Portugal

The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Portugal is governed by a layered system combining EU law, international conventions and domestic procedural rules. The applicable regime depends primarily on the origin of the judgment and, in particular, on whether it was rendered by a court of an EU Member State, a state party along with Portugal to an international convention, or a third state with no applicable treaty framework. As a general principle, Portuguese law adopts a favourable approach to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, subject to compliance with limited formal and substantive safeguards. There is no review of the merits of the decision. Control by Portuguese courts is confined to jurisdictional issues, procedural fairness and public policy.

The applicable framework is therefore primarily determined by the existence and scope of supranational or international instruments, with domestic law operating as a residual regime where no such instruments apply.

What are the main international treaties or conventions that apply?

The primary instruments in relation to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Portugal include a body of EU regulations that are directly applicable in Portugal and provide a mutually binding framework between Member States, as well as relevant international conventions.

• Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast) governs jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters between EU Member States, including the abolition of the exequatur procedure and the introduction of a standardised certificate of enforceability under Article 53 of the Regulation. Enforcement may only be resisted on the limited and exhaustively listed grounds set out in the Regulation, which must be invoked by the debtor in the state of enforcement.
• Regulation (EC) No. 805/2004 establishing a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims and Regulation (EC) No. 1896/2006 creating a European Order for Payment procedure each provide for simplified cross-border enforcement mechanisms within the EU. These regimes are subject to specific procedural requirements and apply primarily in cases where the claim has not been contested by the defendant.
• Regulation (EC) No. 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure facilitates low-value cross-border enforcement within the EU by streamlining procedures formalities and limiting the scope for review in the state of enforcement.
  Within the EU framework, these regulations apply by virtue of their direct applicability under the Treaties, and do not require transposition into national law. They operate alongside Portuguese procedural law, which continues to govern enforcement mechanics and procedural aspects not harmonised at EU level, including the practical conduct of enforcement proceedings and available enforcement measures.

Beyond the EU framework, Portugal is a contracting state to the Lugano Convention 2007 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, which establishes a regime largely equivalent to Brussels I in relation to judgments originating from Switzerland, Norway and Iceland.

Portugal is also party to a limited number of bilateral treaties on judicial cooperation and recognition of judgments. These treaties are mostly of historical origin, narrow material scope or limited practical relevance and, in contemporary practice, play a residual role compared to EU instruments and domestic law.

What legal principles apply if there is no applicable international treaty or convention?

Where no EU regulation or international convention applies, recognition and enforcement are governed by Portuguese domestic law, primarily Articles 978 to 985 of the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Under this regime a foreign judgment must first be recognised through a formal court procedure known as ação de revisão e confirmação de sentença estrangeira. This procedure is brought before the competent Court of Appeal (Tribunal da Relação) and is mandatory for judgments originating from third states not covered by an applicable international instrument.

The purpose of the recognition proceedings is not to reopen the dispute or to reassess the substantive correctness of the decision. The review carried out by Portuguese courts is strictly limited to verifying whether the foreign judgment satisfies the statutory requirements for recognition, including jurisdiction, finality, due process and compatibility with Portuguese international public policy.

Only once recognition has been granted does the foreign judgment constitute an enforceable title in Portugal. At that stage, enforcement may proceed in accordance with the general enforcement rules of the CPC, which govern the available enforcement measures, procedural steps and remedies.

The principal requirements for the recognition of foreign judgments under Portuguese domestic law are set out mainly in Article 980 of the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). These requirements reflect a combination of formal criteria and fundamental procedural safeguards, designed to ensure that recognition does not undermine core principles of the Portuguese legal order while avoiding any review of the merits of the decision. Portuguese courts apply these requirements restrictively and with a generally pro-recognition approach.

Jurisdiction of the foreign court

Recognition will be refused if:

• the foreign court’s jurisdiction is manifestly incompatible with Portuguese rules on exclusive jurisdiction; or
• the dispute falls within a category of matters reserved exclusively to Portuguese courts.

Examples of matters typically considered subject to exclusive Portuguese jurisdiction include proprietary rights over immovable property situated in Portugal as well as certain corporate or insolvency matters that are closely connected to Portugal.

Outside these limited situations, Portuguese courts do not conduct a detailed or substantive review of the foreign court’s jurisdiction. In particular, they do not reassess whether the foreign court correctly applied its own jurisdictional rules or whether it would have had jurisdiction under Portuguese law. The control exercised is confined to verifying the absence of a clear and manifest violation of Portuguese exclusive jurisdiction rules.

