Main developments in Competition Law and Policy 2025 - Portugal

This article offers an overview of the main developments that have shaped Portuguese competition law and policy in 2025, including labour markets as the new star in antitrust cases, a record number of merger filings and a surge in private enforcement damages actions.

 

ANTITRUST

In 2025, developments in antitrust enforcement in Portugal focused on the increasingly prominent labour markets, while also encompassing investigations into price-fixing arrangements and abuses of dominant positions across various markets. Private enforcement cases surged, and heightened scrutiny of digital markets has become unavoidable. In addition, significant judicial outcomes have left their mark on future case law.

Seizing correspondence: the aftermath

Public enforcement activity resumed in 2025 after a slow previous year, largely caused by court rulings that limited the use of seized emails as judicial evidence. The Portuguese Competition Authority (“PCA”) pursued the issue as far as the Constitutional Court, arguing that the seizure of emails does not require a warrant issued by a judge and may be authorised merely by a public prosecutor, in an attempt to preserve nearly a decade of public enforcement activity. In February 2025, the Constitutional Court dismissed the final attempt by the PCA to overturn a 2023 ruling from Lisbon Court of Appeal declaring the seized evidence null and void. Litigation has narrowed the PCA’s room for manoeuvre, and the PCA is now placing all bets on forthcoming rulings of the ECJ.

Case law declaring correspondence seized without a prior judicial warrant to be invalid has ensued in a case reopened by the PCA in the healthcare sector (July 2025). The court declared the evidence null and void, which led to the reopening of the investigation by the PCA, and the consequent issuance of a new Statement of Objections based on evidence collected outside dawn-raids. In 2026, further cases are expected to follow similar developments, particularly hub-and-spoke cases pending in court since 2022.

What’s new on the statute of limitations

The statute of limitations has attracted considerable attention this year, as the Lisbon Court of Appeal declared the banking cartel case (February 2025) to be time-barred by applying the version of the law in force at the time of the facts. This is a case in which the PCA had imposed fines of EUR225 million on 13 banks. The appeal lodged by the PCA before the Constitutional Court failed to overturn the first-instance judgement. This landmark ruling contributes to a critical discussion on the application of old law versus new law with regard to the limitation period, an issue that is far from being settled.

Subsequently (March 2025), the Court of Appeal ruled in the opposite direction in a case involving EDP, establishing that the new version of the law was applicable even though the facts predated its entry into force, which resulted in the case not being time-barred. The higher courts will hopefully bring greater legal certainty in upcoming cases since the outcome of a significant number of them depends critically on which approach is adopted.

At EU level, the ECJ’s Nissan Iberia ruling (September 2025) clarified that limitation periods for private enforcement actions only start when decisions become final. This ruling is likely to influence Portuguese case law under the EU principle of effectiveness in pending and future private enforcement cases.

Labour markets

Collusion in the labour markets has been a key area for enforcement actions by the PCA since the Tondela case (2022). The regulator has sought to combine policy (Report and Best Practice Guide, 2021) with enforcement actions in order to address the problem at its root and detect illegal collusion at an early stage. This shift towards preventive enforcement has led companies to strengthen compliance and mitigate litigation risks, as a wide range of agreements is now known to be subject to regulatory scrutiny.

Investigations into labour-related anticompetitive practices by the PCA in 2025 led to the sanctioning of Inetum Group in the technology consultancy sector (February 2025) and the issuance of Statements of Objections against a trade association (June 2025) and  companies in the beverages industry companies, (September 2025), all of which concerning no poach agreements.

The case concerning Inetum Group began in 2022, after the PCA found evidence suggesting that several companies had entered into bilateral no-poach agreements. According to the PCA’s investigation, these agreements involved a mutual commitment by the companies not to recruit or make unsolicited offers to employees of the participating firms. In the same investigation, three other companies operating in the same market had previously settled the case, agreeing to pay a joint total of EUR4 million for similar conduct. The Inetum Group chose not to settle and was sanctioned with a fine of EUR3 million.

The second case concerns an investigation launched in February 2025. The PCA found that a no-poach clause included in the Code of Ethics of a business association in the employment and human resources sector prevented its members from soliciting each other’s temporary workers. The clause was deemed to restrict worker mobility and, consequently, to harm competition in the labour market.

