digitalisation, 
digital competencies of justice sector stakeholders, and the availability, quality, accessibility and re-usability 
of justice data. 

58   Conselho Superior da Magistratura, Relatório Anual 2020, p. 96. 
59   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 5. 

6 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
judicial procedures60. The law provides that the examination of witnesses and trial hearings 
should take place physically, following the recommendations of the health security measures 
set  by  the  Ministry  of  Health.  A  Parliament  Proposal  to  amend  the  law  is  still  pending61, 
allowing  the  use  of  long-distance  communication  systems  activated  from  the  courts  for 
diligences that require the physical attendance of the parties.  

Efficiency 

The  efficiency  of  the  justice  system  registers  improvements,  but  challenges  remain  in 
administrative and tax courts62. Portugal continues to register improvements regarding the 
efficiency  of  the  justice  system,  in  particular  in  civil  and  commercial  cases,  for  which  the 
disposition time in first instance has been consistently decreasing63. The trend of reduction of 
backlogs  in  civil  and  commercial  cases  has  also  continued64.  However,  in  administrative 
cases, the disposition time remains high, despite a consistent decrease in recent years65, and a 
positive  rate  of  resolving,  reaching  over  840  days  both  in  first  and  second  instance66. 
Although  the  number  of  pending  administrative  cases  in  first  instance  has  also  been 
decreasing marginally, it remains comparatively high67. This issue has also been addressed by 
a country-specific recommendation in the context of the 2020 European Semester, regarding 
the need to improve the efficiency in tax and administrative courts68. 

The  Government  is  taking  initiatives  to  increase  the  efficiency  of  the  justice  system. 
Portugal remains under enhanced supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council 
of  Europe  for  the  excessive  length  of  proceedings  before  both  civil  and  administrative 
jurisdictions69. In this context, on 30 October 2020, the Government adopted an updated and 
consolidated  action  plan,  presenting  measures  to  combat  the  excessive  duration  of 
proceedings70. Moreover,  administrative arbitration centres are being reinforced, in  order to 
provide an alternative to administrative and tax courts, thus lowering the number of incoming 
and pending cases in these courts, and ensuring an effective remedy71. A temporary regime of 
incentives  for  the  termination  of  judicial  cases,  applicable  to  all  jurisdictions,  is  also  in 
place72.  Measures  are  also  being  adopted  in  order  to  increase  the  efficiency  of  insolvency 
proceedings73.  In  addition,  in  the  context  of  the  national  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plan, 

60   Law 1-A/2020, of 19 March. 
61   Parliament Law Proposal 30 XIV, on the “Professional Representation of Interests”. 
62   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 5. 
63   Figure 7, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
64   Figure 15, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
65   Figures 9 and 10, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
66   Figure 13, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
67   Figure 16, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
68   Council  Recommendation  of  20  July  2020  on  the  2020  National  Reform  Programme  of  Portugal  and 

delivering a Council opinion on the 2020 Stability Programme of Portugal. 

69   H46-20 Vicente Cardoso group v. Portugal (Application No. 30130/10). It should be recalled that, according 
to Council of Europe recommendations, the efficiency of judicial systems is an essential condition for legal 
certainty and public confidence in the rule of law (Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of 
Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 30). 

70   Communication  from  Portugal  concerning  the  case  of  Vicente  Cardoso  v.  Portugal  (Application  No. 

30130/10), DH-DD(2020)952, of 30 October 2020. 

71   Input from Portugal for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 7. See also figure 27, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
72   By means of transaction, withdrawal, agreement and confession. 
73   In particular, Ordonnance No. 126/2021, of 24/6, regulates the direct consultation, by judicial administrators, 
of the databases of the tax administration, social  security,  Caixa Geral de Aposentações, Salary Guarantee 

7 

 
                                                 
 
Portugal has presented reforms and investment projects aiming at increasing the efficiency of 
the justice system74. As referred in the 2020 Rule of Law Report75, rapid reaction teams were 
created to deal with  case backlogs in tax and administrative courts. Data published in 2021 
show that, in the first year of activity, these teams allowed for the resolution of one third of 
the  cases  that  that  had  entered  the  system  before  2013,  exceeding  the  goals  initially  set76. 
However, stakeholders raise attention to the fact that the reinforcement of teams should also 
occur in second and third instances, in order to avoid a case backlog throughout the chain of 
the justice system77. 

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

There  have  been  no  major  developments  as  regards  the  institutional  anti-corruption 
framework  in  Portugal  since  the  previous  reporting  period.  The  Central  Department  of 
Criminal Investigation and Penal Action (DCIAP), established within the Public Prosecutors 
Service,  is  in  charge  of  the  investigation  and  prosecution  of  serious  offences,  including 
corruption  and  economic  and  financial  crimes,  and  coordinates  the  investigations  that  are 
carried out by the National Unit for Combating Corruption (UNCC), an investigative unit of 
the  Criminal  Police78.  As  regards  the  prevention  of  corruption,  an  Anti-Corruption 
Mechanism has been established in 2021 to contribute to the prevention capacity. A new head 
of  the  Council  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  has  been  appointed,  following  the  new 
leadership  in  the  Court  of  Auditors.  The  Council  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  operates 
under  the  Court  of  Auditors.  The  Transparency  Authority,  established  in  2019,  has 
competences  in  monitoring  and  verifying  declarations  of  assets  and  interests  of  political 
office-holders and high-ranking appointed officials but is not yet operational.  

The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in 
the  public  sector  remains  relatively  low.  In  the  2020  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  by 
Transparency International, Portugal scores 61/100 and ranks 10th in the European Union and 
33th globally79. This perception has been relatively stable80 over the past five years81. 

Fund,  land  commercial,  vehicle,  civil  registries  and  other  similar  registries  or  archives,  in  order  to  obtain 
information regarding the identification of the debtor and the identification and location of its assets. 

74   Annex  to  the  Proposal  for  a  Council  Implementing  Decision  on  the  approval  of  the  assessment  of  the 
recovery  and  resilience  plan  for  Portugal  (COM(2021)  321  final)  of  16h  June  2021.  In  particular,  under 
Component 18 of the recovery and resilience plan, Portugal envisages the creation of specialised chambers 
in the second and third instance administrative and tax courts, as well as speeding up insolvency proceedings 
and adapting them to ‘digital by default’ principle. 

75   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 5. 
76   High Council for the Administrative and Tax Courts, Annual Report 2019, p. 76. 
77   Information received in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
78   The  UNCC  is  the  specialized  operational  unit  in  charge  of  investigating  corruption  offences  and  related 

crimes such as bribery or embezzlement of public funds, and has jurisdiction nationwide.  

