Criminal procedure reform enters into force on 1 September with no transitional rule and catches pending cases
Law No. 34/2026 of 27 July amends the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Criminal Code and the Court Fees Regulation and takes effect on 1 September 2026, with no provision limiting it to new proceedings. In practice, anyone already a defendant in an investigation or already charged becomes subject to the new rules from that date. Among the changes with direct impact on the defence are the new Article 85-A, which imposes on the presiding judge a duty of case management and procedural adaptation and makes decisions taken thereunder unappealable, save where fundamental rights, freedoms and guarantees are at stake; the new wording of Article 120(3), providing that nullities of the investigation must be raised in the application for judicial investigation or, where there is none, by the end of the period for applying for it; Article 340(5), making the order for the taking of evidence unappealable, except where prohibited evidence is involved; and Article 399(2), requiring invalidities of orders to be raised first before the court that made them. The period for filing a defence becomes 20 days. Anyone with pending proceedings should review with their lawyer, before 1 September, whether any nullities or applications face altered or shortened deadlines. Ref.: Law No. 34/2026, Official Gazette No. 143/2026, Series I, of 27/07/2026, Articles 2, 3, 4 and 7.
Fines of up to 10,200 euros for acts deemed dilatory, and severance of the file to curb “abusive delay”
The same Law No. 34/2026 adds Article 521-A to the Code of Criminal Procedure, allowing the judge to fine the defendant, the private prosecutor, the civil party or the affected person between 2 and 100 units of account — up to some 10,200 euros — where they perform manifestly unfounded acts intended or apt to obstruct or delay the proceedings. Where there is a second such order in the same proceedings for acts performed through representation by a lawyer, a certified copy is sent immediately to the Bar Association for disciplinary assessment. Article 426-B is also added, on defence against abusive delay: if the reporting judge considers that an application seeks to prevent compliance with the judgment or its becoming final, he refers it to the panel, which may classify the incident as manifestly unfounded, order the file to be severed and the proceedings to continue in the court below. The Lisbon Regional Council of the Bar Association publicly criticised these solutions and announced that it would ask the Ombudsman to request abstract review by the Constitutional Court. In the sources consulted up to 27 August, no review proceedings had been identified as having reached the Constitutional Court. Ref.: Law No. 34/2026 of 27 July, Article 3 (Articles 426-B and 521-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure); statement of the Lisbon Regional Council of the Bar Association of 27/07/2026.
Statements for future memory: July uniforming judgment still unnumbered in the Gazette, but the statute settles the point on 1 September
The judgment of the plenary criminal chambers of the Supreme Court of Justice of 8 July 2026, in case No. 57/21.0GACDR.C2-A.S1, laid down uniform case law to the effect that a court may rely on statements for future memory given during investigation by a witness who is a victim of domestic violence and who, called to trial, refuses to testify after being warned under Article 134(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court official list of uniform criminal case law for 2026 nonetheless still ends with Judgment No. 4/2026, so it was not possible to identify a number or a publication date in the Official Gazette for the judgment of 8 July. Meanwhile, the point is settled by legislation: Law No. 34/2026 gives new wording to Article 356 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and its paragraph 7 maintains the ban on reading the testimony of a witness who has validly refused to testify, but expressly excepts statements by victims of domestic violence or with especially vulnerable victim status. For anyone facing charges, the decisive moment to exercise the right to challenge evidence is the future-memory hearing itself. Ref.: Supreme Court of Justice (plenary criminal chambers), 08/07/2026, case No. 57/21.0GACDR.C2-A.S1; Law No. 34/2026 of 27 July, Article 2.
Criminal policy for 2026-2028: tax offences and driving under the influence among the priorities
Published on the same day and also entering into force on 1 September 2026, Law No. 35/2026 of 27 July sets the objectives, priorities and guidelines of criminal policy for the 2026-2028 biennium. Article 5 lists the offences for priority investigation and expressly includes, under separate legislation, economic and financial crime, fraud in obtaining subsidies or grants, misapplication of a subsidy, grant or subsidised credit, and tax offences — a category covering offences against the tax authorities and social security. The same article lists, among offences against community life, those committed in a road context resulting in death or serious injury, dangerous driving and driving with a blood alcohol level of 1.2 g/l or above or under the influence of narcotics. Article 2(2) adopts as a strategy the use of diversion mechanisms and the extension of the summary procedure to serious crime. These priorities create no new offences, but they determine the allocation of investigative resources and bind, through the directives of the Prosecutor General, public prosecutors and the criminal police bodies assisting them. Ref.: Law No. 35/2026, Official Gazette No. 143/2026, Series I, of 27/07/2026, Articles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 29.
This newsletter is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For an analysis of your specific situation, please contact us.