The third case involves an investigation into reciprocal agreements not to hire or solicit workers allegedly entered into by some of the leading companies in the Portuguese beverages industry between 2016 and 2023. A Statement of Objections has been addressed to three companies and, on the basis of joint and several liability, to the parent company of one of them.

No-poach and wage-fixing agreements, as well as other forms of collusion affecting labour markets, are expected to remain in the spotlight and to trigger future action by the regulator. Other open cases will result in significant developments in 2026. This topic is no longer novelty, but there are still many avenues to explore. In particular, the application of classical concepts to these forms of collusion will continue to create judicial challenges, such as defining the relevant market, assessing the criteria for legitimate justifications, or classifying the infringement as “by object” or “by effect”.

Worth noting is the significant step given by Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou in the Tondela case (Opinion of 15 May 2025) admitting that the no-poach agreement in question should not be classified as restrictive “by object” because it was concluded with the legitimate and proportionate objective of preserving the fairness and integrity of the football competition affected by the pandemic, and that no equally effective but less restrictive alternatives were available in those exceptional circumstances. AG Emiliou’s Opinion in Tondela signals that while no-poach agreements are generally treated prima facie as anticompetitive “by object”, contextual factors and legitimate objectives may justify such an agreement under EU competition law in exceptional cases, especially where it was necessary to address extraordinary circumstances. The ECJ’s ruling is now eagerly awaited, as the case (re)opened the debate on “by object” and “by effect” infringements in the hotspot that labour markets have become.

The PCA has also been committed to tackle new issues arising in the labour markets generated by the digital transition, including the screening of agreements in the Generative AI sector. The recent paper published by the PCA on Competition, Generative AI and Labour Markets (July 2025) points to new strategies followed by digital incumbents aiming at poaching talent from smaller startups by means of hiring entire teams and their knowledge rather than pursuing classic M&A transactions implying merger control filings. The digital sector, particularly AI, is likely to remain on the PCA’s radar.

Price-fixing by associations of undertakings

The PCA conducted two investigations into associations of undertakings related to price-fixing.

The first case involves the fixing of minimum prices in the tourism sector, which resulted in the issuance of a Statement of Objections against a trade association (April 2025). According to the PCA, the evidence indicated that the trade association had fixed minimum prices to be charged by its member companies and other service providers. This was achieved through the recommendation of prices listed in fee schedules as well as by establishing the minimum percentage of price increases to be applied across the board in the sector.

In another investigation, the PCA fined an association of consultancy service providers (July 2025) for drafting and adopting minimum fee cards to be charged in the national market for the provision of consultancy services in the fields of architecture and engineering, as well as environmental, economic and management consultancy related services. The association settled the case by paying a fine of EUR580,000.

Abuse of dominance back in the spotlight

In 2024 the PCA stated that enforcement in the field of abuse of dominance would become a priority, which may be related to the difficulties of taking action in restrictive agreements’ cases as result of recent case law concerning the admissibility of evidence seized in the context of dawn raids.

Although in 2025 developments were not as significant as in 2024 (in 2024, SIBS was fined EUR14 million in the first abuse of dominance case in many years), two cases were investigated.

In December 2025 the PCA announced an investigation into abuse of a dominant position in the national market for online property advertising portals involving the main business group operating in Portugal. The practices allegedly restricted access to the dominant online real estate advertising portal for certain agencies, with the aim of excluding the competitor from the market.

Earlier in the year, a case of abuse of dominant position concerning a company active in the distribution and commercialization of bananas from Madeira (August 2025) was closed by means of a settlement.

 

PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT

Private enforcement actions took on a leading role throughout 2024 and 2025, with an array of new class actions and appeals filed before Portuguese courts. Key cases include follow-on actions relating to the trucks cartel, the banking cartel, and a new wave of class actions initiated by consumer associations.

The Supreme Court issued its first ruling (February 2025) in one trucks cartel private enforcement action confirming a 5% overcharge estimate based on judicial presumptions derived from the Private Enforcement Act adopted in 2018. The Supreme Court took into consideration judgements delivered by the Spanish Supreme Court which - on the basis of judicial estimates - set the overcharge at 5% of the truck purchase price actually paid by the claimants. The Portuguese first instance court initially adopted the 5% threshold but subsequently evolved to 3% in some cases, by accepting the pass-on defence. The general disregard by national courts of detailed economic evidence has paved the way for the quasi-automatic application of legal and judicial presumptions.

