This article was featured in Jus Mundi‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review, an annual publication analyzing arbitration developments across 40+ jurisdictions on 6 continents. This edition brings together young practitioners and senior experts to capture the year’s most significant legislative reforms, enforcement trends, and institutional innovations.
THE AUTHORS:
Beatriz de Macedo Vitorino, Teaching Assistant at the University of Lisbon School of Law & Researcher for the Research Centre for Private Law (“CIDP”)
Rita Niny de Castro, Principal Associate at Cuatrecasas
Victoria Paiu, Associate Lawyer at CS’Associados
This article provides an overview of developments in arbitration in Portugal in 2025. As is customary, Portuguese arbitral awards issued in the context of voluntary arbitration are not publicly available. Consequently, our analysis relies exclusively on the judgments issued by state courts, primarily in cases involving jurisdictional objections, the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards, and actions seeking the annulment of arbitral awards. While our focus is on judgments from the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice (“SCJ”), it is worth noting that several courts of appeal also addressed arbitration matters, generally aligning with the SCJ’s approach.
It is also noteworthy that there were no relevant legislative developments affecting arbitration in 2025, which is why no chapter is dedicated to this topic.
Judicial Jurisdictional Objections and the Interpretation of Arbitration Clauses
Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, Case No. 13951/22.2T8LSB-1.L1.S1 (Maria de Deus Correia), 13 March 2025
The sub judice case concerned two agreements executed on the same date:
- a Share Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) between Reditus Gestão, S.A., Greendry, Lda (“Claimants”) and Inetum Tech Portugal, S.A. (“First Respondent”), which contained an arbitration clause; and
- an Escrow Agreement involving the same parties plus Haitong Bank, S.A. (“Second Respondent”), which submitted all the disputes related to the contract to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Lisbon.
The Claimants alleged breaches of both the SPA and the Escrow Agreement. The key question was whether the dispute should be settled by an arbitral tribunal (under the SPA) or by the Courts of Lisbon (under the Escrow Agreement).
The SCJ held that the arbitration clause in the SPA was fully binding on its signatories. Consequently, the state courts lacked jurisdiction over disputes arising under that contract, and the objection of absolute lack of jurisdiction was well-founded. On the other hand, the breach of the Escrow Agreement must be disputed under the jurisdiction of the Courts of Lisbon.
That said, SCJ confirmed that the proceedings could be bifurcated: arbitration for the disputes related with the SPA, and state courts for the disputes arising from the Escrow-Agreement against the non-signatory party of the SPA.
Decision of the Lisbon Court of Appeal, Case No. 22823/24.5T8LSB.L1.-2 (Laurinda Gemas), 22 May 2025
This case concerned a Share Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) executed between the BBI – Banif Banco de Investimento, S.A. (“Seller”) and Fund Box Holdings, S.A. (“Buyer”), under which the Buyer undertook to pay a variable price component directly to Oitante, S.A. (“Claimant” or “Oitante”) designated in the SPA as a third-party beneficiary, meaning it was not a signatory. The SPA included an arbitration clause which submitted all the disputes arising from the SPA to the Commercial Arbitration Centre of the Portuguese Chamber of Commerce and Industry(“CAC-CCIP”).
The Claimant claimed the breach of payment of the variable price component from the Buyer by filing a lawsuit against it in the state courts.
The Court of Appeal decided that the Claimant was bound by the arbitration clause despite not having signed the SPA. The Court considered that Oitante’s right to receive a variable price component derived directly from the SPA and that the arbitration clause was accessory to the substantive right it sought to enforce. By basing its claim on the SPA, Oitante tacitly adhered to the contractual terms, including the dispute resolution mechanism.
The Court further held that, under Article 18 of the Portuguese Arbitration Law (“LAV”), the state courts must decline jurisdiction unless the arbitration agreement is manifestly invalid or inapplicable, which was not the case. Accordingly, the judicial courts lacked jurisdiction, and the dispute should be submitted to arbitration.
Other Decisions
Several other decisions were rendered by the Courts of Appeal regarding the interpretation of arbitration clauses. For example, decision of the Guimarães Court of Appeal, Case No. 6872/24.6YIPRT.G1 (Maria dos Anjos Nogueira), dated 16 October 2025, reiterating the principle that the existence of an arbitration clause makes it plausible that a state court will not be competent to hear the dispute, and that the state courts ought to wait for the arbitral tribunal’s decision regarding its own competence.
Also, regarding a case where the arbitration clause made reference to an arbitral institution, the Lisbon Court of Appeal in Case No. 1005/25.4YRLSB.L1-8 (Teresa Sandiães), dated 23 October 2025, held that the adherence to the arbitration rules of an arbitral institution implies the acceptance of the appealability of the arbitral award, where such rules expressly allow it.
