Portugal

Commercial claims are adjudicated by the common courts’ jurisdiction, which is structured hierarchically into three levels: courts of first instance, courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court of Justice.

The courts of first instance are divided by judicial districts and can be divided into specialised sections, namely, civil courts (where commercial claims are adjudicated), criminal courts, family and minors’ courts, labour courts, commerce courts, enforcement courts and small claim courts.

Small claim courts have jurisdiction over commercial disputes where the claim amount does not exceed EUR 15,000.

Commercial disputes may alternatively be submitted to arbitration, which is governed by distinct procedural rules and generally offers a faster resolution than judicial proceedings. This expedited process, however, entails higher costs, as parties must bear arbitral fees in addition to legal representation expenses.

In judicial courts, assuming no delays or exceptional circumstances, a verdict in straightforward cases may be reached within an average timeframe of 17 months. Hearings in commercial disputes generally last between one and three days and may be scheduled with intervals ranging from several days to several weeks or months.

The procedural rules governing commercial litigation are the same as the ones for all common courts, primarily governed by the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure, without prejudice to any specific statutory rules that may apply.

The Portuguese civil procedural rules are rooted in the constitutional principle of due process and are designed to ensure the fair conduct of proceedings.

The procedural framework is guided by fundamental principles, including the right of access to justice, which guarantees parties the ability to seek judicial protection of their rights and interests. Under the dispositive principle, the parties bear the burden of alleging and proving the relevant facts, which delimit the scope of the dispute and bind the court at the factual level. The court, however, is not bound by the legal arguments advanced by the parties and may determine the applicable law.

This reflects the inquisitorial principle, as set out in Articles 6 and 411 of the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure, pursuant to which the court is vested with authority to direct the conduct of the proceedings and to order such evidentiary measures as required to ascertain the truth, within the factual framework defined by the parties. Nevertheless, Portuguese courts ruling over commercial claims cannot introduce new facts of their own motion and must only order or direct the production of evidence within a factual framework pleaded by the parties.

The principle of equality of arms is a cornerstone of civil proceedings, ensuring that the parties enjoy equal procedural rights and are subject to the same obligations. The adversarial principle further requires that no decision may be rendered by the competent court without first affording the parties an opportunity to be heard.

Portuguese law does not impose mandatory pre-action conduct requirements. Nevertheless, it is customary to give notice to the opposing party prior to commencing judicial proceedings, with a view to achieving an amicable settlement and avoiding litigation.

In the absence of a contractual deadline, the claimant is required to grant the counterparty a reasonable period to fulfil its obligations. The use of registered correspondence is advisable, as it serves to formally evidence default and demonstrates that the defaulting party was afforded an adequate opportunity to comply. Such correspondence may be relevant in establishing definitive breach, particularly where the court assesses whether an objective loss of interest in performance has occurred.

In Portugal, the principal ADR mechanism used in large commercial disputes is arbitration.

The most prominent domestic arbitral institution is the Commercial Arbitration Centre of the Portuguese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CAC-CCIP), while international institutions, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), are frequently selected in disputes involving Portuguese parties.

Mediation is also legally recognised and encouraged, including within the judicial system, but it plays a more limited role in large commercial disputes. It is mainly used as a complementary or preliminary mechanism, often where parties wish to preserve ongoing commercial relationships.

Other ADR mechanisms, such as conciliation and dispute boards, are available and are occasionally used in specific sectors, but they are not the primary means of resolving large commercial disputes.

The duration of court proceedings largely depends on the urgency of the matter and the territorial jurisdiction of the competent court. On average, proceedings are concluded within approximately 11 months. However, timelines may vary significantly depending on the court’s workload, with courts in more densely populated areas typically experiencing longer delays. By way of example, civil proceedings before the Lisbon Judicial Court have an average duration of approximately 17 months.

Under Portuguese law, documents may generally be disclosed provided that such disclosure does not infringe constitutionally protected rights or values, including personal dignity, privacy, public morality, or the protection of private and family life. Disclosure of documents containing communications between lawyers and their clients, as well as documents related to settlement negotiations between lawyers, may constitute a breach of professional secrecy, unless expressly authorised by the Portuguese Bar Association.