Consumers’ associations, in particular Ius Omnibus, have been extremely active in pursuing class actions that are related to public enforcement cases. More than 30 class actions against major international companies are currently pending, totalling more than EUR21 billion in damages claims and turning Portugal into a jurisdiction cherished by plaintiffs.

The appeal of Portugal to plaintiffs is grounded on a number of reasons.

The first and foremost is the opt-out regime. All individuals who share the common interest at stake are automatically included in the action once it is admitted by the court, without the need to file individual claims, unless they choose to exclude themselves (opt out) from being represented in the proceedings.

Second, defendants have a short period in which to file their defences (30 days after service, with foreign-based defendants benefiting from an additional 30 days). Defendants are required to include all substantive and procedural arguments in their initial statement of defence. This means that they must respond to the claimants’ arguments and evidence, as well as submit their full set of key arguments and supporting evidence in one go.

Third, proceedings may move directly to trial without the judge taking any substantive interim decisions, as the judge has broad discretion to rule on all issues in the judgment.

Last but not least, litigation costs are generally low, with court fees payable only at the end of the case and solely by the unsuccessful party. Unclaimed damages are not reimbursed to defendants but are instead transferred to public entities after litigation costs have been paid.

Third-party funding has unavoidably emerged as a central discussion, raising questions about plaintiffs’ and funders’ real interests and, consequently, about the standing of the plaintiffs to represent consumers. The first-instance Competition Court has confirmed Ius Omnibus’s standing to sue in proceedings against Abanca (November 2025).

 

MERGERS

2025 marked yet another record year for merger control activity for the PCA, with 99 notifications submitted and a total of 100 decisions adopted. Of these decisions, 98 were adopted in Phase I, while only two were adopted in Phase II. 92 concentrations were unconditionally cleared, and no prohibition decisions were adopted. Five proceedings were closed following the withdrawal of the notification, and three cases were found not to be subject to mandatory filing.

In sectoral terms, merger activity in 2025 was mostly spread throughout the extractive and manufacturing industries, trade and services, health and pharmaceutical activities, and real estate. Other concerned sectors were the supply and food industry, transport and infrastructure, digital and information technology, tourism and leisure activities, energy and fuels, telecommunications and media, banking, financial and insurance activities, agriculture, forestry and fishing, and environment and waste management.

Compared with 2024 – itself a record year, with 92 notifications, two conditional clearances and one prohibition – 2025 reflects both a further increase in merger filings and a continued predominance of swift Phase I clearance. From a sectoral perspective, the overall distribution of activity remained largely unchanged year on year, with manufacturing, services, healthcare and real estate maintaining a central role, alongside a broadly diversified spread of transactions across other sectors.

CUF / Hospital Particular do Algarve

In April 2025, CUF, one of Portugal’s leading private healthcare groups, notified the PCA of its intention to acquire sole control over Hospital Particular do Algarve, S.A. (HPA), one of the leading private regional hospital groups operating hospital and clinic facilities in the Algarve, the Alentejo and the Autonomous Region of Madeira.

In July 2025, the PCA opened a Phase II in-depth investigation. According to the Authority, the sector experienced a sustained increase in demand in recent years, driven in part by the expansion of health insurance coverage and complementary health subsystems, while also undergoing a process of consolidation in a context of high barriers to entry. The PCA further noted that the transaction could significantly strengthen the Parties’ bargaining power vis-à-vis health insurers and complementary health subsystems, with potential adverse effects on commercial conditions and costs for end-users. It also expressed concerns related to the possible elimination of future (potential) competition.

A final decision is expected in 2026.

Boluda / Remolcanosa Portugal

Another transaction subject to an in-depth investigation in 2025 was Boluda / Remolcanosa Portugal, notified in August. The transaction concerns the acquisition of Remolcanosa Portugal, a provider of maritime towage and port services operating across most Portuguese ports by the Boluda Group, a Spanish maritime services group active internationally in towage, port logistics and transport.

In December 2025, the PCA concluded that the transaction raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with competition rules and initiated a Phase II investigation.

Transactions in the maritime towage sector typically warrant closer scrutiny given the structural features of the sector, including the regulatory environment governing access to the provision of towage services, the high capital requirements associated with towage operations, the limited scope for geographic or functional substitutability between ports and operators, and the role of towage services as an indispensable input for the safe and continuous functioning of port operations.

A final decision is expected in 2026.