Banks cannot enforce against consumers without genuine negotiation under PERSI
The Supreme Court of Justice held that failure to comply with PERSI (the out-of-court arrears procedure, Decree-Law 227/2012) before bringing enforcement proceedings is a dilatory exception the court must raise of its own motion, leading to termination of the enforcement action. It is not enough for the bank to send the opening and closing notices: it must show that it conducted genuine negotiations, within the legal terms and deadlines — informal contacts do not suffice. A far-reaching decision for credit institutions and consumers in arrears.
Ref.: Supreme Court of Justice (6th Chamber), case no. 3448/24.1T8PRT-A.P1.S1, Reporting Justice Maria Olinda Garcia, released 13/07/2026.
Old leases: Constitutional Court blocks rent updates for elderly, low-income tenants
The Constitutional Court ruled unconstitutional the provisions of arts. 228(1) and (4) of Law no. 12/2022 and arts. 36 and 53(c) of Law no. 56/2023 (“Mais Habitação”), when read as allowing rent updates in residential leases predating the RAU, held by tenants aged 65 or over with household income below 5 national minimum wages, before the 10-year period in art. 36(7)(b) and (9) of the NRAU has elapsed. Direct impact on the management of old lease portfolios — landlords should review any updates under way.
Ref.: Constitutional Court ruling (extract) no. 499/2026, Official Gazette of 16/07/2026.
Abuse of rights defeats an action brought after a €400,000 settlement
The IPPC Blog reported and annotated a Supreme Court judgment dismissing, for abuse of rights in the form of venire contra factum proprium (art. 334 of the Civil Code), a paternity investigation action brought by claimants who had earlier discontinued an identical action, declared they waived the investigation and received €400,000 from the defendant. Even though such actions are not subject to limitation and waivers of personality rights are void (art. 280 Civil Code), the protection of legitimate reliance prevailed. A cross-cutting lesson for contract practice: good-faith limits apply even to non-waivable rights.
Ref.: Supreme Court judgment of 16/10/2025, case no. 6585/19.0T8BRG.G1.S1, annotated on the IPPC Blog on 15/07/2026.
This briefing is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific case, please contact us.