79   Transparency  International,  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  2020  (2021),  pp.  2-3.  The  level  of  perceived 
corruption is categorised as  follows: low (the perception among experts and business executives of public 
sector  corruption scores  above  79);  relatively  low  (scores  between  79-60),  relatively  high  (scores  between 
59-50), high (scores below 50). 

80   In 2015 the score was 64, while, in 2020, the score is 61. The score significantly increases/decreases when it 
changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5  points);  is  relatively  stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

81   The Eurobarometer data on corruption perception and experience of citizens and businesses as reported last 
year is updated every second year. The latest data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020) and the Flash 
Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

8 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
The  National  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  for  2020-2024  has  been  approved  by  the 
Government  and  was  accompanied  by  a  proposal  to  revise  the  criminal  legal 
framework. After being subject to a public consultation in October 202082, the strategy was 
approved  by  the  Council  of  Ministers  on  18  March  202183.  The  strategy  aims  at  creating  a 
coherent  and  robust  anti-corruption  framework84  and  includes  measures  to  better  detect, 
prevent  and  prosecute  corruption,  and  to  ensure  that  the  judicial  system  can  timely  and 
efficiently  respond  and  impose  adequate  sanctions  on  offenders.  As  a  first  step  in  its 
implementation,  on  29  April  2021  the  Government  approved  a  set  of  proposals  to  amend 
existing  legal  provisions85,  notably  in  the  criminal  law  area86.  The  establishment  of  a  new 
entity, the National Anti-Corruption Mechanism, independent from the Government and the 
Parliament,  has  been  approved  on  25  May  2021  by  a  Government  Decree-Law87;  this  law 
also  approves  the general  regime for the prevention of corruption  (RGPC). The mechanism 
will  monitor  the  implementation  of  the  preventive  framework  and  impose  administrative 
fines for non-compliant entities88.  

The  Government  has  proposed  measures  to  increase  the  efficiency  of  criminal 
prosecution,  as  challenges  remain  concerning  the  treatment  of  high-level  corruption 
cases.  The  Department  of  Investigation  and  Penal  Action  (DIAP),  established  within  the 
Public Prosecutor’s Service, remains responsible for investigating serious offences, including 
high-level  corruption  and  financial  crimes89.  The  Central  Department  of  Investigation  and 
Penal  Action  (DCIAP)  is  comprised  of  40  prosecutors  of  the  Republic,  seven  of  whom  are 
dedicated  to  the  investigation  of  corruption  related  crimes  and  of  economic  and  financial 
international  or  transnational  infringements90.  The  National  Police  National  Unit  for 
Combating  Corruption  of  the  Criminal  Police  is  specialised  in  investigating  economic  and 
financial  crime,  including  corruption,  and  acts  under  the  coordination  of  DCIAP  in 
investigating  complex  cases91.  Efforts  to  improve  the  track  record  of  investigations  and 

82   The public consultation ran from 3 September 2020 until 23 October 2020 and culminated in a stocktaking 
conference on 21 November 2020 where the contributions of the consultation were presented and debated. 

83   Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 37/2021, Approving the National Anti-Corruption Strategy.  
84   See European Commission, 2020 Country Report Portugal, SWD (2020) 521 final, p. 64. 
85   This concerns amendments to the Penal Code, the Penal Procedure Code, the Commercial Companies Code, 
Law No. 34/87, of 16 July 1987 (which establishes the responsibility of political office holders regime), Law 
No.  36/94,  of  29  September  1994  (which  establishes  measures  to  combat  corruption  and  economic  and 
financial crime), Law No. 50/2007, of 31 August 2007 (which establishes the criminal liability regime for 
behaviours  that  may  affect  the  truth,  loyalty  and  correctness  of  the  competition  and  its  result  in  sporting 
activity), and Law No. 20/2008, of 21 April 2008 (which establishes the criminal regime of corruption in the 
international trade and the private sector). 

86   Law  no.  68/2019,  of  27  August,  Art.  58  –  Jurisdiction.  These  includes  crimes  such  as  Money  laundering; 
corruption,  embezzlement  and  economic  participation  in  business;  harmful  administration  in  an  economic 
unit  of  the  public  sector;  fraud  in  obtaining  or  embezzling  a  subsidy,  subsidy  or  credit;  economic  and 
financial  offences  committed  in  an  organised  manner  using  computer  technology;  economic  and  financial 
infringements of an international or transnational dimension. 

87   Decree-Law No. 960/XXII/2021.  
88   These  entities  include  private  companies  (with  the  exception  of  micro  and  small  companies)  the  State, 
autonomous  regions  (i.e.,  Azores  and  Madeira),  local  authorities  and  other  legal  persons  of  public  law 
(National anti-Corruption strategy 2020-2024, p. 41).  
89   Law no. 68/2019, of 27 August, Art. 58 – Jurisdiction 
90   The Regional Departments of Investigation and Penal Action (Coimbra, Évora, Lisbon and Porto) have 36 

Prosecutors of the Republic. Input from Portugal for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 9. 

91   The National Unit for Combating Corruption (UNCC) is, under the terms of DL 137/2019, of 13 September, 
a  central  criminal  investigation  unit,  headquartered  in  Lisbon  and  with  competence  for  the  entire  national 
territory. Outside Lisbon, the central investigation units exercise their competences through extensions based 

9 

 
                                                 
 
prosecutions of corruption continue. Only in 2020, the Criminal Police received 503 criminal 
cases92, and finalised 553. In the same year, the Criminal Police transmitted 90 proposals for 
indictment  in  corruption-related  cases93.  As  regards  the  application  of  sanctions  for 
corruption  offences,  suspended  sentences  remain  relatively  high,  with  only  15%  of  those 
convicted  for  corruption  being  sentenced  to  prison  in  2019  and,  54%  receiving  suspended 
prison  sentences94.  The  most  severe  obstacles  to  prosecution  of  corruption-related  cases 
appear to be due to the continuous lack of resources at the level of the police and prosecution 
services95.  This  in  turn  results  in  significant  delays,  such  as  in  the  investigation  and 
instruction phases, and notably in some prominent complex corruption cases involving high-
level  officials  that  could  not  be  finalised  before  the  statute  of  limitation  expired96.  With  a 
view to overcome this persistent problem, the Government has  proposed measures to speed 
up large indictments and cases in trials under the National anti-corruption strategy97, although 
the strategy does not specify concrete measures as regards the allocation of resources98.  