Portuguese law does not provide for a general discovery process. However, a party may request the court to order the opposing party or third parties to produce specific documents or a defined set of documents. Requests for overly broad, unspecified or exploratory disclosure will not be granted.

The requesting party must identify the facts it intends to prove through the requested documents and demonstrate their relevance to the resolution of the dispute, as well as the impossibility or substantial difficulty of obtaining them by other means. Where these requirements are met, the court may order disclosure. The court may also, of its own motion, order the production of documents or other evidence where necessary to clarify the truth.

Witnesses are designated by the parties and are, as a rule, required to attend the trial in person. In exceptional circumstances, and subject to the court’s discretion, witnesses may be heard by videoconference, notably where they reside abroad or where attendance in person is duly justified as impracticable.

Witness evidence plays a significant role in Portuguese civil proceedings. Each party may designate up to 10 witnesses, either in the statement of claim or in the statement of defence. Witnesses may also be identified at the preliminary hearing or up to 20 days prior to trial.

Before testifying, witnesses must take an oath attesting that they shall tell the truth, under the penalty of criminal liability. Both parties are entitled to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and the court may intervene at any stage to ask questions it considers necessary to establish the material truth.

Testimony is generally given orally, in accordance with the principle of immediacy, and must be limited to facts within the witness’s direct knowledge. Written witness statements are admissible only on an exceptional basis, primarily where personal attendance is impossible or excessively burdensome.

In Portugal, court fees are payable upon the initiation of judicial proceedings and are intended to cover the costs of the public justice system, unless a party qualifies for legal aid on grounds of financial distress. As a general rule, upon conclusion of the proceedings, the losing party is ordered to bear the costs in proportion to its loss.

Where the value of the claim exceeds EUR 275,000, the losing party may apply to the court for a reduction or waiver of a substantial part, or the entirety, of the remaining court fees.

Following the issuance of the judgment, the prevailing party may seek recovery of judicial costs by submitting a statement of costs to the losing party. Recovery of legal fees is permitted only up to a statutory cap corresponding to 50% of the total court fees paid by all parties.

In Portugal, injunctions constitute the principal form of interim relief. These urgent measures are intended to provisionally protect rights where the delay inherent in ordinary proceedings could render the claimed right ineffective or cause irreparable harm. The Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure provides for both general and specific injunctive procedures aimed at safeguarding the claimant’s interests.

Injunctive relief is, however, ancillary in nature, as the applicant is required to initiate the main proceedings within 30 days of the granting of the injunction. Failure to do so results in the revocation of the interim relief granted.

Law No. 31/86 of 29 August marked the introduction of arbitration into the Portuguese legal system. Notwithstanding its pioneering character, the statute revealed significant structural deficiencies and regulatory gaps over time. In order to address these shortcomings, the Portuguese legislature undertook a comprehensive reform of the arbitral framework, ultimately repealing Law No. 31/86 and enacting a new legislative regime 25 years after its entry into force. This reform culminated in the adoption of Law No. 63/2011 of 14 December, the Voluntary Arbitration Law (Lei da Arbitragem Voluntária or LAV), which currently governs arbitration in Portugal.

The LAV is largely inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and reflects prevailing European trends aimed at the modernisation and enhancement of arbitration frameworks. Through this alignment, Portugal has strengthened its position as a competitive and arbitration-friendly seat for international arbitral proceedings.

One of the most significant developments introduced by the LAV is the express enshrinement of the principle of competence–competence, set forth in its Article 18. Under this provision, arbitral tribunals are expressly empowered to rule on their own jurisdiction, thereby affirming and expanding the autonomy of arbitral jurisdiction within the Portuguese legal system.

The LAV also introduced a significant change with respect to the finality of arbitral awards. Article 39 establishes, as a general rule, the non-appealability of arbitral awards, subject only to cumulative conditions: an express agreement between the parties and the absence of a decision rendered ex aequo et bono. This provision strengthens the efficiency and legal certainty of arbitration proceedings.

It should also be noted that Portugal acceded to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in 1994. This accession has significantly enhanced legal certainty and confidence in Portugal as a jurisdiction for international dispute resolution.

