The Constitutional Court Has Now Twice Voided PAN's Leadership Election, and Says Ordering a New Congress Is Not Its Job

The full bench of Portugal's Constitutional Court has rejected PAN's appeal against the ruling that voided the election of the party's national bodies, including the re-election of its spokesperson, Inês Sousa Real. The decision, dated Tuesday 8 September and written by judge Joaquim Pedro Cardoso da Costa, denies the appeal PAN lodged in mid-July and confirms that the election is null.

The judgment, which the Lusa news agency has seen, turns on who was allowed to choose. The court found that the party's national bodies were elected by "a restricted set of structures" and by "a structure that was statutorily incompetent" to do so, which in the judges' view undermines the legitimacy of the result. "The legal validity of the chain of legitimation that leads members to the Congress, and the Congress to the national bodies, would thus be irremediably tainted," the ruling says.

How the Case Started

The original ruling is dated 13 July. It followed a challenge brought by a PAN member, Carolina Pia, against the election of the party's internal office-holders at its tenth Congress, held in Coimbra on 20 December 2025. The Constitutional Court declared part of that Congress's own regulation illegal and, as a consequence, invalidated the leadership election held under it.

Pia led the only list opposing the current leadership at that election and stayed away from the Congress in protest, saying the "democratic guarantees" needed to hold the proceedings were not in place. She now leads Transformar para Crescer, an internal opposition movement that, after the July ruling, called for Sousa Real to resign and for a fresh Congress with internal elections.

What the Court Will Not Do

The court was explicit about the limits of its own role. It is not for the Constitutional Court, the July judgment says, to "determine the holding of a new Congress, nor to condemn the party to the performance of specific acts". Restoring legality is a matter for "the competent party bodies", which leaves PAN itself to decide what a nullified leadership election requires of it.

That is the practical difficulty. The ruling removes the legal basis of the current leadership's mandate without ordering a remedy or setting a deadline, so the party must supply both.

PAN's Case for Proportionality

When it announced the appeal, PAN said it "respects the decisions of democratic institutions" and restated its "commitment to legality, transparency and the participation of all members", while arguing that the consequence the court had imposed went too far.

The party called the outcome "disproportionate given the specific circumstances of the case, the time elapsed until the decision, and the fact that three previous decisions of the court itself did not attach suspensive effect either to the holding of the Congress or to the taking of office of the party's national bodies". In other words: the court let the Congress happen, let the winners take their seats, and only then declared the vote void. The plenary has now dismissed that reasoning.

What This Means for Residents

• Parliamentary arithmetic: PAN sits in the Assembleia da República and its votes count on animal welfare, environment and social measures. An unresolved leadership question is the kind that tends to reduce a small party's negotiating weight during a budget season.
• Nothing changes in Parliament today: The ruling concerns internal party bodies, not parliamentary mandates, so deputies keep their seats.
• Party rules are justiciable: The case is a reminder that in Portugal a party's own congress regulation can be struck down by a court on the application of a single member.
• If you are a member of any Portuguese party: The route Pia used, a challenge to the election of internal office-holders, is open to members generally and does not require a faction behind it.

The next move belongs to PAN. With the appeal exhausted, the choice is between convening a new Congress under a regulation that survives scrutiny or continuing under a leadership whose election the Constitutional Court has now twice said was void.