The Council for the Prevention of Corruption (CPC) continues its activities in the area 
of  corruption  prevention.  It  issues  recommendations  on  corruption  risks  prevention  and 
monitors their implementation.  In the reporting period, the CPC carried out  86 pedagogical 
visits  to  public  entities  throughout  the  country,  focusing  in  particular  on  entities  which  are 
operating  in  high-risk  areas  and  where  there  is  a  need  to  raise  awareness  about  preventing 
irregularities in public spending99. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council concentrated 
its  efforts  on  raising  awareness  on  preventing  corruption  in  healthcare  and  in  budget 
execution, particularly at the local level. While the new anti-corruption strategy highlights the 
need  for  more  capacities  for  the  prevention  of  corruption,  for  the  time  being,  the  resources 
allocated to the Council remain limited100. It remains to be seen whether the recently created 
Anti-Corruption Mechanism, that will integrate the Council for the Prevention of Corruption, 
will contribute to an increased capacity to prevent corruption101. 

While improvements to the system of integrity for high-level officials were introduced in 
2019,  the  impact  of  conflicts  of  interest  rules  and  codes  of  ethics  remains  to  be  seen. 

at the premises of the deconcentrated criminal investigation units. The UNCC has 12 research units and 106 
staff who are criminal investigators. 

92   These  are  new  cases,  reopened  cases  and  cases  starting  an  autonomous  investigation  that  correspond  to 
crimes,  which  have  not  been  recorded  by  criminal  police  bodies,  but  by  other  bodies,  usually  the  Public 
Prosecutor’s Office. 

93   Criminal  Police  case  movement  for  corruption  in  2019;  Input  from  Portugal  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law 

Report, Annex I. 

94   For  data  on  2017-2018,  see  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  country  chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in 
Portugal, p. 7. The data here refers to convictions in criminal cases at the trial stage at the judicial courts of 
first-instance; Input from Portugal for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, Annex I. For more information consult 
the web-database of the Directorate-General for Justice Policy (2019), Justice Statistics: Corruption.  

95   Information received in the context of the country visit to Portugal; contribution from Magistrats Européens 
pour la Démocracie et les Libertés (MEDEL) for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 58; Público (2020), “Lack 
of human resources explains slowness of justice in corruption cases says PGR”, Público, 6 January 2020.   

96   Information received in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
97   Information  received  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Portugal.  See  also 

Section I. 

98   The strategy acknowledges the need to identify and analyse the reasons for delays in complex cases in order 
to better allocate resources. Information received by the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit 
to Portugal. 

99   Information received in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
100  Staff includes: 3 assistants, 1 adviser and 2 consultants and 1 teacher. 
101Decree-Law No. 960/XXII/2021. 

10 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
Since 2019, codes of conduct  regulating ethics,  conflicts  of interest  and  incompatibilities102 
are  in  place  for  Government  officials103.  Regarding  members  of  Parliament,  a  code  of 
conduct is also in force104, and the Parliamentary Committee on Transparency and Member’s 
Statute monitors and enforces the Member’s Code.  In April 2021, the Committee created a 
Working Group on the application of the Code105 and published Guidelines on the acceptance 
of  gifts  and  hospitality  by  members  of  Parliament  and 
recommendations  on 
incompatibilities106. However, the assessment of the effectiveness of the conflicts of interest 
prevention  system  is  pending107.  The  Group  of  States  against  Corruption  (GRECO) 
welcomed  these  improvements  but  calls  for  adequate  supervisory  mechanisms,  including 
sanctions for improper acts, which are not envisaged in the Code108. In October 2020, a draft 
code of ethics for prosecutors was approved and is currently under public consultation109. For 
judges, a Regulation on Declaratory obligations was approved in summer 2020110.  

New  rules  have  been  introduced  to  harmonise  the  system  of  asset  declaration  for 
political  and high-level  officials. According to  new provisions adopted in  November 2020 
political office-holders and high-ranking appointed officials are now obliged to present in a 
single  document  the  declaration  of  their  income,  assets,  interests,  incompatibilities  and 
impediments111.  The  reform  also  foresees  the  creation  of  an  online  digital  platform  for  the 
publication  of  declarations,  with  a  view  to  provide  information  about  posts,  duties  and 
outside activities performed during the term of office and the previous three years. However, 
the reform does not resolve the lack of frequent and substantive checks of single declarations, 
as advised by GRECO112. Furthermore, GRECO remains concerned by the lack of sanctions 
for  minor  breaches  of  reporting  obligations113.  The  new  Transparency  Entity,  initially 
envisaged to be set up in 2020 as part of the Constitutional Court114, will be responsible once 

102  Law  No.  7/93,  of  1  March  1993,  Art.  20  (1).  Since  2019,  the  system  of  incompatibilities  for  high-ranked 
officials was reviewed to broaden the scope of incompatible public functions to public undertakings and any 
other company where the State is shareholder. 

103  Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 184/2019. 
104  Resolution of the Parliament of the Republic No. 210/2019.  
105  In the Context of the country visit to Portugal, the Commission was informed that the Committee has issued 
a report on the application of the Code and so far, no breach of the Code has been verified. The report should 
website: 
in 
be 
https://www.parlamento.pt/sites/COM/XIVLeg/14CTED/GTACC/Paginas/Composicao.aspx. 

published 

the 

106  Ibid. 
107  GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round on corruption prevention in respect of members of Parliament, judges and 

prosecutors – Second Interim Compliance Report Portugal, p. 6.  

108  Ibid., p. 4.  
109  Public  Prosecutor  (20  October  2020),  Draft  code  of  conduct  For  Public  Ministry  Magistrates  -  Public 

Consultation 
110  See also Section I. 
111  Law  69/2020,  of  9  November  2020,  Art.1.  Additionally,  Law  69/2020  of  November  9,  established  public 
access  to  the  information  contained  in  the  register  of  interests  within  the  “Declaração  Única”,  including 
posts,  functions,  and  activities  held  in  accumulation  with  the  mandate,  as  well  as  those  held  in  the  three 
previous years of high public and political officials 

112  GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round on corruption prevention in respect of members of Parliament, judges and 

prosecutors – Second Interim Compliance Report Portugal, p. 8. 

113  Ibid., p. 7. 
114  Art. 4 of Organic Law No. 4/2019, of 13 September 2019, provides that it is up to the Government to include 
in  the  proposed  State  Budget  for  2020,  in  the  general  charges  of  the  State  relating  to  the  Constitutional 
Court, the funds necessary for the creation and functioning of the Entity for Transparency, as well as for the 
creation of the electronic platform provided for by law. 

11 

 
                                                 
operational for verifying the declarations of political and senior public officials115. However, 
it has not yet started its activities due to a lack of both resources and facilities116. 