In this context, the LAV introduced a dedicated Chapter X, specifically addressing the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Article 56 exhaustively enumerates the grounds upon which recognition or enforcement may be refused, thereby contributing to greater predictability and legal certainty in the application of the law.

Finally, the LAV clarified the allocation of judicial competence in arbitration-related matters, conferring jurisdiction exclusively upon the courts of second instance, namely the Portuguese courts of appeal, and excluding any intervention by courts of first instance.

The increasing recognition by state institutions of arbitration as a legitimate and effective dispute resolution mechanism has contributed to a growing number of arbitral proceedings in Portugal. In recent years, Portuguese courts have consistently adopted a pro-arbitration approach, significantly enhancing the credibility and attractiveness of arbitration. This judicial stance is fully consistent with Article 19 of the LAV, which strictly limits court intervention in arbitral proceedings to the cases expressly provided for by law.

The LAV expressly empowers arbitral tribunals to order interim measures and to issue preliminary orders. While interim measures (providências cautelares) are enforceable through state courts, preliminary orders (ordens preliminares) lack external enforceability, producing effects exclusively within the arbitral proceedings and binding only the parties thereto.

In parallel, the LAV preserves the jurisdiction of state courts to grant interim measures, irrespective of the existence of an arbitration agreement or the prior constitution of an arbitral tribunal. Accordingly, parties may seek interim relief either from the arbitral tribunal or directly from the competent state courts, without prejudice to the arbitral process.

State courts may therefore order interim measures both before and after the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, and regardless of whether an arbitration agreement has been concluded.

Notwithstanding this concurrent jurisdiction, Article 5(4) of the LAV expressly prohibits anti-arbitration injunctions. The provision establishes that issues concerning the nullity, ineffectiveness, or unenforceability of an arbitration agreement may not be raised independently in proceedings before state courts, nor in applications for provisional measures brought before such courts with the purpose of preventing the constitution or operation of an arbitral tribunal.

As a consequence, anti-suit and anti-arbitration injunctions are neither available nor enforceable under Portuguese law.

With regard to the powers of arbitral tribunals to grant interim measures, and as noted above, the LAV confers on arbitral tribunals the power to order such interim measures as they deem necessary, provided that the principles of due process and adversarial proceedings are fully respected. Consequently, arbitral tribunals are precluded from granting interim measures on an ex parte basis.

An arbitral tribunal may, at the request of any party, modify, suspend, or terminate an interim measure. In exceptional circumstances, and subject to prior notice to the parties, the tribunal may also do so on its own initiative.

Decisions granting interim measures are binding upon the parties and, unless the arbitral tribunal decides otherwise, are enforceable through the state courts.

In line with the 2006 revision of the UNCITRAL Model Law, and absent an agreement to the contrary, a party may, concurrently with an application for an interim measure, request the arbitral tribunal to issue a preliminary order directing another party to refrain from frustrating the purpose of the requested interim measure. Such a request may be made without prior notice to the opposing party.

A preliminary order may be granted where the arbitral tribunal considers that prior disclosure of the request for the interim measure would entail a risk of frustrating its purpose. The arbitral tribunal may also require the requesting party to provide appropriate security, unless it considers such a requirement to be unnecessary or inappropriate.

Following the tribunal’s determination on the application for a preliminary order, all parties must be promptly notified of the request for the interim measure, the application for the preliminary order, any preliminary order issued, and all related communications. Furthermore, any party against whom a preliminary order is directed must be afforded the opportunity to present its case at the earliest practicable opportunity.

Preliminary orders are valid for a maximum period of 20 days. While they are binding upon the parties, they are not subject to enforcement by state courts.

As a general rule, arbitral awards rendered in Portugal are final and binding. The parties may, however, agree otherwise in the arbitration agreement. Where the parties authorise the arbitral tribunal to decide the dispute ex aequo et bono or on equitable grounds, the award is not subject to appeal under any circumstances.

In international arbitration, arbitral awards are likewise not subject to appeal, unless the parties have expressly agreed to an appellate mechanism before another arbitral tribunal and have defined its terms and conditions.