Service of proceedings and due process

A core requirement for recognition is compliance with fundamental principles of due process. In particular:

• the defendant must have been properly served with the proceedings, in accordance with the law of the state of origin;
• service must have been executed in a manner allowing the defendant to become aware of the proceedings and to organise its defence; and
• the defendant must not have been deprived of the opportunity to be heard.

Judgments rendered in default are not excluded from recognition under Portuguese law. Default judgments may be recognised provided that service was regular and effective and that the defendant’s rights of defence were not materially compromised. Portuguese courts focus on the effectiveness of service and the practical ability of the defendant to participate in the proceedings, rather than on strict formal equivalence with Portuguese procedural rules.

Finality and enforceability

The judgment must:

• be final and binding under the law of the state of origin; and
• be enforceable in that jurisdiction.

As a general rule, interim, provisional or non-final decisions are not capable of recognition under domestic law. Portuguese courts require confirmation that the decision has acquired res judicata effect and that it may be enforced in the state of origin.

Specific EU regimes may depart from this principle in defined circumstances, but under the CPC regime finality remains a central requirement.

Time limits

Portuguese law does not impose a specific limitation period for initiating recognition proceedings. However, the judgment must still be enforceable under the law of origin at the time recognition is sought.

Once recognised, enforcement proceedings in Portugal are governed by Portuguese limitation rules applicable to enforcement actions. While recognition is a necessary condition for enforcement in Portugal, it does not create a new substantive right. Accordingly, the applicable limitation period may run, depending on the circumstances, from the moment the underlying claim became due or enforceable, rather than from the date of recognition.

As a general rule, monetary claims are subject to a 20-year limitation period, subject to shorter periods for certain types of claims, such as interest and other periodic payments.

Other requirements

Recognition also depends on the following conditions:

• the judgment must be authentic and duly certified; and
• the proceedings must not have been tainted by fraud.

There must be no conflict with:

• a Portuguese judgment that has become final; or
• an earlier foreign judgment between the same parties on the same cause of action that has already been recognised in Portugal.

The content of the judgment must not be manifestly incompatible with Portuguese international public policy.

The public policy exception is applied restrictively and is reserved for exceptional cases involving serious violations of fundamental principles of the Portuguese legal order.

Key defences

The defendant may oppose recognition on limited grounds, including:

• breach of Portuguese international public policy;
• lack of proper service or serious violation of due process;
• absence of finality or enforceability;
• exclusive jurisdiction of Portuguese courts; and
• irreconcilability with an existing Portuguese or previously recognised foreign judgment.

Portuguese courts do not review the substantive correctness of the foreign judgment, nor do they reassess the factual or legal findings made by the court of origin.

Portugal is a contracting state to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958), which constitutes the primary and decisive legal framework governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Portugal.

The Convention applies directly and prevails in practice as the principal source of law in this area. Its application is complemented, on a subsidiary basis, by the Portuguese Voluntary Arbitration Law (Law No. 63/2011), to the extent that its provisions are compatible with the Convention and address matters not expressly regulated therein.

Portuguese courts consistently recognise the New York Convention as the cornerstone of the enforcement regime for foreign arbitral awards and apply it in a manner aligned with its pro-enforcement objectives.

Foreign arbitral awards are recognised and enforced in Portugal through recognition proceedings brought before the competent Court of Appeal (Tribunal da Relação).

As a general rule:

• there is no review of the merits of the arbitral award; and
• Portuguese courts do not reassess the factual findings or legal reasoning of the arbitral tribunal.

Judicial intervention is limited to verifying whether any of the grounds for refusal set out in the New York Convention are present. Once recognised, a foreign arbitral award constitutes an enforceable title in Portugal and may be enforced in accordance with the general enforcement rules of the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure.

Recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award may be refused only on the grounds exhaustively listed in Article V of the New York Convention. These grounds are interpreted restrictively by Portuguese courts and include the following:

• invalidity of the arbitration agreement, under the law to which the parties subjected it or, failing any indication, under the law of the seat of arbitration;
• lack of proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings, or inability of a party to present its case;
• excess of mandate, where the award deals with matters not contemplated by or falling outside the scope of the arbitration agreement;
• irregular composition of the arbitral tribunal or arbitral procedure not in accordance with the parties’ agreement or, failing such agreement, the law of the seat;
• award not yet binding, or having been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the state in which, or under the law of which, it was made;
• non-arbitrability of the subject matter under Portuguese law; and
• violation of Portuguese international public policy.