While  revolving  doors  rules  still  need  to  be  implemented,  new  lobbying  legislation  is 
under discussion in Parliament. The revolving doors rules were updated in 2019117. Post-
employment rules, including a three-year cooling-off period, currently apply to political and 
senior  office  holders,  including  cabinet  members  and  boards  of  state-owned  companies118. 
Sanctions for non-compliance consist of a three-year disqualification from performing duties 
in a public office119. It is the duty of the Constitutional Court and Prosecutor’s Office to apply 
the  law.  However,  there  is  still  no  entity  responsible  for  monitoring  breaches  of  post-
employment  restrictions,  which  creates  concerns  as  to  their  enforcement120.  As  regards 
lobbying, efforts to pass new legislation regulating lobbying activities are ongoing121. Three 
parliamentary groups have submitted draft legislation122 aiming to amend the proposed rules 
so  as  to  overcome  the  concerns  which  led  to  the  President  veto  in  2019123.  While  the 
parliamentary process is ongoing, there is no information about its timeline for approval and 
implementation.  GRECO  has  stressed  the  need  to  clarify  the  scope  of  permissible  contacts 
between members of Parliament and third party interests, which remains to be addressed124. 

The  current  whistleblower  protection  system  is  under  revision.  The  National  anti-
corruption  strategy  envisages  the  improvement  of  the  legal  framework  for  whistleblower 
protection,  dating  from  2008125,  with  new  safeguards  including  public  compliance 
programmes  and  reinforced  reporting  channels  and  protection  tools126.  The  Council  for  the 
Prevention of Corruption is responsible for monitoring the system of complaints and referring 

115  Art. 5 of Organic Law No. 4/2019, of 13 September 2019, provides that until the establishment of the Entity 
for  Transparency,  single  declarations  of  income,  assets  and  interests  continue  to  be  filed  with  the 
Constitutional Court and scrutinised under the previous regime. 

116  GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round on corruption prevention in respect of members of Parliament, judges and 

prosecutors – Second Interim Compliance Report Portugal, p. 8. 

117  Law No 52/2019, of 31 July 2019, introduced several reforms including inter alia the prohibition for board 
members  of  state-owns  companies  to  hold  positions  in  the  acquiring  or  concessionaire  entities  up  to  three 
years  from  the  date  of  sale  or  grant  of  the  assets  in  which  they  are  involved;  and  a  three-year  cooling-off 
period  for  cabinet  members  during  which  they  are  prohibited  from  performing  any  subordinate  work  or 
consultancy functions in international organisations with which they have established institutional relations 
in a public service. See 2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 
9. 

118  Law No. 52/2019, of 31 July 2019, Art. 10. 
119  Law No. 52/2019, of 31 July 2019, Art. 11(3). 
120  Information received in the context of the country visit to Portugal.  
121  Information received by the Parliament in the context of the country visit to Portugal. See also input from 

Portugal for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 13-14. 

122  Legislative Proposal 253/XIV/1. 
123  Efforts to promote a bill regulating lobbying activities failed after the President returned for re-examination a 
bill approved by parliament in June 2019. See 2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law 
situation in Portugal, p. 9. 

124  GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round on corruption prevention in respect of members of Parliament, judges and 

prosecutors – Second Interim Compliance Report Portugal, p. 4. 

125  Law No. 19/2008, of 21 April 2008. In addition to the referred general rule, there are also other dispersed 
rules on whistleblowers, namely those provided in Law No. 93/99, of 14 July (witness protection); in Law 
No. 83/2017, of 18 August 2017 as updated by Law no. 58/2020, of 31 August 2020 (in Art. 108, para. 5), 
under the scope of the fight against money laundering and terrorism; or in the Securities Code, the General 
Regime  of  Credit  Institutions  and  Financial  Companies  and  the  General  Regime  of  Collective  Investment 
Undertakings. 

126  Input from Portugal for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 14-15. 

12 

 
                                                 
them to the Attorney General, who is responsible for the investigation of corruption-related 
cases127. The Public Prosecutor’s Office administers an electronic whistleblowing system for 
reporting cases, including corruption and related crimes committed in the public and private 
sectors128.  

Several  institutions  have  raised  awareness  about  the  need  to  address  corruption  risks 
triggered  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  Within  the  context  of  emergency  measures  to 
respond to the pandemic outbreak, the Council for the Prevention of Corruption published a 
recommendation on the Prevention of Risks of Corruption and Related Infringements129. The 
recommendation highlights the need for all decision-makers and public officials to maintain 
the  highest  levels  of  transparency,  ethics  and  integrity,  and  asked  for  the  adoption  of 
measures to prevent and mitigate corruption risks in the exercise of their public activities130. 
Parliament adopted a Resolution on prevention of risks of corruption and related offences in 
the  context  of  COVID-19  including  risks  of  conflicts  of  interest,  requesting  to  ensure 
transparency  and  integrity  in  specific  risk  areas  such  as  public  procurement,  health  and 
infrastructure131. The Court of Audit  is also  developing several  audit actions addressing the 
increased risks in the use of public resources in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic132. 

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM 

Freedom of expression and information as well as media freedom and pluralism are protected 
by  the  Constitution133.  Article  39  of  the  Constitution  mandates  the  establishment  of  an 
independent  regulatory  body,  which  monitors  the  activities  of  media  outlets  in  radio,  press 
and  audiovisual134.  Legislation  was  adopted  to  transpose  the  revised  Audiovisual  Media 
Services  Directive.  The  Penal  Code135  gives  journalists  protection  while  exercising  their 
activities  on  a  par  with  other  “protected  persons”  (judges,  lawyers,  witnesses,  security 
personnel and sports referees). 

The  Regulatory  Authority  for  the  Media  acquired  new  competences  and  strengthened 
its  interactions  with  media  stakeholders.  The  specific  law  establishing  the  regulatory 
authority for the media (Entidade Reguladora para a Comunicação Social, ERC)136 has not 
experienced  significant  changes.  However,  the  regulatory  authority  for  the  media’s 
competences  have  been  broadened  in  in  the  context  of  the  transposition  of  the  revised 
Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive  (AVMSD),  as  Portugal  modified  the  Law  on 

127  In 2019, the Council for the Prevention of Corruption handled and analysed a total of 796 communications 
(783 judicial communications plus 13 audit reports) representing an increase of around 31.7 % compared to 
the total of 604 reports registered in 2018. 

128  In 2019, 249 investigations and 31 preventive investigations were opened, while 787 complaints were sent to 

other entities and 896 were closed.  

129  Council  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  (2020),  Recommendation  -  Prevention  of  Corruption  Risks  and 

Related Infringements as part of the response measures to the pandemic outbreak of COVID-19.  