However, even if there is no possibility of the decision being appealed, the parties will have the possibility to request the annulment of a specific decision under the following grounds:

• the arbitration agreement is invalid or one of the parties lacked legal capacity;
• fundamental principles of the arbitral procedure were violated, with decisive influence on the outcome;
• the award ruled on matters not covered by the arbitration agreement or exceeded its scope;
• there were serious irregularities in the composition of the arbitral tribunal or in the arbitral procedure;
• there was excess of powers or failure to rule on issues that should have been decided; or
• the award failed to comply with essential formal requirements or statutory deadlines;

Under the Portuguese Arbitration Law, an arbitral award may only be challenged before state courts through an action for annulment (ação de anulação da sentença arbitral), unless the parties have agreed otherwise. This action is the exclusive form of judicial intervention and reflects the principle of minimal court interference in arbitration.

The action is filed with the competent state court within 60 days of notification of the award or of the decision on any request for correction or clarification. The application must be accompanied by a certified copy of the award, a Portuguese translation where applicable, and all evidence relied upon.

The respondent is served and may submit an opposition with evidence, after which the applicant may file a reply limited to procedural objections. Evidence is produced only if the court deems it necessary.

The proceedings follow, with appropriate adaptations, the procedural framework of an appeal. The court is expressly barred from reviewing the merits of the dispute, ensuring that judicial review remains strictly procedural.

Where annulment is granted, it may be total or partial. The court may suspend the proceedings to allow the arbitral tribunal to correct the defects. As a rule, annulment causes the arbitration agreement to revive, unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

Portugal has been a contracting state to the New York Convention since 1995 and has entered a reciprocity reservation. Accordingly, the Convention applies only to the recognition and enforcement in Portugal of arbitral awards rendered in the territory of another contracting state.

Portugal is also a contracting state to the Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, to which it acceded in 1984.

Domestic awards

Domestic arbitral awards can be enforced in Portugal under the same terms as judgments by state courts. Awards made in domestic arbitrations are enforced on the same terms as judgments of state courts. Therefore, the enforcement takes place within the state courts of first instance, without the need for any recognition or confirmation procedure.

Foreign awards

In respect of foreign arbitral awards, the recognition procedure may depend on the applicability of the New York Convention. In any event, state courts are prevented from reviewing the merits and must focus only on the requirements for recognition.

The recognition and enforcement of foreign awards follow the New York Convention rules if the country of origin is a signatory, resulting in fewer opportunities to refuse to recognise and enforce the award.

Where a country is not a signatory to the New York Convention, or any other treaties, conventions or European Union regulations that bind Portugal, these awards must undergo an internal procedure within the Portuguese state courts in order to be recognised and confirmed. Only after this procedure may such awards be enforced in Portugal. The grounds for refusal of recognition and confirmation are wide, but a review of the merits is still not admissible even in such cases.

The recognition and enforcement of a foreign award must not lead to a result which noticeably conflicts with international public policy.

Please see our answer to Question 14, above.

According to Article 57 of the LAV, the party seeking recognition of a foreign arbitral award in Portugal must submit the duly authenticated original award, or a certified copy thereof, together with the original arbitration agreement or a duly authenticated copy. Where the award or the arbitration agreement is not drafted in Portuguese, a certified translation must also be provided.

Once the application for recognition is filed with the required documentation, the opposing party is summoned to submit its opposition within a period of 15 days. Upon completion of the pleadings and any procedural steps deemed necessary by the reporting judge, the case file is made available to the parties and to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for written allegations, also within a 15-day period. The decision on recognition is rendered in accordance with the procedural rules applicable to appeals.

According to Article 47 of the LAV, the enforcement of an arbitral award before the competent state court requires the submission of the original award or a duly certified copy and, where the award is not drafted in Portuguese, a certified translation into Portuguese, thereby ensuring the authenticity and intelligibility of the enforceable title. An arbitral award constitutes a valid enforceable instrument and may be directly submitted for enforcement in accordance with the applicable legal provisions.

Where the arbitral award consists of a generic order for performance, its quantification is, as a rule, carried out in accordance with the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure. Alternatively, quantification may be requested from the arbitral tribunal itself, which, after hearing the other party and taking evidence, issues a supplementary decision, ruling equitably within the limits it considers proven.

