II. LEGISLATION

Ordinance no. 286/2026/1, of July 3: Establishes the core structure of the Directorate-General for Solidarity and Social Security.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/12700/0002300028.pdf

Declaration of Rectification no. 25-A/2026/1, of July 3: Amends Decree-Law No. 96/2026, of May 4, which amends Decree-Law No. 113/2013, of August 7, and transposes Delegated Directive (EU) 2024/1262 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/12701/0000200002.pdf 

Ordinance no. 286-A/2026/1, of July 3: Proceeds with the review and setting of the unit rates for the tax on petroleum and energy products.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/12702/0000200003.pdf

Ordinance no. 286-B/2026/1, of July 3: It introduces the eighth amendment to Ordinance no. 224/2015, dated July 27, which establishes the legal framework governing the prescription and dispensing of medications and health products and defines the information that must be provided to patients.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/12702/0000400006.pdf 

Resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 141-A/2026, of July 3: Creates «series 5» Treasury certificates and orders the suspension of new subscriptions for the Treasury Savings Value Certificates.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/12703/0000200005.pdf 

Ordinance no. 287/2026/1, of July 7: It proceeds with the second amendment to Ordinance no. 7-A/2024, of January 5, with the aim of strengthening the system of payments on account to entities that issue transit tickets.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/12900/0001200014.pdf 

Decree-Law no. 134/2026, of July 9: Amends the legal framework governing retail investment product packages and insurance-based investment products, as set forth in Annex II to Law no. 35/2018, of July 20.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/13100/0000200005.pdf 

Decree-Law no. 136/2026, of July 10: Amends Decree-Law no. 60/2008, of March 27, which ensures the implementation of Regulation (EEC) no. 4045/89 concerning controls by Member States of transactions that form part, directly or indirectly, of the financing system of the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/13200/0000200004.pdf 

Decree-Law no. 139/2026, of July 10: Amends Decree-Law no. 87-A/2025, of July 25, which establishes the rules governing the organization and operation of the XXV Constitutional Government.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/13200/0002000022.pdf 

Ordinance no. 294-A/2026/1, of July 10: It revises and sets the unit rates for the tax on petroleum and energy products.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/13201/0000200003.pdf 

Declaration of Rectification no. 26/2026/1, of July 13: Amends Decree-Law no. 97/2026, of May 20, which, pursuant to the authorization granted by Law no. 9-A/2026, of March 6, approves tax relief measures to promote the supply of housing.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/13300/0001000011.pdf 

Ordinance no. 296-B/2026/1, of July 15: It proceeds with the second amendment to Ordinance no. 86-A/2026/1, of February 20, which regulated the extraordinary aid as provided for in Council of Ministers Resolution no. 17-A/2026, of February 3, establishing the financial aid program resulting from the state of emergency caused by Storm «Kristin».

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/13501/0000200003.pdf

Ordinance no. 298/2026/1, of July 16: Amendment to Ordinance no. 221/2017, of July 21, which approves the forms for the periodic VAT return, Annex R, and the annexes for adjustments to fields 40 and 41, as well as the respective instructions for completing them.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/13600/0002300051.pdf

Ordinance no. 301-A/2026/1, of July 17: It revises and sets the unit rates for the tax on petroleum and energy products.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/13701/0000200003.pdf 

Law no. 33/2026, of July 21: Transposes Directive (EU) 2023/977 on the exchange of information between law enforcement authorities of the Member States, and Directive (EU) 2023/2123, which amends Council Decision 2005/671/JHA with regard to its alignment with Union rules on the protection of personal data, amends Law no. 52/2003 of August 22, which enacts the Anti-Terrorism Law, and repeals Law no. 74/2009, of August 12, which establishes the rules governing the exchange of criminal data and information between the authorities of the Member States.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/13900/0000300013.pdf 

Ordinance no. 306/2026/1, of July 22: This amends, for the eighth time, Ordinance no. 182/2018, of June 22, which regulates the working conditions of administrative employees not covered by specific collective bargaining agreements.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/14000/0000700024.pdf 