130  This  Recommendation  is  addressed  to  all  public  bodies  and  entities  and  to  all  other  entities,  regardless  of 

their nature, which intervene in the management or control of public money and other public values. 

131  Resolution of the Parliament of the Republic No. 4/2021. 
132  Court of Audit, Risks in the use of public resources in the management of emergencies (COVID-19). 
133  Arts. 37-38. 
134  Law  No.  53/2005,  Statutes  of  ERC,  Art.  6,  states:  ‘all  entities  that  pursue  media  activities,  within  the 
jurisdiction of the Portuguese State, are subject to the surveillance and intervention of the regulatory board 
(...)’. 

135  Art. 132 (2) (l). 
136  Statutes of ERC (Law No. 53/2005, of 8 November 2005). 

13 

 
                                                 
Television  and  on  Demand  Audiovisual  Services  in  this  context137.  The  new  competences 
regard,  among  others,  cooperation  with  other  regulatory  authorities  within  the  EU,  video 
sharing  platforms,  and  additional  reporting  and  registry  tasks  (e.g.  lists  of  providers  of  on-
demand  audiovisual  services,  broadcasters  and  video-sharing  platform  providers).  Some  of 
these  new  competences  will  require  new  structures  and  technical  resources.  Given  the 
important  role  that  it  plays  in  the  media  sector,  the  regulatory  authority  for  the  media  has 
strengthened 
the  most  relevant  stakeholders  (e.g.  Journalists’ 
Professional  License  Committee,  Portuguese  Press  Association,  Union  of  Journalists),  and 
participates in the meetings of the recently created Advisory Council of Journalism138. This 
Advisory Council has discussed points of the legislative framework in need of being updated.  

interactions  with 

its 

As reported last year, the transparency of media ownership is ensured. As a result of the 
effective implementation by the regulatory authority for the media of the specific law139 that 
regulates the transparency of ownership across all media markets, including online, the 2021 
Media Pluralism Monitor country report for Portugal (MPM 2021) registers low risk in this 
area140. The MPM 2021 reports a high level of news media concentration, particularly due to 
a  limited  number  of  players  controlling  the  media  industries141.  Nevertheless,  in  a  recent 
study,  the  regulatory  authority  for  the  media  assesses  the  media  landscape  as  diverse  and 
plural142. 

The  Government  put  in  place  media-specific  support  measures  to  mitigate  the 
difficulties faced by media due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These measures took the form 
of  the  advance  purchase  of  an  institutional  advertising  package  worth  EUR  15  million143. 
Since more than half of that amount went to the three major media groups, this lead to some 
concerns and calls from stakeholders and academics for a discussion on a fairer and sustained 
policy to support quality journalism144. Apart from this exceptional support package, there are 
no  direct  subsidies  to  media  other  than  public  service  media145.  Stakeholders  stressed  the 
deterioration  of  working  conditions,  as  30  local  media  outlets  disappeared  since  the 
beginning of the pandemic, budget cuts were implemented by several media groups146 and 80 
staff from a large media group were dismissed despite support from the state. Transparency 
of  state  advertising  continues  to  be  comprehensively  regulated147  with  supervision  of 
compliance ensured by the regulatory authority for the media. 

Standards for the protection of journalists remain high.  Amendments to the Penal Code 
in 2018 gave journalists greater protection while exercising their activities. Following these 
amendments,  journalists  were  included  in  the  categories  of  professions  granted  enhanced 
protection,  and  aggressions  against  journalists  are  considered  “public  crimes”,  thus  not 

137  Law 74/2020, of 19 November 2020.  
138  Information received from ERC in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
139  Law 78/2015, of 29 July. 
140  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor country report for Portugal, p.11.  
141  High levels of ownership concentration can be detected in TV, Radio, and Print Media. It is a challenge to 
obtain  complete  and  up-to-date  information  about  the  online  media  markets.  See  2021  Media  Pluralism 
Monitor country report for Portugal, pp. 11, 19. 

142  ERC, Regulatory Report 2019 (Transparency of Media), p. 241. 
143  Ibid., p. 12. Decree-Law 20-A/2020, of 6 May 2020 and Council of Ministers Resolution No. 38-B/2020, of 

15 May 2020. 

144  Ibid., p. 17. 
145  Ibid., p. 12. 
146  Reporters Without Borders, 2021 World Press Freedom Index, country report for Portugal. 
147  Law No. 95/2015, of 17 August 2015. 

14 

 
                                                 
requiring the victim’s formal complaint to be prosecuted. Such aggressions remain relatively 
rare  in  Portugal,  although  media  stakeholders  point  to  a  lack  of  any  systemic  collecting  of 
data related to  threats  or violence  against journalists, which may lead to  under-reporting of 
violence, in particular online148. According to the MPM 2021, legislation and jurisprudence 
appear to effectively protect journalists149.  

Journalists  have  recently  faced  some  threats  and  limitations  to  their  professional 
activities. In January 2021, it was revealed that four Portuguese journalists were placed under 
police  surveillance  at  the  request  of  a  public  prosecutor  seeking  to  identify  the  journalists’ 
sources150. The order was issued without a warrant from an investigating judge. Stakeholders 
expressed  concern  regarding  the  seriousness  of  this  conduct,  and  called  for  the  prompt 
reaction  of  the  Prosecution  Services  to  ensure  the  freedom  of  the  press151.  While  the 
Prosecution Service considered that no wrongdoing had taken place, the Prosecutor-General’s 
Office  launched  an  investigation  to  be  examined  by  the  High  Council  of  the  Public 
Prosecution Service. One of the journalists has filed a criminal complaint against the public 
prosecutor  and  the  policemen  involved152.  It  has  also  been  reported  that  several  journalists 
were threatened and insulted during an anti-lockdown protest153. A new case of intimidation 
and  threats  against  a  journalist  has  been  reported  in  April  2021154.  Criminal  investigations 
have  been  opened  on  those  cases.  Stakeholders  have  also  voiced  strong  concerns  about  the 
harassment of journalists on social media, a trend that affects female journalists in particular. 
The  Council  of  Europe  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of 
journalists registered two recent alerts for Portugal155. The first alert concerns the surveillance 
case  mentioned  above,  and  has  been  resolved  following  a  reply  submitted  by  Portugal  in 
March  2021156.  The  other  alert  has  to  do  with  threats  and  abuse  of  journalists  by  the 
supporters of a political candidate157.  