An arbitral award may serve as the basis for enforcement even where an application for annulment has been filed, without prejudice to the applicant in such annulment proceedings being entitled to request the suspension of enforcement upon the provision of security.

The enforcement proceedings follow the general regime set out in the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure, pursuant to which, in the absence of voluntary payment by the debtor, the enforcement agent conducts asset investigations, proceeds with the seizure and sale of assets, with a view to satisfying the creditor’s claim.

A court may, at any time and stage, grant interim orders for the purposes of:

• maintaining or restoring the status quo;
• preventing or restraining conduct likely to cause harm or prejudice to the arbitral proceedings;
• preserving assets from which a future award may be satisfied; and
• preserving evidence relevant to the resolution of the dispute.

Interim measures are granted subject to the satisfaction of two cumulative requirements:

• the applicant must demonstrate, with reasonable probability, the existence of the right or legal interest to be protected; and
• the harm likely to be suffered by the respondent as a result of the measure must not substantially exceed the harm sought to be prevented.

Proceeding on the assumptions outlined in the Model Answer, would a court in this jurisdiction recognise and enforce the arbitral award under the New York Convention?

In particular:

• Does the award fall within the scope of Article V(1) of the Convention, or would any of the grounds in Article V(1) justify refusal on the assumed facts?
• Is the subject matter of the dispute capable of settlement by arbitration under domestic law for the purposes of Article V(2)(a)?
• Would recognition or enforcement of the award be contrary to public policy within the meaning of Article V(2)(b)?

Response

Does the award fall within the scope of Article V(1) of the Convention, or would any of the grounds in Article V(1) justify refusal on the assumed facts?

In light of Portuguese law and having regard to the specific facts of the case, none of the grounds for refusal set out in Article V(1) of the New York Convention are present so as to justify denying recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award.

As regards the alleged invalidity of the arbitration agreement (Article V(1)(a)), it is necessary to consider the contractual structure adopted by the parties. The commercial agreement contains, on the one hand, a jurisdiction clause governing the resolution of the principal dispute and, on the other, a separate and specific arbitration clause intended to govern disputes arising from the breach of certain contractual obligations, in particular the obligation arising from the non-payment of a judgment (facts 1, 5 and 6).

This functional separation demonstrates that arbitration does not replace the state courts but operates on a subsequent and distinct level, addressing a new obligation contractually defined by the parties. Furthermore, both the law governing the arbitration agreement and the law of the forum expressly recognise the possibility of submitting disputes to arbitration upon the breach of such an obligation (fact 8), thereby reinforcing the validity of the arbitration clause under Article 2 of the Portuguese Voluntary Arbitration Law.

With regard to the right to be heard and the principle of adversarial proceedings (Article V(1)(b)), no violation arises. It is true that the arbitral tribunal’s mandate was expressly limited to verifying two objective conditions: (i) the existence of a final judgment and its non-payment within the contractually agreed period; and (ii) the consequent order to pay the amount due (fact 9). However, such limitation does not constitute an unlawful restriction of the right of defence, as it derives directly from the parties’ agreement (fact 6) and defines the scope of the dispute submitted to arbitration. There is no indication of lack of notice, inability to participate in the proceedings, or impediment to presenting a defence. On the contrary, the limited scope of the arbitration clearly reflects the parties’ prior contractual intention.

As to any alleged excess of jurisdiction (Article V(1)(c)), no ground for refusal is established. Although the arbitral award leads to an outcome that is economically equivalent to the judgment previously obtained (fact 2), its legal subject matter is distinct.

The arbitration does not concern the dispute that gave rise to the judgment, but rather the breach of a separate contractual obligation that arises only upon the failure to comply with that judgment (facts 4 and 5). The arbitral tribunal did not revisit the merits of the judicial decision, nor was it required to do so, and it did not act as an appellate body. It merely applied the contractual clause agreed between the parties. There is therefore a different cause of action, grounded in contract, which excludes any breach of the limits of the arbitration agreement.

As regards the composition of the arbitral tribunal and the conduct of the proceedings (Article V(1)(d)), the facts disclose no irregularity. On the contrary, the arbitral framework adopted reflects a structured and autonomous procedure, with independent powers conferred on the tribunal, including the authority to order measures such as the provision of security (fact 13). This demonstrates that the mechanism is not a purely automatic or mechanical replication of the underlying judgment.

