In short: Law no. 62/2026 was published in the Official Gazette on 10 September and entered into force the following day. It amends Laws no. 34/94, no. 23/2007 and no. 27/2008, creates a border return procedure and a screening procedure, and shortens deadlines. Article 10 applies the former regime to pending proceedings, but reserves the effect of judicial appeal — and that reservation is where the substance lies. Anyone with a pending challenge should reassess today whether a separate interim measure is needed.
What was published, and when it takes effect
Law no. 62/2026 of 10 September appeared in Official Gazette no. 176/2026, Series I. It was approved in Parliament on 17 July 2026, promulgated on 31 August and countersigned on 1 September. Article 11 provides that it enters into force on the day following publication, that is, on 11 September 2026 — with no adaptation period. The statute ensures the implementation of Regulations (EU) 2024/1347, 2024/1348, 2024/1349, 2024/1350, 2024/1351, 2024/1356 and 2024/1359, transposes Directives (EU) 2024/1233 and 2024/1346 and amends Law no. 34/94 of 14 September, Law no. 23/2007 of 4 July and Law no. 27/2008 of 30 June.
The reservation in article 10, where your case is decided
Article 10 appears to settle the question of application in time: the previously applicable regime governs applications filed and proceedings pending under Law no. 27/2008 at the date of entry into force. The provision does not stop there — it adds a further clause: «without prejudice to the provisions on the effect of judicial appeal». The natural reading is that the guarantee of continuity covers the conduct of the procedure, but not the regime governing the effect of a challenge. In other words: an older case may continue under the old rules and still have the new appeal-effect regime applied to it.
Challenging no longer suspends of itself
Article 22 of Law no. 27/2008 now sets the period for judicial challenge of the decision of AIMA’s board at eight days, before the administrative courts. It applies the procedure and time limits of article 110 of the Code of Procedure in the Administrative Courts «with the exception of its paragraph 3» — precisely the provision from which automatic suspensive effect followed. The practical consequence is direct: filing a challenge does not, of itself, halt removal. Anyone seeking to suspend the effects of the decision must apply for interim relief, and must do so at the same time, not afterwards.
Border return and screening: deadlines counted in days
The statute creates two new procedures in Law no. 23/2007. The border return procedure allows the person to remain at a border post while the decision is processed. The screening procedure has completion periods of seven days at the external border and three days within national territory. These are deadlines that leave no room to gather documents at leisure: preparation must be done beforehand, not during.
Detention for up to 180 days, renewable
Article 146(3) of Law no. 23/2007 maintains placement in a temporary installation centre for up to 180 days, renewable for an equal period, in particular where the person fails to cooperate or where there are delays in obtaining documentation from third countries. Under the international protection regime, article 35-B of Law no. 27/2008 starts from a shorter rule but allows extension up to 180 days, also renewable, where there is a judicial challenge.
The Constitutional Court has already ruled — and stopped nothing
The President of the Republic had submitted the statute to preventive review under article 278(1) of the Constitution, questioning eleven provisions: among them the removal of foreign nationals with dependent Portuguese minor children, the expulsion of children born in Portugal under the age of five, the detention of children, the merely devolutive effect of challenges and removal before a judicial decision. By judgment no. 736/2026 of 28 August 2026 (case no. 1150/2026, Plenary, reporting judge António José da Ascensão Ramos), the Court decided not to rule any of them unconstitutional. On the principle of non-refoulement, it held that the law does not permit return to a territory where there are grounds to believe the person may be at risk, by force of articles 47(1) and (2) and 2(1)(aa) of Law no. 27/2008 and article 149(1) of Law no. 23/2007.
What to do now
With the preventive route exhausted, argument on these provisions moves to concrete review, case by case, invoking also the parameters of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Charter and Union law. In the immediate term, three steps: review every pending challenge and verify whether suspensive effect survives or interim relief must be sought; recount deadlines in light of the eight days in article 22; and gather in advance the documentation that the screening deadlines no longer allow to be produced later. Anyone with a recent adverse decision should deal with it this week, not at the end of the period.
This note is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For an analysis of your specific case, please contact us.