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Portugal  is  a  representative  democratic  republic  with  a  directly  elected  President  and  a 
unicameral Parliament. In the semi-presidential regime, the President of the Republic, elected 
by  direct  popular  vote,  has  significant  constitutional  and  political  powers,  including  the 
competence to dissolve Parliament158. The Prime Minister has the competences to direct the 
Government’s general policy and to coordinate and orient the actions of all the Ministers159. 
Parliament  and  the  Government  share  legislative  competence.  The  members  of  Parliament 
and the parliamentary groups, the Government, the regional assemblies and a group of at least 
20  000  citizens  have  the  right  of  legislative  initiative.  The  independent  Ombudsperson  is 

148  Information received in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
149  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor country report for Portugal, p. 9. 
150  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor country report for Portugal, p. 16. 
151  ERC, press release of 13 January 2021. 
152  Letter of the Permanent Representative of Portugal to the Council of Europe of 22 March 2021. 
153  Reporters Without Borders, 2021 World Press Freedom Index, country report for Portugal. 
154  ERC, press release of 28 April 2021. 
155  Council  of  Europe  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  –  Country 

profile Portugal.  

156  Council of Europe - Media freedom alerts. 
157  Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  –  Country 

profile Portugal. 

158  Art. 133(e) of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic. 
159  Art. 201 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic. 

15 

 
                                                 
tasked with safeguarding and promoting the freedoms, rights and guarantees of citizens, and 
has the right to trigger constitutional review. 

Parliament took forward measures to improve the transparency of law-making and the 
quality of legislation. On 1 September 2020, new Rules of Procedure came into force, which 
aim at reinforcing the quality of parliamentary legislation and the procedure’s transparency, 
strengthening respect for the deadlines established for the discussion on draft legislation and 
therefore  also  widening  the  opportunities  for  stakeholders’  involvement  in  the  law-making 
process160. According to the new rules, Government bills must be accompanied not only by 
the  studies  and  documents  that  substantiated  them,  but  also  by  the  advisory  opinions  of 
stakeholders. The new rules also  enable the President of Parliament  to  propose to  the other 
organs with legislative power161 an interinstitutional agreement on common guidelines for the 
quality  of  drafting  of  legislation,  even  though  this  prerogative  has  not  been  used  yet. 
Furthermore, Parliament published updated versions of its legal drafting technical guide and 
of  its  stakeholder’s  public  consultation  technical  guide  in  May  and  October  2020, 
respectively. 

Efforts  are  ongoing  to  implement  ex-ante  impact  assessment  tools.  The  legislative 
initiative  of  the  Government  is  subject  to  an  impact  assessment  of  the  economic  costs  and 
benefits  of the legislative proposal.  Portugal  made impact  assessments  a systematic  ex-ante 
tool  from  the  beginning  of  2017162.  To  support  the  implementation  of  Regulatory  Impact 
Assessment (“RIA”), the Council of Ministers established the Technical Unit for Legislative 
Impact  Assessment  (UTAIL)  within  the  Legal  Centre  of  the  Council  of  Ministers 
(JurisAPP)163  Under  a  current  project164,  UTAIL  is  developing  a  system  to  gather  a 
standardised set of statistical information on administrative regulatory costs in order to make 
the  RIA  system  more  accurate  and  efficient.  At  the  moment,  no  public  consultation  is 
envisaged  as  part  of  the  RIA  procedure.  Under  Portuguese  law165  public  consultation  takes 
place  for  most  legislative  acts  either  through  direct  consultation,  where  the  proposing 
ministry  consults  directly  with  the  relevant  public  or  private  entities,  or  through  public 
consultation, where the draft act is published on the Government Portal ConsultaLex166. 

160  Rules  of  Procedure  of  the  Assembly  of  Republic  No.  1/2020,  of  31  August,  which  came  into  force  on  1 

September 2021. 

161  The Government, the Autonomous Regions Legislative Assemblies, the President of the Republic. 
162  Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 44/2017. 
163  JurisAPP  is  a  public  body  integrated  in  the  Presidency  of  the  Council  of  Ministers,  being,  nevertheless, 
detached  from  the  governmental  structure.  UTAIL  acts  as  an  oversight  body  that  supports  the 
implementation of RIA by developing the impact assessment methodology, providing technical support and 
training to the ministerial cabinets and other public administration organisations, and producing a final report 
for each impact assessment analysis. Following a project on regulatory impact assessment Decree Law 169-
B/2019, which establishes the organisation of the new Portuguese Government, explicitly stipulates that RIA 
should be taken into account, and relevant departments consulted when members of the Government define 
their  positions  in  the  context  of  legislative  discussions  in  the  Council  of  the  EU,  and  is  compulsory  for 
government initiatives. Moreover, this Decree provides that the content of RIA should cover both economic 
and non-economic aspects. 

164  “Standardised  Statistical  Information  for  Better  Regulation  project  (SIBER  project)”  project  supported  by 

European Commission – DG REFORM. 
165  Decree-Law No. 274/2009, of 2 October 2009. 
166  https://www.consultalex.gov.pt. 

16 

 
                                                 
The emergency measures adopted in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic are being 
gradually lifted.  In 2020, the state of emergency was in force from 18 March to 3 May167. 
From May to November 2020, the Government declared at different occasions situations of 
calamity, alert, and contingency, less stringent regimes which allow the Government to adopt 
restrictive  measures  to  prevent  or  react  to  situations  of  danger,  including  regarding  public 
health,  or  re-establish  normality  in  case  of  exceptional  circumstances168,  on  the  basis  of 
ordinary  legislation169.  On  6  November  2020,  the  President  of  Republic  declared  a  further 
state of emergency, which was then extended, and remained in force until 30 April 2021170. 
During  the  state  of  emergency,  Parliament  continued  in  session,  and  data  show  that  it 
continued to exercise its control and legislative activity regularly171. Since 15 March 2021, a 
gradual phasing out plan is in place.  

The  use  of  emergency  powers  was  subject  to  scrutiny  by  Parliament,  courts  and  the 
Ombudsperson. The declaration and extension of the state of emergency is the prerogative 
of the President of the Republic, upon consultation of the Government and authorisation by 
Parliament172. The Government must also submit to Parliament one report for each period of 
state of emergency, regarding its application, thus enabling the Parliament to exercise also an 
ex  post  control  of  the  measures  adopted173.  Parliament  is  currently  analysing  the  reports 
pertaining  to  the  declaration  and  extension  of  the  state  of  emergency  between  November 
2020  and  April  2021174.  Furthermore,  an  ad-hoc  parliamentary  committee  was  created  to 
monitor  the  measures  adopted  to  respond  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The  Ombudsperson 
was  also  called  to  respond  to  a  significant  number  of  complaints  referring  to  COVID-19-
related  measures175.  In  this  context,  the  Ombudsperson  issued  several  recommendations  to 
different  public  authorities  and  requested  clarifications176,  while  also  requesting  the 
constitutional  review  of  one  provision  on  the  support  regime  applicable  to  retailers177. 
Administrative and tax courts were also called to review emergency measures. In particular, 

167  See  also  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  country  chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Portugal,  p.  13  – 
Parliament has analysed three reports and approved three resolutions, regarding the  first declaration of the 
emergency regime and its two renewals (March to April 2020). 