Finally, the ground set out in Article V(1)(e) is likewise inapplicable, as the arbitral award is final and binding and has not been set aside or suspended. Moreover, it was rendered in the same jurisdiction in which the judgment was issued (fact 7), which reinforces systemic coherence and eliminates any risk of conflicting decisions.

In light of the above, it must be concluded that, on the facts of the case, none of the grounds set out in Article V(1) of the New York Convention is capable of justifying refusal of recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award.

Is the subject matter of the dispute capable of settlement by arbitration under Portuguese law for the purposes of Article V(2)(a)?

The issue of arbitrability must, in the Portuguese context, be assessed in light of Article 1 of the Portuguese Voluntary Arbitration Law, which provides that all disputes concerning rights of a pecuniary nature are capable of settlement by arbitration, provided they are not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state courts.

In the present case, the dispute submitted to arbitration does not concern the direct enforcement of a foreign judicial decision. Rather, it concerns the breach of an autonomous contractual obligation arising from the failure to pay the judgment within the agreed time period (facts 4 and 5). It is therefore an obligation of a pecuniary nature, clearly falling within the scope of patrimonial rights.

This distinction is decisive. The arbitration does not seek to replace the mechanisms for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments provided under the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure (Articles 978 et seq.), but instead addresses a separate dispute arising from a contractual relationship. The fact that the contractual obligation is quantified by reference to the amount established in the judgment does not affect its autonomous legal nature.

Furthermore, the parties expressly agreed that any dispute relating to the non-payment of that obligation would be submitted exclusively to arbitration (fact 6), and such dispute is recognised as arbitrable under both the applicable law and the law of the seat (fact 8). The arbitral tribunal, for its part, merely verified objective facts, namely, the finality of the judgment (fact 3) and its non-payment, without exercising any judicial enforcement function or reassessing the merits of the underlying decision.

Accordingly, this is not a matter excluded from arbitrability, but rather a typical commercial dispute concerning the breach of a pecuniary obligation, fully within the parties’ power of disposition.

In light of the above, and under Portuguese law, the subject matter of the dispute is capable of settlement by arbitration. Consequently, the ground for refusal set out in Article V(2)(a) of the New York Convention does not arise.

Would recognition or enforcement of the award be contrary to public policy within the meaning of Article V(2)(b)?

The assessment of any alleged breach of public policy must be carried out by reference to the concept of international public policy of the Portuguese State, as provided for in Article 56(1)(b)(ii) of the Portuguese Voluntary Arbitration Law. This concept is interpreted restrictively in Portuguese case law.

The award must be reviewed in light of Portuguese international public policy, rather than domestic Portuguese law. Furthermore, as the contractual clauses have already been considered and analysed by the court that issued the judgment, it cannot be argued that they constitute a breach of public policy.

First, the contract establishes an autonomous obligation which arises only in the event of non-compliance with the judgment (fact 5). This obligation is valid under the principle of freedom of contract (Article 405 of the Portuguese Civil Code) and constitutes a legal basis distinct from the judicial decision. The arbitration therefore concerns contractual non-performance, rather than the enforcement of the judgment.

Secondly, the arbitral tribunal did not undertake any reassessment of the merits of the dispute underlying the judgment and was expressly precluded from doing so (fact 9). This is a crucial element, as it ensures respect for res judicata and for the authority of the judicial decision.

Thirdly, the fact that the arbitration took place in the same jurisdiction in which the judgment was rendered (fact 7) contributes to the coherence of the legal framework and reduces the risk of conflicts between legal orders.

Fourthly, the arbitral proceedings display genuine autonomy and do not constitute a purely automatic mechanism, as evidenced by the independent powers conferred upon the arbitral tribunal (fact 13).

Finally, the contract contains specific provisions designed to prevent double recovery (fact 14), thereby eliminating any risk of unjust enrichment.

In these circumstances, there is no manifest breach of the fundamental principles of the Portuguese legal order. The mechanism in question reflects a sophisticated but legitimate contractual structure, which does not offend Portuguese international public policy.

Accordingly, recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award should not be refused on the grounds set out in Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention.