Portugal's Ombudsman Challenges Five Criminal Procedure Changes at the Constitutional Court, From Confessions to Fines for Stalling

On Monday, Portugal's Ombudsman (Provedora de Justiça), Luísa Neto, asked the Constitutional Court (Tribunal Constitucional) to strike down five sets of changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código de Processo Penal). The changes have applied to criminal cases since 1 September. Her argument is that they buy speed at the cost of defence rights that the Constitution guarantees.

The changes come from Law no. 34/2026 of 27 July (Lei n.º 34/2026), a government bill that parliament approved on 12 June and President António José Seguro signed into law on 17 July. Her office's statement says she does not dispute the aim of faster justice. However, the Constitution promises trial "as quickly as is compatible with the guarantees of defence", so "speed cannot be obtained at the expense of those guarantees."

The five changes under challenge

• Confessions to serious crimes. A full, unreserved confession now generally counts as proof of the facts, even for crimes carrying more than five years in prison. Until now, the judge decided whether further evidence was needed. The Ombudsman says the heavier the sentence, the more a judge must be able to check that a confession is true.
• Witnesses who no longer come to trial. Prosecutors can list statements given to them or to the police during the investigation and have them read out at trial. Unless the defendant objects in time, those witnesses are not called. This used to need the defendant's express agreement. The Ombudsman says silence, especially with no warning of its effect, cannot count as giving up the right to question them.
• Simplified trials for serious crimes. The abbreviated procedure (processo abreviado) used to be limited to crimes carrying up to five years in prison. It can now be used for any crime. She cites a 2014 Constitutional Court ruling that set that limit for summary trials.
• Replies on appeal. A defendant may answer the public prosecutor's opinion on an appeal only if it raises new arguments. The Ombudsman notes that the Constitutional Court already found a substantially identical rule unconstitutional earlier this year.
• A fine for delaying tactics. Judges can fine a defendant, a victim acting as a private co-prosecutor (assistente) or a civil party between 2 and 100 units of account for "manifestly unfounded" acts that delay a case. Notícias ao Minuto puts the maximum at 10,200 euros. The Ombudsman objects that no hearing is required before a fine is imposed. She also says the criteria are so vague that defendants may drop legitimate steps for fear of being punished.

The request rests mainly on Article 32 of the Constitution (guarantees in criminal proceedings), together with Article 18 on proportionality. This kind of review has no deadline. She has asked for priority, which requires parliament's agreement.

Who is affected

The rules apply in full to cases opened since 1 September. That covers anyone accused of a crime, whatever their nationality, as well as witnesses, victims and civil parties. The law stays in force until the court rules. The judge in the Banco Espírito Santo trial has already warned the defence it could be fined under the new rules. Anyone facing proceedings should ask their lawyer how the changes bear on their case.

In July the Bar Association (Ordem dos Advogados) urged every body entitled to bring a case to challenge the law. Its president met the Ombudsman on 7 September. On 16 October, citing Expresso, ECO reported that the Socialist Party (PS) would challenge seven of its articles. The law passed with votes from the PSD, Chega, the Liberal Initiative (IL) and PAN. Our guide explains how to complain to the Ombudsman.