Ordinance no. 314-B/2026/1, of July 24: It revises and sets the unit rates for the tax on petroleum and energy products.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/14201/0000600007.pdf 

Law no. 34/2026, of July 27: Amends the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Penal Code, and the Regulations on Court Fees.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/14300/0000300015.pdf

Law no. 35/2026, of July 27: It sets forth the objectives, priorities, and guidelines of criminal policy for the 2026–2028 biennium, in accordance with Law no. 17/2006, of May 23, which enacts the Framework Law on Criminal Policy.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/14300/0001600032.pdf

Law no. 36/2026, of July 27: Authorizes the Government to establish a single social benefit under the social security solidarity subsystem.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/14300/0003300036.pdf 

Declaration of Rectification no. 29-A/2026/1, of July 27: Amends Decree-Law no. 108/2026, of May 29, which revises the rules governing the licensing of urban development projects and amends the legal framework for urban development and construction, as well as the legal framework for urban renewal.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/14301/0000200007.pdf 

Law no. 37/2026, of July 28: Transposes Directive (EU) 2024/1260 on the recovery and forfeiture of assets, amending the Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, Law no. 5/2002, of January 11, Law no. 45/2011, of June 24, the Law on the Organization of the Judicial System, and Decree-Law no. 109-E/2021, of December 9.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/14400/0000300033.pdf 

Law no. 37-A/2026, of July 28: Establishes the organisational structure of the Transparency Registry for Interest Representation and amends Law no. 5-A/2026, of January 28.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/14401/0000200006.pdf 

Ordinance no. 318/2026/1, of July 30: Approves the tax return provided for in article 45(1)(c) of the Global Minimum Tax Regime (RIMG).

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/14600/0001500020.pdf 

Ordinance no. 320-C/2026/1, of July 31: Amends various ordinances establishing the support schemes provided for in Portugal’s Strategic Plan for the Common Agricultural Policy (PEPAC Portugal) for the 2023–2027 period, in order to align the system for verifying compliance with obligations related to the Central Register of Beneficial Owners (RCBE).

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/14702/0001600029.pdf

Ordinance no. 320-D/2026/1, of July 31: It revises and sets the unit rates for the tax on petroleum and energy products.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/14703/0000600007.pdf 

Decree-Law no. 155-B/2026, of July 31: Amends Decree-Law no. 108/2026, of May 29, by postponing its effective date.

https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/14705/0000200003.pdf

III. CASE-LAW
III.1. Court of Justice of the European Union

Constitutional Court Ruling no. 711/2026, of July 15, Case no. 359/2024:

“a) Not to declare unconstitutional the legal interpretation derived from the combined provisions of Articles 108, 109, 113(2)(x) and (pp), and 113(6) of the LCE in force at the time of the events, that is to say, Law No. 5/2004 of 10 February, as amended by Law No. 15/2016 of 17 June, Article 54(1) of the General Regime on Administrative Offences, and Articles 125, 126 and 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the effect that the administrative authority may require an entity, under threat of a penalty, to provide information which is used to establish the objective element of the offence;

b) Not to declare unconstitutional the provision of Article 3(2) of the Framework Regime for Administrative Offences in the Communications Sector (Law No. 99/2009 of 4 September), interpreted as meaning that it is not necessary to specifically identify the individual who committed the offence for it to be attributable to the legal person;

c) Not to declare unconstitutional the normative interpretation resulting from the combined application of Article 3(2) of the Framework Regime for Administrative Offences in the Communications Sector (Law No 99/2009 of 4 September), Article 8(1) of the General Regime for Administrative Offences and Article 14, (1) of the Criminal Code, to the effect that a legal person may be convicted of the intentional commission of an administrative offence subject to the RQCOSC regime without any fact relating to the intellectual and volitional elements of intent being attributed to the members of its governing bodies, holders of management and leadership positions, employees in the performance of their duties, agents or representatives, it being sufficient to attribute those elements directly to the legal person itself;

d) Not to declare unconstitutional the normative interpretation resulting from the combined application of Article 113(6) of the LCE in force at the time of the facts, namely Law No. 5/2004 of 10 February, as amended by Law No. 15/2016 of 17 June, with Article 113(2)(x) of the same Law, interpreted as meaning that the adoption, by undertakings providing publicly available electronic communications networks or services, of habitual or standardised conduct resulting in a serious or very serious infringement constitutes an aggravating circumstance in relation to the basic offence;

e) In all other respects, to dismiss the appeal as inadmissible; and, consequently,

f) To dismiss the appeal in the part on which it is admissible.”.

