In short: a company had a 6,000 euro fine annulled because neither the administrative decision nor the judgment identified the individual to whom the conduct was attributed. The Porto Court of Appeal recalled that administrative offence law is governed by the principle of fault and that a company has no consciousness or will of its own. The flaw cannot be cured on appeal. It is a ground of challenge that does not require arguing the facts.
The case
During an inspection of a supermarket, a label was found giving as the unit price what was in fact the price per kilo. The authority imposed on the company a fine of 6,000 euros for a serious economic administrative offence, on grounds of negligence, and the first instance court upheld the decision. The Porto Court of Appeal reversed both the judgment and the administrative decision itself.
The principle of fault applies to administrative offences too
The judgment starts from the position that administrative offence law is governed by the principle of fault, just as criminal law is. Intent and negligence are subjective states: they presuppose consciousness and will. A commercial company, by definition, has neither. The liability of a legal person is always indirect and a reflection of the fault of an individual acting in its name or on its behalf, as follows from article 7(2) of the General Administrative Offences Regime and article 7(2) of the Economic Administrative Offences Regime.
What was missing from the decision
Both the authority and the judgment confined themselves to writing that «the defendant did not act with the care required of it» and that it was an experienced economic operator. The defendant being the company itself, these formulas attribute the conduct to no one. They therefore amount to a failure to describe the subjective element of the offence — a constituent element is missing, not a drafting detail.
Why the flaw cannot be cured
One might think it would suffice to add the missing facts. It does not. The administrative decision serves as the charge, by force of article 62(1) of the General Administrative Offences Regime. Adding on appeal the facts relating to the fault of an individual would be a substantial alteration of the facts of the charge, precluded by the subsidiary application of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With no means of correction, the consequence is annulment — not remittal for a fresh hearing.
What to look for in a fine decision
The check is quick and can be done with a highlighter. Read the decision and look for one thing only: does any individual appear to whom the conduct is attributed with intent or negligence? A full name is not required, nor a detailed description of duties — a summary reference suffices. What is fatal is total omission, with every sentence about fault beginning with «the defendant», the defendant being the company. If that is the case, you have an autonomous ground of challenge that does not depend on arguing about the label, the price or the inspection.
The immediate step
Raise the point in the judicial challenge itself, in writing, and not merely in oral submissions at the end. Attach, if possible, the company’s organisational structure and delegation of powers, to show that identification was possible and was not carried out. And by way of prevention, it is worth reviewing internally who answers for each area subject to inspection: the same logic that today benefits the company in its challenge is the one that, in other proceedings, will determine who is exposed. Porto Court of Appeal, case no. 113/25.6T8OBR.P1, 14 July 2026, reporting judge Pedro Vaz Pato.
This note is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For an analysis of your specific case, please contact us.