168  All  the  legislation  pertaining  to  the  declaration  and  extension  of  the  situation  of  calamity,  alert,  and 
journal  – 

in  a  dedicated  online  section  of 

the  official 

contingency  have  been  compiled 
https://dre.pt/legislacao-covid-19-areas-tematicas#1. 

169  Law No. 27/2006 on Civil Protection.  
170  All the legislation pertaining to the declaration and extension of the state of emergency have been compiled 
in a dedicated online section of the official journal – https://dre.pt/legislacao-covid-19-areas-tematicas#12.  
171  Input from Portugal for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 20. Statistics on control and legislative activity of 

Parliament available at SE.02.Dezembro2020.Versao.final.pdf (parlamento.pt).  

172  Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Arts. 134(d) and 138. 
173  These reports are submitted to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Rights, Freedoms and  Guarantees 
which  is  responsible,  together  with  the  specific  contribution  of  all  the  other  specialised  permanent 
committees, for the analysis of the compliance of the Government’s reports with the President’s decree and 
the Government’s regulation of the state of emergency. This appreciation leads to a draft of a Parliament’s 
Resolution, which is prepared by the Committee and approved in a plenary sitting. 

174  See also 2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 13. 
175  Contribution  from  the  European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (ENNHRI)  for  the  2021 

Rule of Law Report, p. 267. 

176  Ibid., pp. 267-268. 
177  The  case  is  currently  pending.  The  referral,  submitted  on  20  November  2020,  can  be  consulted  on 

2020_11_20_Tribunal_Constitucional.pdf (provedor-jus.pt). 

17 

 
                                                 
the  Supreme  Administrative  Court  decided  on  12  appeals  referring  to  COVID-19-related 
measures, the majority of which was declared inadmissible178. 

New  challenges  are  emerging  for  civil  society.  Although  the  civil  society  space  is 
considered to  be open179, instances of hostility  and pressure, in  particular by  some political 
parties and movements, against civil society organisations active in the support of minorities 
have been registered180. In this context, stakeholders report a deterioration of social peace and 
dialogue181.  In  October  2020,  several  UN  Special  Rapporteurs  initiated  a  dialogue  with 
Portugal,  regarding  a  case  of  threats  and  harassment  of  human  rights  defenders,  and 
reaffirmed the importance of ensuring a safe and enabling environment for all human rights 
defenders, 
those  advocating  for  equality  and  non-discrimination  and 
documenting racist speech and behaviour, and related human rights violations182. In order to 
reinforce  the  policies  on  combating  racism  and  discrimination,  the  Portuguese  Government 
created a working group on the prevention and combat of racial discrimination, in which the 
civil  society  is  represented183.  The  COVID-19  pandemic  and  the  associated  emergency 
measures have also had an impact on the activity of civil society organisations, which has led 
to  calls  for  extraordinary  public  financial  support184.  In  this  context,  the  Government  and  a 
high number of municipalities provided extraordinary financial support to such organisations 
so as to guarantee their regular work185. 

in  particular 

A  new  law  on  the  statute  of  public  utility  has  been  approved  in  Parliament.  Upon  the 
Government’s  legislative  initiative186,  Parliament  approved  in  April  2021  a  new  statute 
granting legal persons recognised as pursuing objectives of general interest particular rights, 
including  access  to  specific  funding  or  tax  exemptions.  Although  concerns  were  raised 
regarding  the  inclusiveness  of  the  formal  consultation  process  of  the  new  law,  for  which  a 
limited number of civil society organisations was formally invited to submit their opinion187, 
the  broader  participation  of  stakeholders  was  possible  through  an  open  consultation188.  The 
new law aims at consolidating and streamlining the legislative framework applicable to legal 
persons benefiting from the statute of public utility, and implements a system of oversight of 
their activities, to be performed by the Secretariat General of the Presidency of the Council of 
Ministers, and compliance with legal duties189.  

178  Information received in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
179  Rating by CIVICUS; ratings are on a five-category scale defined as: open, narrowed, obstructed, repressed 

and closed. 

180  Contribution from ENNHRI for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 262. 
181  CIVICUS, Country profile – Portugal.  
182  Contribution  from  OHCHR  –  Portugal  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  6;  see  also  Mandates  of  the 
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; the Special Rapporteur on the rights to 
freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; the  Special Rapporteur on the situation of  human rights 
defenders and the Special  Rapporteur on contemporary  forms of racism, racial discrimination,  xenophobia 
and related intolerance, letter of 23 October 2020, AL PRT 1/2020. 

183  Contribution  from  ENNHRI  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  262;  see  also  Portuguese  Government, 

press release of 8 January 2021. 

184  Information received in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
185  Ibid., p. 12. 
186  Legislative proposal No. 72/XIV/2. 
187  CIVICUS, Country profile – Portugal. 
188  The  open  consultation  took  place  from  21  October  2020  to  24  November  2020,  via  the  official  portal 

www.consultalex.gov.pt.  

189  The legal duties applicable to the legal persons benefiting from the statute of public utility are listed in Art. 
12  of  the  new  law,  and  include,  among  others,  reporting  obligations  to  the  Secretariat  General  of  the 

18 

 
                                                 
 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2020 Rule of Law report 
can  be  found  at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-
law/rule-law/rule-law-mechanism/2021-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation. 

Associação  Sindical  dos  Juízes  Portugueses  (2020),  Reforço  da  Transparência  e  Integridade  na 
Justiça. 

Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2021), Media pluralism monitor 2021.  

Civicus 
(https://monitor.civicus.org/country/portugal/). 

Monitor 

(2021), 

tracking 

civic 

space 

– 

Portugal 

Communication from Portugal concerning the case of VICENTE CARDOSO v. Portugal (Application 
No. 30130/10), DH-DD(2020)952. 

Conselho Superior da Magistratura (2021), Relatório Anual 2020. 

Council for the Prevention of Corruption (2020), Recommendation - Prevention of Corruption Risks 
and Related Infringements as part of the response measures to the pandemic outbreak of COVID-19. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2010),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the 
Committee  of  Ministers  to  member  states  on  judges:  independence,  efficiency  and  responsibilities 
(https://rm.coe.int/cmrec-2010-12-on-independence-efficiency-responsibilites-of-judges/16809f007d). 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2018),  H46-20  Vicente  Cardoso  group  v.  Portugal 
(Application  No.  30130/10)  –  Supervision  of  the  execution  of  the  European  Court’s  judgments 
CM/Del/Dec(2018)1331/H46-20. 

