Law No. 34/2026, of July 27, amending the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Penal Code, and the Regulations on Court Costs, entered into force on September 1, 2026.
The reform introduces significant changes to criminal procedure, with a particular focus on procedural management, the handling of evidence, summary proceedings, the appeals system, and mechanisms designed to prevent acts considered to be dilatory.
Amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure
This legislative amendment raises serious concerns regarding its constitutionality, insofar as the fear of particularly severe financial penalties may impede the full and free exercise of the rights to a defense, to adversarial proceedings, and to appeal. This is a measure that, under the pretext of ensuring procedural efficiency, undermines the free and effective exercise of citizens’ constitutionally enshrined rights, freedoms, and guarantees, thereby compromising the right of access to justice and to effective judicial protection.
Amendment to the Penal Code: New Ground for Suspension of the Statute of Limitations
Article 120(1)(g) now provides for a new ground for suspension of the statute of limitations: the interruption or postponement of a preliminary hearing, trial, or other procedural act requiring the defendant’s presence, as a result of the replacement of the defendant’s defense counsel.
Amendment to the Regulation on Court Costs
The maximum amounts in Table III of the Regulation on Court Costs have been revised. The maximum court fee is now set at 12 UC for ordinary proceedings, 12 UC for appeals to the Court of Appeal, and 20 UC for appeals to the Supreme Court of Justice.
The reform introduces significant changes to criminal procedure, with a particular focus on procedural management, the handling of evidence, summary proceedings, the appeals system, and mechanisms designed to prevent acts considered to be dilatory.
Amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure
- A new paradigm for procedural management and expediency. Article 85-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) is created, establishing a genuine duty of procedural management and adaptation: the presiding judge must actively direct the proceedings, promote their expeditious progress, reject irrelevant or purely dilatory acts, and adapt the proceedings to the needs of the case. The provision itself establishes, however, as a limit, that these powers may not affect the rights, freedoms, and guarantees of the parties to the proceedings.
- Greater formalization of the pleadings and consolidation of the evidence. The Public Prosecutor’s Office must now present the factual allegations in articles; the same applies to the motion to open a preliminary investigation and to the answer. In exceptionally complex cases, the Public Prosecutor’s Office must also associate the evidence deemed most relevant with the articles or groups of articles. The answer must also specify the evidence to be produced.
- Relevant changes to procedural deadlines. In exceptionally complex cases, certain deadlines are no longer simply extended by 30 days but are, as a rule, doubled. In appeals of final decisions, an additional extension of up to 30 days may also be granted upon request. On the other hand, the performance of an act within the three business days following the deadline is now contingent upon immediate payment of the fine; subsequent regularization upon notification by the court clerk’s office is no longer provided for.
- New rules for raising objections of nullity. Objections of nullity regarding the preliminary investigation must now be raised in the motion to open the preliminary investigation or, if no such investigation is opened, by the end of the deadline for filing such a motion. If a preliminary investigation is opened, objections of nullity raised in a timely manner are reviewed by the investigating judge.
- Changes in the Production and Assessment of Evidence. Before scheduling the hearing, the judge will now conduct a preliminary assessment of requests for evidence and may reject them in the cases provided for by law. Furthermore, the order directing the production of certain evidence is, in principle, no longer subject to appeal, except notably in cases involving prohibited evidence or evidence obtained in violation of legal requirements.
- Reproduction or reading at trial of statements previously given. Article 356 undergoes a particularly significant amendment. The Public Prosecutor may indicate in the indictment the statements that the Prosecutor intends to reproduce or read aloud at trial; under certain conditions, witnesses may not be summoned if there is no objection from the defendant or the defense counsel. A specific regime is also introduced regarding, among other things, statements by victims of domestic violence and particularly vulnerable victims.
- Free, full, and unreserved confession. The previous limitation regarding crimes punishable by imprisonment exceeding five years is eliminated. Thus, a maximum sentence exceeding five years no longer, in and of itself, prevents a full and unreserved confession from producing the effects provided for in Article 344(2).
- Substantial expansion of the summary proceedings. The five-year imprisonment limit in Article 391-A is eliminated. Summary proceedings may now be used when there is simple and evident proof and sufficient circumstantial evidence, regardless of the penalty that could theoretically be imposed, and may even proceed when the trial falls under the jurisdiction of a collegiate court.
- Changes to the appeals system. Objections to the validity of orders must first be raised before the court that issued the decision; an appeal may only be filed if the court upholds the order. Measures are also introduced to simplify the processing of appeals and to provide for ex officio certification of finality, even if only partial.
- Defense against abusive delays: new Article 426-B. When a manifestly unfounded motion seeks to prevent a decision from becoming final, the enforcement of the judgment, or the closure or remand of the case, the conference may order the extraction of a copy of the record, while the main case file proceeds. The filing of such motions may no longer prevent the decision from becoming final, and consideration of the motion in the copy of the record is conditional upon payment of the fines imposed.
- Fines for manifestly unfounded acts: new Article 521-A. This is likely one of the most sensitive and controversial changes in the reform. A defendant, assistant, civil party, or affected person who commits manifestly unfounded acts intended to, or having the effect of, obstructing or delaying the progress of the proceedings may be sentenced to a fine of 2 to 100 UC. Failure to pay within 10 days results in a 50% surcharge. Furthermore, in the event of a second conviction in the same proceeding for acts committed through a lawyer, a certificate must be sent to the Portuguese Bar Association to determine disciplinary liability.
This legislative amendment raises serious concerns regarding its constitutionality, insofar as the fear of particularly severe financial penalties may impede the full and free exercise of the rights to a defense, to adversarial proceedings, and to appeal. This is a measure that, under the pretext of ensuring procedural efficiency, undermines the free and effective exercise of citizens’ constitutionally enshrined rights, freedoms, and guarantees, thereby compromising the right of access to justice and to effective judicial protection.
Amendment to the Penal Code: New Ground for Suspension of the Statute of Limitations
Article 120(1)(g) now provides for a new ground for suspension of the statute of limitations: the interruption or postponement of a preliminary hearing, trial, or other procedural act requiring the defendant’s presence, as a result of the replacement of the defendant’s defense counsel.
Amendment to the Regulation on Court Costs
The maximum amounts in Table III of the Regulation on Court Costs have been revised. The maximum court fee is now set at 12 UC for ordinary proceedings, 12 UC for appeals to the Court of Appeal, and 20 UC for appeals to the Supreme Court of Justice.
.
