In short: the Porto Court of Appeal decided two questions that change the risk calculation in eviction proceedings. First: parties may agree annual renewals in contracts concluded after Law no. 13/2019, because article 1096(1) of the Civil Code is default law and not mandatory. Second: compensation at double the rent is not automatic — it presupposes fault, and there is no fault where the contract’s end date is seriously disputed. Landlords and tenants each gain a point.
The case
A fixed-term residential tenancy of five years provided for successive one-year renewals. The landlords gave notice of opposition to renewal by letters received 128 days before the term, and sought termination of the contract, eviction and monthly compensation at double the rent. The court dismissed the claim at the pre-trial stage: it held that article 1096(1) of the Civil Code, as worded by Law no. 13/2019, mandatorily imposes renewals of no less than three years, so that termination was premature.
The renewal provision is default law
The Court of Appeal reversed, on an argument of proportion: if the parties may exclude renewal of the contract altogether, they may also set a renewal period shorter than three years — whoever may do more may do less. Article 1096(1) operates as a default regime, applicable where the parties agree nothing, and not as a mandatory limit on private autonomy. The annual renewal clause is therefore valid. This is a question on which the appellate courts had been divided, and the judgment takes a clear position.
Where the tenant’s protection actually lies
The tenant’s stability is secured not by the renewal provision but by article 1097(3) of the Civil Code, which guarantees the contract a minimum term of three years counted from conclusion, even where the landlord opposes renewal. That is the real backstop. In the case decided, the contract had run for around ten years, so the minimum was amply exceeded and nothing stood in the way of termination. The court declared the contract terminated and ordered eviction.
Double the rent is not automatic
The compensation claim was, however, dismissed, and this is where the decision matters to tenants. Article 1045(2) of the Civil Code governs a situation of aggravated default, which presupposes a failure attributable to the tenant. That attribution must be refused where the contract’s end date is genuinely disputed between the parties and the tenant supports its position with plausible and defensible legal arguments — as was the case here, so much so that the first instance court had found in the tenant’s favour. Someone who disputes a serious legal question in good faith is not in culpable default merely because they ultimately lose.
What this means in practice
For the landlord there is good news and bad. The good news is that the annual renewal clause works and allows recovery of the property with far greater predictability, provided the three-year minimum in article 1097(3) and the statutory notice periods are respected. The bad news is that the landlord should not count on compensation at double the rent to press for vacation: if the tenant has a defensible legal argument as to the date of termination, that head falls away, and with it much of the value of the claim. For the tenant, the defence exists but must be built on substance — disagreeing is not enough, there must be reasons the court recognises as plausible.
What to review now
If you hold contracts concluded after 2019 with annual renewal clauses, check whether the wording expressly displaces the default regime and whether the notices of opposition observe the statutory advance periods. If you are preparing eviction proceedings, count the period from conclusion rather than from the last renewal, and assess realistically whether the double-rent claim is sustainable. If you are a tenant who has received a notice of opposition, confirm whether the three years in article 1097(3) have already elapsed before taking any decision about vacating. Porto Court of Appeal, case no. 11666/25.9T8PRT.P1, 14 July 2026, reporting judge João Ramos Lopes.
This note is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For an analysis of your specific case, please contact us.