Council of Europe: Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) (2007), Opinion No.10(2007)to 
the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the Council for the Judiciary 
at the service of society (https://rm.coe.int/168074779b). 

Council of Europe: Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) (2020), Opinion No. 23 on the 
role 
independence 
in 
(https://www.coe.int/en/web/ccje/opinion-no.-23-on-the-role-of-judicial-associations-2020-). 

the  Associations 

supporting 

judicial 

Judges 

the 

of 

of 

Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists 
(https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom/all-
alerts?p_p_id=sojdashboard_WAR_coesojportlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_col_id=column-
4&p_p_col_count=1&_sojdashboard_WAR_coesojportlet_selectedStringFilters=year.2021&_sojdash
board_WAR_coesojportlet_selectedCategories=11709562). 

Council of Ministers, Resolution No. 44/2017. 

Council of Ministers, Resolution No. 184/2019. 

Council  of  the  European  Union  (2020),  Council  Recommendation  of  20  July  2020  on  the  2020 
National  Reform  Programme  of  Portugal  and  delivering  a  Council  opinion  on  the  2020  Stability 
Programme 
(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
Portugal 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32020H0826%2822%29). 

of 

Court  of  Audit  (2020),  Risks  in  the  use  of  public  resources  in  the  management  of  emergencies 
(COVID-19) 
(http://img.rtp.pt/icm/noticias/docs/f4/f4128b9356da5f94eb58df98fe9f1f26_e51017edff2ec38b4d9dc
71908e515d9.pdf). 

Directive  (EU)  2020/1828  on  representative  actions  for  the  protection  of  the  collective  interests  of 
consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC. 

Presidency  of  the  Council  of  Ministers,  including  regarding  the  activity  report,  and  the  obligation  to 
cooperate with central, regional and local administrations. 

19 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
Entidade Reguladora para a Comunicação Social (2021), press release of 13 January 2021. 

Entidade Reguladora para a Comunicação Social (2021), press release of 28 April 2021. 

Entidade Reguladora para a Comunicação Social (2021), Regulatory Report 2019 (Transparency 
of Media) 

European Commission (2019), Flash Eurobarometer 482: Businesses' attitudes towards corruption in 
the EU. 

European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Portugal (https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/pt_rol_country_chapter.pdf). 

European Commission (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: Corruption. 

European Commission (2021), EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (2021),  Contribution  from  the  European 
Network of National Human Rights Institutions for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

European Research Council (2021), press release of 13 January 2021. 

GRECO  (2021),  Fourth  evaluation  round  on  corruption  prevention  in  respect  of  members  of 
Parliament, judges and prosecutors – Second Interim compliance report Portugal. 

High Council for the Administrative and Tax Courts (2021), Annual Report 2019.  

High Council for the Judiciary (2020), Annual Report 2020. 

High Council for the Judiciary (2021), Contribution from the High Council for the Judiciary for the 
2021 Rule of Law Report. 

High Council for the Judiciary (2021), press release of 4 May 2021. 

Magistrats  européens  pour  la  démocratie  et  les  libertés  (2021),  Contribution  from  Magistrats 
européens pour la démocratie et les libertés for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

Media Pluralism Monitor (2021), Report on Portugal. 

OHCHR (2021), Contribution for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

Permanent  Representative  of  Portugal  to  the  Council  of  Europe  (2021),  Letter  of  22  March  2021 
(https://rm.coe.int/portugal-reply-en-lisbon-public-prosecutor-puts-the-protection-of-
sour/1680a1e03b). 

Portuguese Government (2021), Input from Portugal for the 2021 Rule of Law Report.  

Portuguese  Government  (2021),  Resolution  of the  Council  of Ministers  No.  37/2021,  Approving the 
National  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  (Resolução  do  Conselho  de  Ministros  37/2021,  2021-04-06  - 
DRE). 

Portuguese  Supreme  and  Administrative  Court  (2021),  Contribution  from  the  Portuguese  Supreme 
and Administrative Court for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

Público  (2020),  “Lack  of  human  resources  explains  slowness  of  justice  in  corruption  cases  says 
PGR”,  Público,  6 January  2020  (https://www.publico.pt/2020/01/06/sociedade/noticia/falta-recursos-
humanos-explica-lentidao-justica-casos-corrupcao-pgr-1899401). 

Public  Prosecutor  (2020),  Draft  code  of  conduct  For  Public  Ministry  Magistrates  -  Public 
(https://www.ministeriopublico.pt/pagina/projeto-de-codigo-de-conduta-dos-
Consultation 
magistrados-do-ministerio-publico-consulta-publica). 

Sindicato dos Magistrados do Ministério Público (2021), press release of 6 April 2021. 

“Standardised  Statistical  Information  for  Better  Regulation  project  (SIBER  project)”  project 
supported by European Commission – DG REFORM. 

Transparency International (2021), Corruption Perceptions Index 2020. 

20 

 
“Reviewing and supporting Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) in Portugal” project supported by 
European Commission – DG REFORM. 

21 

 
Annex II: Country visit to Portugal 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in May 2021 with: 

  Academic experts 
  Bar Association 
  Central Department of criminal action and investigation (DCIAP) 
  Court of Audits 
  Council for the Prevention of Corruption 
  Regulatory Authority for the Media 
  High Council for the Magistracy 
  High Council for Administrative and Tax Courts 
 
Inspectorate-General of Finance 
 
Journalists’ Professional License Committee 
 
Journalists Union 
 
Judges Union 
  Ministry of Culture 
  Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
  Ministry of Justice 
  Office of the Prosecutor General 
  Ombudsperson 
  Platform of NGOD 
  Prosecutors Union 
  Services of the Assembly of the Republic 
  Supreme Administrative Court 
  Supreme Court of Justice 
  Transparency International – Portugal 

 * The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings: 

  Amnesty International 
  Center for Reproductive Rights 
  CIVICUS 
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe 
  Conference of European Churches 
  EuroCommerce 
  European Center for Not-for-Profit Law 
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom 
  European Civic Forum 
  European Federation of Journalists 
  European Partnership for Democracy  
  European Youth Forum 
  Front Line Defenders 
  Human Rights House Foundation  
  Human Rights Watch  
 
 
 

ILGA-Europe 
International Commission of Jurists 
International Federation for Human Rights 

22 

 
 
 
International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN) 
 
International Press Institute 
  Netherlands Helsinki Committee  
  Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Philanthropy Advocacy 
  Protection International  
  Reporters without Borders 
  Transparency International EU 

23