The debtor’s insolvency does not halt third-party proceedings over assets outside the estate
The Supreme Court of Justice held that article 88 of the Insolvency Code (CIRE) — which bars and stays enforcement actions against the insolvent debtor — does not prevent third-party opposition proceedings (embargos de terceiro) from continuing where they concern assets not included in the insolvent estate. The case involved opposition proceedings within an enforcement action in which the debtor was later declared insolvent, the appeal having been admitted on the ground of conflicting case law. For third parties defending ownership of attached assets — the spouse, the purchaser — the debtor’s insolvency does not paralyse that defence: the stay is confined to assets seized for the estate. The decision was disclosed in August in the official summaries of the civil sections. Ref.: Supreme Court of Justice (7th Section), 07/07/2026, case no. 1838/18.8T8LLE-A.E1.S1, Reporting Judge Nuno Pinto Oliveira.
Removing the insolvency administrator: the Supreme Court’s door only opens with conflicting precedents
In proceedings for the removal of an insolvency administrator, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that article 14(1) of the CIRE lays down a special, restrictive regime for admitting appeals, which excludes the exceptional review under article 672 of the Civil Procedure Code: an appeal to the Supreme Court is admissible only upon demonstrating a conflict of precedents on the same fundamental question of law, identifying the conflicting decision. The court further held that this limitation does not breach the right of access to the courts. The practical consequence: anyone seeking to challenge — or defend — an administrator’s removal before the Supreme Court must build the appeal, from the outset, on a conflicting precedent; there is no alternative route. Ref.: Supreme Court of Justice (6th Section), 13/07/2026, case no. 810/22.8T8OLH-G.E1-A.S1, Reporting Judge Eduarda Branquinho.
The value of the case in insolvency-related proceedings decides access to appeal — deal with it early
The Supreme Court clarified that, in insolvency-related proceedings and incidents, articles 15 and 301 of the CIRE operate together with the general rules of the Civil Procedure Code: the value set by the judge under article 306 determines the court’s jurisdiction, the form of proceedings and the relationship with the appeal threshold (article 296(2) CPC). A party disagreeing with the stated or fixed value bears the burden of raising the issue or challenging the ruling at the proper time — once consolidated, that value dictates whether an appeal is admissible. For creditors and debtors alike, the value of the case is a battle to fight at the start of each set of proceedings, or the door to a final appeal may close. Ref.: Supreme Court of Justice (6th Section), 13/07/2026, case no. 827/06.0TYLSB-Q.L1-A.S1, Reporting Judge Luís Correia de Mendonça.
Download the full edition as a PDF (bilingual, letterhead)
This newsletter is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific case, please contact us.