Portuguese courts consistently emphasise that these grounds are exceptional and that the burden of proof lies with the party opposing recognition or enforcement.

The public policy exception is applied narrowly and is reserved for situations involving a manifest and serious violation of fundamental principles of the Portuguese legal order. Portuguese courts draw a clear distinction between:

• errors of law or fact, which are not relevant at the recognition stage; and
• violations of international public policy, which may justify refusal in exceptional cases.

Similarly, issues of arbitrability are assessed restrictively. Most commercial disputes are considered arbitrable under Portuguese law, and non-arbitrability is generally limited to matters involving exclusive state jurisdiction or non-disposable rights.

Portuguese courts are generally regarded as arbitration friendly, both in domestic and international contexts. In practice:

• applications for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards are routinely granted, absent clear evidence of one of the Convention grounds; and
• attempts to resist enforcement by rearguing the merits of the dispute are consistently rejected.

Overall, the Portuguese judiciary’s approach aligns closely with international best practice and with the pro-enforcement philosophy underpinning the New York Convention.

Competent courts

Proceedings for the recognition of foreign judgments and foreign arbitral awards fall within the jurisdiction of the Courts of Appeal (Tribunais da Relação). Enforcement proceedings are conducted before the first-instance courts, once recognition has been granted or where recognition is not required (e.g. under EU law).

This division reflects the procedural nature of recognition as a preliminary control mechanism, distinct from the subsequent enforcement phase.

Court fees

Court fees are calculated in accordance with the Portuguese court costs regulations and generally depend on the value of the claim.

Recognition proceedings typically involve moderate court fees by EU standards.

Additional costs may arise if there are procedural incidents, opposition or appeals.

Duration

Recognition proceedings usually take between six and 18 months, depending on complexity and whether the defendant files opposition.

Enforcement proceedings vary significantly in duration, depending on the nature of the assets targeted, the debtor’s level of cooperation and the existence of interim and precautionary measures.

Role of enforcement agents

Enforcement proceedings in Portugal are conducted under the supervision of the court but are largely driven by enforcement agents (agentes de execução), who play a central role in:

• identifying and attaching assets;
• communicating with banks and public authorities; and
• conducting attachment and sale procedures.

The effectiveness of enforcement often depends significantly on the proactive involvement of the enforcement agent and the availability of information regarding the debtor’s assets.

From a practical perspective, early identification of assets located in Portugal is critical to effective enforcement. Creditors often seek interim measures, such as arresto, prior to or alongside recognition proceedings, where there is a risk of dissipation of assets. Coordination between recognition proceedings and enforcement strategy is essential, particularly in complex or high-value cases.

Decisions of the Court of Appeal (Tribunal da Relação) on recognition may be appealed to the Supreme Court of Justice (Supremo Tribunal de Justiça), subject to general admissibility requirements.

Appeals are typically limited to matters of law and do not involve any reassessment of the merits of the foreign decision. In practice, the Supreme Court adopts a restrictive approach to admissibility and tends to intervene only where there are relevant legal issues concerning the interpretation of recognition requirements or public policy.

Appeals in recognition proceedings generally have suspensive effect and prevent enforcement. Accordingly, where recognition is challenged on appeal, enforcement proceedings based on the foreign judgment or award cannot normally proceed until a final decision has been rendered.

In enforcement proceedings, appeals do not automatically suspend enforcement, unless a stay is expressly granted by the court, or the provision of appropriate security by the debtor, where permitted. This approach reflects a policy choice favouring the effectiveness of enforcement, while allowing courts to intervene where enforcement would cause disproportionate or irreparable harm.

Portuguese law provides for several mechanisms aimed at identifying assets belonging to the judgment debtor in the context of enforcement proceedings. These mechanisms are primarily designed to support effective attachment rather than to impose broad disclosure obligations on the debtor.

One of the most effective tools available in practice is access to centralised electronic databases, which enforcement agents may consult in order to identify assets held by the debtor.

These include, in particular:

• tax authority databases, providing information on declared income and certain assets;
• social security records, which may indicate employment relationships and sources of income;
• vehicle registries, identifying ownership of registered vehicles;
• land registries, identifying ownership of immovable property located in Portugal; and
• centralised bank account information, enabling the identification of bank accounts held by the debtor with Portuguese financial institutions.