https://www.tribunalconstitucional.pt/tc/acordaos/20260591.html

III.2. Constitutional Court

Constitutional Court Ruling no. 591/2026, of June 15, Case no. 1144/25:

“Accordingly, and on these grounds, it is hereby decided:

a) Not to declare unconstitutional the provisions set out in Article 61(1)(d), Article 125 and Article 126(1) and (2)(a), all of the Code of Criminal Procedure, interpreted as meaning that ‘inspection reports and tax-relevant documents obtained in the course of a tax inspection procedure – the legal framework of which provides for cooperation between the tax authorities and private individuals and which is carried out whilst a criminal investigation concerning the person under inspection is pending – may be used as evidence in criminal tax proceedings’;

b) To dismiss in this respect the appeals lodged by A., B., C., D., E., F., Unipessoal, Lda. and G.;

c) In all other respects, not to consider the subject-matter of the appeal.”.

https://www.tribunalconstitucional.pt/tc/acordaos/20260591.html 

III.3. Judicial Courts

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, of July 7, Case no. 3408/21.4T8GDM-F.P1.S1: Inventory. Divorce. Common property of the couple. Personal property. Improvements. Community of acquired property. Annulment of a judgment. Duty to state reasons. Powers of the Court of Appeal. Powers of the Supreme Court of Justice. Evidence. Discretionary assessment of evidence. Private document. Substantive rules of evidence. Prescribed evidence.

Summary:

“I – Pursuant to Article 1724(b) of the Civil Code, in the context of the regime of marital community of acquired property, “property acquired by the spouses during the marriage, which is not excluded by law, forms part of the community.”

II - Such assets, which are presumed to be joint property unless the contrary is proved, must be listed in the inventory following the divorce, with a view to their division.

III – This will not apply only if evidence is produced showing that such assets ceased to form part of the couple’s joint estate on the date the divorce proceedings were brought, in accordance with the provisions of Article 1789 of the Civil Code.”.

https://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/968b9a183a767bc080258e37004e437e?OpenDocument

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, of July 13, Case no. 20140/23.7T8LSB-A.L1-A.S1: Dilatória exception. Material jurisdiction. Public enterprise. Public limited company. Director. Dismissal. Fair cause. Resignation. Ordinary court. Civil proceedings. Applicable legal regime. Civil liability. Order to pay costs. Reversal. Remaining court fees.

Summary:

“I - The action seeking a declaration of the unlawfulness of the ‘dismissal’ – the removal of a director of a state-owned public company organised as a public limited company – on the grounds of lack of justification – ‘just cause’ – and an order for compensation arising from that termination, as well as the payment of claims arising from the performance of the ‘employment relationship’ — the administrative relationship — falls within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts (Articles 64 and 65 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Article 40(1), Article 117(1)(a) (‘central civil court’) and Article 130(1) of the Law on the Organisation of the Judiciary; 23(2) of the RJSPE)

II - Members of the governing bodies of public enterprises (including state-owned companies) have the status and standing of public sector managers (Articles 21 of the RJSPE; Articles 1 and 3 of the EGP), appointed, in particular, in accordance with Article 13 of the EGP and subject to the private company law regime of the CSC in all matters not specifically regulated and to the extent that they are consistent with the CSC (Article 40 of the EGP).

III - Between the person appointed as a public sector managers of a public limited company (limited liability company), who accepts the appointment, which is (now) registered and published in accordance with Article 391(2) of the CSC and Article 3(1)(m), Article 5(1)(c), and Article 70(1)(a) and (2) of the Commercial Register Regulations (CRgCom). (and Article 61 of the RJSPE) and the publicly owned company, a legal relationship of administration is established, of an organisational and corporate nature, arising from unilateral legal-administrative acts (ministerial resolutions) or private-law acts, involving the assumption of a legal position or status which encompasses, as a complex and functional legal relationship, powers, obligations, ties and constraints specific to the status and function or office of a company director, derived from the provisions set out and elaborated in the Law, the articles of association, the ‘internal’ administrative regulations, and the management or administration contracts – in this case, the ‘management contract’ provided for in Article 18 of the EGP – and in the resolutions of other corporate bodies (beginning with the shareholders’ resolutions or a shareholder’s decision regarding day-to-day management), with the specific features and limitations inherent to the public business sector as regards the board of directors.”.

https://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/e530b3a952d14dd580258e3600461c25?OpenDocument 

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, of July 21, Case no. 2/22.6GMLSB-E.S1: Habeas corpus. Pre-trial detention. Unlawful detention. Deadline. Detention. First judicial hearing of a detained defendant. Coercive measures. Exceptional complexity. Specific review of constitutionality. Dismissal.

Summary: 

“- The habeas corpus provision, which has its constitutional basis in Article 31 of the CRP and is set out in Articles 220 to 224 of the CPP, constitutes a specific and expeditious mechanism for guaranteeing the right to liberty, which is autonomous in nature and distinct from an appeal, and whose subject matter is not a judicial decision, but the very current state of unlawful deprivation of liberty itself, reserved for situations of abuse of power or gross error expressly provided for by law.

II - The starting point (dies a quo) for calculating the maximum periods of pre-trial detention laid down in Article 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponds to the date on which the court order imposing that coercive measure is issued, and not to the time of the arrest that preceded it; this interpretation has been the consistent and established case law of the Supreme Court of Justice for over two decades.

III – The period of detention prior to the order imposing pre-trial detention is not taken into account when calculating those time limits; rather, it is taken into account for the purposes of the reduction in sentence provided for in Article 80 of the Criminal Code.

IV - Such interpretation of Articles 215 and 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not constitutionally objectionable, in accordance with the case-law of the Constitutional Court (Judgments Nos. 61/2023, 1129/2025 and 129/2026), which does not require detention and pre-trial detention to be treated as a single category, as they constitute distinct procedural realities, each with its own basis, purpose and legal regime.

V – The question of whether detention may be maintained, without being subject to a maximum time limit, between the first judicial interrogation carried out within 48 hours and the order imposing the coercive measure relates solely to the regime of detention — the assessment of which, in habeas corpus proceedings, falls within the remit of the investigating judge (Article 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) — and not to the regime of pre-trial detention, which falls outside the scope of the Supreme Court of Justice’s jurisdiction.

VI - A case-by-case assessment of the (un)justification for extending detention in the specific case falls outside the scope of a habeas corpus order; such an order cannot, in the guise of a normative question of constitutionality, become a remedy functionally akin to an appeal for constitutional protection, which is alien to the model of diffuse review (Article 204 of the CRP) and concrete/concentrated review (Article 280 of the CRP).

VII – Given that pre-trial detention was ordered by a ruling of 28 July 2025, and given that the maximum period applicable during the investigation phase of a case declared to be of exceptional complexity is 1 (one) year [Article 215(1)(a), (2), (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure], that period will only expire on 28 July 2026 and has not yet been exceeded; consequently, the present application must be dismissed for lack of sufficient grounds.”.

https://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/2584fad78ce1adb680258e4400303991?OpenDocument

Judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeal, of July 9, Case no. 6858/23.8T8LSB.L1-6: Homebanking. Liability. Burden of proof.

Summary: 

“1. As Homebanking is a service provided by the Bank to the Customer, it is the Bank’s responsibility to ensure the security of the service and that the customer can rely on it; furthermore, the customer must use this service in accordance with the security rules communicated to them by the Bank and those which, according to generally accepted standards, the average user knows must be observed.

2. Given that only the bank possesses the necessary mechanisms to ensure the operational capability of the complex IT system it uses and the regularity of its operation, it is natural that the burden of proof should rest with it (i) to demonstrate that the payment orders given by the customer were duly authorised through the effective use of the authentication mechanisms made available, as well as having been correctly recorded and accounted for, and that their execution was free from any technical fault or deficiency in the service provided by the payment service provider or, alternatively, (ii) the burden of proving that the user acted negligently, with gross negligence or fraudulently (Article 70 of the RJSPME).

