Law No. 34/2026, of 27 July, has been published, introducing a significant set of amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, the Criminal Code and the Regulation on Procedural Costs.
The new rules enter into force on 1 September 2026, strengthening the case-management powers granted to judges, introducing a fine regime for dilatory conduct, and amending the rules on evidence, procedural deadlines and court costs.
Stronger case-management powers for judges
New Article 85-A of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly establishes a duty of active case management.
Presiding judges must now ensure the effective direction of proceedings, take the initiative on steps needed for swift progress, adapt procedural steps to the specific features of each case, and reject requests or acts that prove manifestly irrelevant or dilatory, after first hearing the parties involved.
The law sets a clear limit, however: these decisions cannot affect the fundamental rights and guarantees of the parties, and are, as a rule, not subject to appeal — except where a breach of those guarantees is specifically invoked.
New fine regime for dilatory conduct
New Article 521-A of the Criminal Procedure Code introduces a specific fine for manifestly unfounded acts aimed at delaying or obstructing proceedings.
- Defendants, assistants, civil parties or affected persons: fine of 2 to 100 UC (procedural units)
- Third parties: fine of 1 to 5 UC
The fine must be paid within 10 days of the decision imposing it becoming final, failing which it increases by 50%. Where a second conviction in the same case relates to an act carried out through a lawyer, a certified copy is sent to the Bar Association for a possible disciplinary review.
Handling of manifestly unfounded incidents
New Article 426-B establishes a mechanism to prevent manifestly unfounded requests or incidents from artificially delaying the finality of court decisions.
Where the reporting judge considers that an incident is aimed exclusively at obstructing compliance with a ruling or the referral of a case, it may be submitted to a panel of judges. If deemed manifestly unfounded, the proceedings continue immediately, and the challenged decision is, as a rule, treated as final — without prejudice to the incident being separately assessed at a later stage, on its own track.
Changes to the evidence framework
Key changes to the rules on evidence include:
- A cap of 20 witnesses, of whom only 5 may be called solely to testify on the defendant’s personality and living conditions
- The possibility of exceeding this limit through a duly reasoned request, where necessary to establish the material truth
- In cases declared exceptionally complex, the Public Prosecutor’s Office must now indicate, alongside each count or group of counts in the indictment, the evidence considered most relevant
- Orders for the production of evidence are, as a rule, no longer subject to appeal, except where unlawfully obtained evidence is at issue
Faster scheduling of hearings
Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Code now requires trial hearings to be scheduled for the earliest possible date, aiming to ensure that no more than two months pass between the case file being received and the hearing taking place.
Deadlines in cases of exceptional complexity
Where a case is declared exceptionally complex, several deadlines applicable to the investigation, pre-trial inquiry, defence submissions and appeals stages are doubled compared to the periods otherwise provided for by law. For appeals against final decisions, deadlines may be extended by up to 30 additional days, upon request and by court order.
Changes to procedural costs
Table III of the Regulation on Procedural Costs is amended, setting out, among other matters, the following court fee ranges:
- Ordinary proceedings: 2 to 12 UC
- Appeal to the Court of Appeal: 3 to 12 UC
- Appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice: 5 to 20 UC
Other relevant changes
The law also introduces a number of targeted amendments, including: the possibility of performing procedural acts within the additional deadline provided for in civil proceedings; new rules on raising procedural nullities; changes to the reproduction and reading of statements at trial; new rules on the filing of judgments; adjustments to summary proceedings; and automatic certification of the finality of appellate rulings.
Constitutional controversy
Some of the solutions introduced by Law No. 34/2026 have already raised concerns regarding their constitutionality. In a statement dated 28 July 2026, the Portuguese Bar Association announced that it had written to the entities with standing to request abstract, ex-post constitutional review before the Constitutional Court, under Article 281 of the Constitution. The concerns raised focus, in particular, on the new sanctioning regime for acts considered dilatory, on the grounds that it may disproportionately restrict defence guarantees in criminal proceedings (Observador; ECO).
Any eventual ruling by the Constitutional Court may therefore prove relevant to the future application of some of the solutions now enshrined in law.
How VCA can help
These changes have a direct impact on how criminal proceedings unfold in Portugal, particularly for anyone involved as a defendant, assistant or civil party. VCA closely monitors these developments and is available to advise on the practical implications for each specific case.
Dispute Resolution Department
Hugo Martins Braz | Catarina Almeida