Access to these databases is regulated by law and is limited to enforcement purposes.

Portuguese law also imposes a statutory duty on the debtor, within enforcement proceedings, to indicate assets available for attachment where the creditor has been unable to identify sufficient assets.

This duty arises only in the context of ongoing enforcement proceedings, is limited to assets known to the debtor and is intended to facilitate attachment, rather than to require comprehensive financial disclosure. There is no general obligation of full asset disclosure comparable to common law jurisdictions, and Portuguese law does not provide for extensive debtor examinations or interrogatories. Criminal liability is only in exceptional cases of serious and deliberate obstruction of enforcement, which in practice is rare.

All in all:

• early asset tracing is critical to successful enforcement;
• reliance on public databases is often more effective than debtor-driven disclosure; and
• creditors should not expect extensive disclosure mechanisms similar to those available in common law jurisdictions.

Portuguese law provides essentially for a single main interim and precautionary measure aimed at preserving assets in monetary claims, namely freezing orders (arresto) over movable and immovable assets, which may extend to bank accounts and other receivables, treated under Portuguese law as credits owed to the debtor.

Portuguese law does not provide for a broad range of interim measures comparable to those available in certain common law jurisdictions. The arresto occupies a central and dominant role in the preservation of assets pending enforcement.

These measures are subject to the usual requirements of urgency and risk of dissipation and are territorially limited to assets located in Portugal. The applicant has to demonstrate, on a prima facie basis:

• the existence of a monetary claim against the debtor (fumus boni iuris); and
• a risk of dissipation or concealment of assets likely to jeopardise future enforcement (periculum in mora).

Portuguese courts assess these requirements on a case-by-case basis and require credible factual evidence supporting the alleged risk. Mere allegations of non-payment or general insolvency concerns are typically insufficient.

Arresto proceedings are generally conducted on an urgent basis and may, in appropriate cases, be granted ex parte, subject to subsequent inter partes review.

Once ordered:

• the assets are provisionally frozen;
• the debtor is prevented from disposing of or encumbering the assets; and
• the arresto must be followed by the initiation of the main proceedings (recognition or enforcement), within the statutory time limits, failing which it will lapse.

Bank accounts

Attachment of bank accounts through electronic communication with Portuguese financial institutions. Funds are frozen up to the amount of the claim and subsequently transferred following judicial approval.

Shares

Attachment of shares and other securities, including book-entry securities, through the relevant registries or intermediaries.

Debts due to the judgment debtor from third parties

Garnishment of receivables owed to the debtor by third parties, who become subject to direct payment obligations.

Real estate

Judicial attachment of immovable property registered in the debtor’s name.

Subsequent court-ordered sale, typically by electronic auction.

Movable property

Seizure of movable assets, including vehicles and equipment.

Judicial sale following attachment.

As a general rule, enforcement is limited to assets legally owned by the debtor and registered in its name. However, Portuguese courts may allow enforcement to reach assets formally held by third parties where there is evidence of:

• fraud;
• simulation; or
• abuse of legal personality aimed at evading creditors.

Such situations are assessed on a case-by-case basis. In this context, Portuguese law recognises a specific action for the disregard of legal personality (ação de desconsideração da personalidade jurídica), which allows creditors, in exceptional circumstances, to reach assets formally held by a company or third party where the legal personality has been abusively used to the detriment of creditors.

In addition, Portuguese law also recognises the Ação de Impugnação Pauliana, a civil law creditor protection mechanism under which acts carried out by the debtor in fraud of creditors may be declared ineffective vis-à-vis the creditor, thereby allowing enforcement to proceed against assets that were improperly transferred to third parties.

For an Ação de Impugnação Pauliana to succeed, the creditor must generally demonstrate that:

• the claim existed at the time the challenged act was carried out, or arose from a legal relationship already in existence at that time;
• the act resulted in a reduction of the debtor’s assets affecting the creditor’s prospects to obtain satisfaction of its claim; and
• in the case of onerous transactions, that the debtor acted in bad faith and that the third party was aware, or ought reasonably to have been aware, of the prejudicial nature of the transaction.

The assessment of these requirements is highly fact-specific and carried out on a case-by-case basis.

Jointly owned assets may be attached to the extent of the debtor’s share.

Special rules apply to marital property, depending on the applicable matrimonial property regime.

The rights of the non-debtor co-owner are protected, including the right to intervene in the enforcement proceedings.