3. In principle, accessing a webpage via a Google search, using settings identical to those of the Defendants, cannot, in itself, be regarded as inexcusable negligence.

4. The evidence provided by the Bank that the payment transaction was authenticated, recorded and accounted for does not, in itself, prove that the payment transaction was authorised by the payer, as such authorisation presupposes the proper and acceptable functioning of the payment system, as an act of will on the part of its user, which is not the case in a situation such as that in the present case.

5. Considering the transaction to be unauthorised, pursuant to Article 113(3) of the RJSPME, the Defendant may only be exempted from liability by proving that the Claimant failed, either wilfully or through gross negligence, to fulfil one or more of the obligations set out in Article 110 of the RJSPME.

6. Accessing a webpage via a Google search, which has a layout identical to that of the Defendants – but with an address entirely different from that of the Defendant and not liable to be confused with it, combined with the entry of a code received to effect a transfer of €15,000.00, when the Claimant did not intend to make any transfer whatsoever, enables us to conclude that there was a gross and inexcusable lack of attention on the part of the Claimant.”.

https://www.dgsi.pt/jtrl.nsf/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec/0cbff35fb0e3b25780258e37003288e9?OpenDocument

Judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeal, of July 14, Case no. 563/07.0TYLSB-BM.L1-1: Partial apportionment schedule. Final apportionment schedule. Assignee creditor. Special property charge. Mortgage. Refund of overpayment.

Summary: 

“I. The final apportionment schedule must comply with the provisions set out in the judgement verifying and ranking the claims (the creditors and their respective claims identified therein, together with the corresponding ranking).

II. Once the debts of the insolvency estate have been paid, payment shall be made to claims secured by the proceeds of the sale of assets encumbered by security interests and, thereafter, to preferential claims (the latter to be paid ‘at the expense of assets not subject to prevailing security interests’); however, employment claims enjoying a special property privilege take precedence over mortgage claims.

III. Payments made as part of a partial apportionment are conditional, as they relate to claims whose verification and ranking have not yet been carried out; they are processed within a ‘framework’ that may be regarded as legally provisional, and to that extent may imply that, at the time of the final apportionment, adjustments will have to be made to ensure strict compliance with the provisions of the final ranking order, and that any amounts paid in excess will have to be returned to the insolvency estate.”.

https://www.dgsi.pt/jtrl.nsf/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec/f1d4354d4410d16780258e3c003da711?OpenDocument

Judgment of the Coimbra Court of Appeal, of July 3, Case no. 91/26.4T8GRD.C1: Divorce proceedings without the consent of one of the spouses. Grounds. Litispendence. Nullity of the judgment.

Summary: 

“1. Litispendence is a dilatory exception which presupposes the repetition of a case, characterised by the identity of the parties, the claim and the cause of action, whilst the previous case is still pending; its fundamental purpose is to prevent the court from being placed in the position of having to contradict or repeat a previous decision.

2. The determination of lis pendens between two non-consensual divorce proceedings involving the same spouses requires the grounds for the claim to be identical; lis pendens does not arise if the proceedings are based on different grounds – see, e.g., one based on a breach of marital duties and the other on de facto separation for one year – and the mere coincidence of the parties and the claim for dissolution of the marriage is insufficient for the objection to be upheld.”.

https://www.dgsi.pt/jtrc.nsf/8fe0e606d8f56b22802576c0005637dc/3aa8a5ca2768785380258e4400330b8c?OpenDocument

Judgment of the Coimbra Court of Appeal, of July 9, Case no. 121/26.0GBCNT-A.C1: Retention and preservation of traffic data and associated mobile phone location data. Implications of Constitutional Court Judgment No. 268/2022. The existence of a suspect or a sufficiently identified individual.

Summary: 

“1. Constitutional Court Judgment no. 268/2022 declared the provisions of Articles 4 and 6 of Law no. 32/2008, of July 17 to be unconstitutional, with general binding force, and the partial unconstitutionality of Article 9 of the same Act, whilst not addressing Articles 187 and 189 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicability of which was not affected by that decision.

2. Article 189(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not limited to the interception and recording of communications in real time, but also covers access to traffic data and mobile phone location data retained or stored by electronic communications operators, even where such data relates to past communications.

3. The retention of traffic data under Article 6 of Law no. 41/2004, of August 18 does not, in the abstract, preclude the possibility of its use as evidence in criminal proceedings, provided that the conditions laid down in Article 189 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are met.

4. The collection of traffic and mobile phone location data under Article 189(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure presupposes the existence of a suspect or a sufficiently identified individual, in accordance with Article 187(4)(a), read in conjunction with Article 1(1)(e), both of the same Code; the mere recording of individuals by video surveillance systems is not sufficient where there is no evidence to link them to specific users of electronic communications services.

5. The procedure set out in Article 189(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to identify, from an indeterminate group of users of electronic communications registered in specific BTS cells, the potential perpetrators of a crime, as it is a means of obtaining evidence intended for the collection of evidence relating to suspects who have already been identified, and not for their initial identification.

6. In the absence of a specific or sufficiently identified suspect, the collection of traffic data and mobile phone location data may not be authorised under Article 189(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”.

 https://www.dgsi.pt/jtrc.nsf/8fe0e606d8f56b22802576c0005637dc/0e7b186785bf099d80258e44003c85cb?OpenDocument

III.4. Administrative and Tax Courts

Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, of 1 July, Case no. 02223/21.0BEBRG: IRS. Tax transparency. Deductions. Tax collection.

Summary:

“The deduction from personal income tax of a tax credit (in this case, SIFIDE II), which was generated within a company subject to the tax transparency regime, pursuant to Article 6 of the Corporation Tax Code, and subsequently allocated to the shareholder, is subject to the overall quantitative limits applicable to tax deductions, as provided for in Article 78(7) of the Personal Income Tax Code.”.

https://www.dgsi.pt/jsta.nsf/35fbbbf22e1bb1e680256f8e003ea931/19997676e212b44a80258e28005291e3?OpenDocument 

Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, of July 14, Case no. 0155/24.9BESNT: State aid. Suspension of tax enforcement. Security. Proportionality. Principle of equality. Effective judicial protection.

Summary:

“I - Although the CJEU does not entirely rule out the possibility of tax enforcement being suspended upon the provision of a guarantee, such a suspension is only compatible with the objective of recovering unlawful aid if the distortion of competition is entirely eliminated by the security provided, which is only the case if the sum corresponding to the amount of the unlawful aid and the related interest is rendered unavailable in the assets of the beneficiary of that aid.

II – In the present case, the security offered – a surety – specifically undermines the ultimate objective of the immediate and effective recovery of the amount of aid deemed unlawful and the restoration of the situation that existed prior to its grant.

III - The guarantee, as a legal obligation whereby a third party (the guarantor) personally undertakes an obligation to the creditor, pledging their assets to ensure the satisfaction of the creditor’s claim against the debtor, does not constitute a guarantee that deprives the beneficiary (the party subject to enforcement) of the corresponding unlawful aid, which is the only situation in which the CJEU accepts that tax enforcement proceedings brought to recover such aid may be suspended.

IV – The measure to recover unlawful aid only infringes the principle of proportionality if the amount the beneficiary is required to repay exceeds the discounted value of the aid received.

V - The recovery of unlawful aid, in accordance with the terms set out by the CJEU, is the means of eliminating the market advantage gained through the granting of unlawful aid over other competitors, thereby restoring the situation that existed prior to the granting of the aid; this is not the case with regard to other tax liabilities which are not based on, or grounded in, those decisions of the European Commission.

VI – The right to effective judicial protection is not an absolute right. In this case, the nature of the admissible safeguards is subject to a limitation justified by the objective pursued by European legislation on the recovery of unlawful State aid.”.

https://www.dgsi.pt/jsta.nsf/35fbbbf22e1bb1e680256f8e003ea931/72d0935b91bb36f280258e34005ac16b?OpenDocument