Annulment of Arbitral Awards
Decision of the Lisbon Court of Appeal, Case No. 2394/22.8YRLSB-2 (Fernando Alberto Caetano Besteiro), 13 February 2025
In annulment proceedings concerning an arbitral award rendered under the Arbitration Rules of the CAC-CCIP (2021), the Lisbon Court of Appeal held that this type of legal action does not entail a broad knowledge of the merits of the arbitral decision for which annulment is sought. The state court’s review is limited to verifying whether one of the specific grounds for annulment is met (Article 46(3) of LAV).
The Court of Appeal further specified that, even where annulment is granted, the re-examination of the merits falls on another arbitral tribunal (Article 46(9) of LAV).
Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, Case No. 1599/22.6YRLSB.S1 (Maria Olinda Garcia), 1 July 2025
The SCJ was called upon to rule on a request for the annulment of an arbitral award issued in CAC-CCIP-administered proceedings. The SCJ began by affirming that the grounds for annulment under Article 46(3) of LAV are exhaustive; an arbitral award may only be annulled if one of those grounds is established.
As to the alleged breach of fundamental principles under Article 46(3)(ii) of LAV, the SCJ held that the appellant must demonstrate a causal link between the alleged violation and the outcome of the award — notably, that the decision would have been wholly or partly different had the principles been observed. The appellant failed to discharge that burden.
The SCJ further noted that the submission of the proceedings to the rules of an arbitration centre without prior acceptance by the parties could, in principle, constitute a ground for annulment. However, annulment on this basis requires proof that such submission had a decisive influence on the decision of the dispute, within the meaning of Article 46(3)(iv) of LAV. That showing was not made, particularly given that the parties’ counsel had stated in writing, prior to the issuance of the award, that no irregularities had occurred during the proceedings.
In this context, the SCJ also referred to Article 30(3) of LAV, which provides that, in the absence of an agreement by the parties on procedural rules, the arbitral tribunal may conduct the arbitration as it considers appropriate, defining the rules it deems suitable. The Court concluded that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the parties had agreed on different procedural rules or had excluded the application of the CAC-CCIP rules – evidence that would be required to rebut the arbitral tribunal’s authority under Article 30(3) LAV to define the applicable procedural rules.
Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, Case No. 1692/24.0YRLSB.S1 (Catarina Serra), 3 July 2025
Following a decision of the Lisbon Court of Appeal declining to partially annul an award for lack of reasoning under Articles 46(3)(vi) and 42(3) of LAV, the SCJ upheld that ruling.
The Court clarified that a lack of reasoning exists only where the arbitral decision is devoid of grounds, i.e., where no reasoning is provided at all. An award that is inadequately reasoned, sparsely reasoned, or even wrongly reasoned, whether on facts or on law, is not an “unreasoned” decision for purposes of annulment under Articles 46(3)(a)(vi) and 42(3) of LAV.
Other Decisions
Several other decisions were rendered by Courts of Appeal in the context of requests for the annulment of arbitral awards. All but one concluded that there were no legitimate grounds for annulment. Indeed, in Case No. 1012/25.7YRLSB-7 (Carlos Oliveira), on 29 April 2025, the Lisbon Court of Appeal declared the nullity of an arbitral award due to the absolute lack of reasoning, both legal and factual. The Court, however, specified that the award could become valid if the reasoning behind the arbitrator’s decision were subsequently made clear.
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards
Decision of the Lisbon Court of Appeal, Case No. 108.24/7YRLSB-6 (Gabriela de Fátima Marques), 20 February 2025
This decision concerned the review and confirmation of a foreign investment arbitral award handed down in Paris, France, under the ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) Additional Facility Rules 2022, in the Gold Reserve v. Venezuela case.
The Lisbon Court of Appeal ruled that the award should be confirmed and recognised, dismissing Venezuela’s objection based on jurisdictional immunity. The Court’s decision was grounded in the principles of the protection of expectations, the respect for the self-determination of the parties and the development of international commerce. The Court relied its judgment on the LAV as well as the New York Convention (1958), stating that the recognition of the award could have been refused if it were incompatible with Public International Law, European Union Law, or the Portuguese Constitution; however, the Court found no grounds for such refusal.
Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, Case No. 108.24/7YRLSB.S1 (Henrique Antunes), 9 July 2025
The SCJ analysed the above-mentioned decision issued by the Lisbon Court of Appeal, regarding the Gold Reserve Inc v. Venezuela. Therefore, SCJ ruled on (i) jurisdictional immunity and (ii) the compatibility of foreign awards with the international public policy of the Portuguese State. The SCJ held that jurisdictional immunity may be validly waived – in favour of recognition of the arbitral award – notably through an international instrument or by the State’s voluntary decision to resort to arbitration to resolve a dispute.
The SCJ further emphasised that incompatibility with the international public policy of the Portuguese State only occurs when the foreign judgment manifestly and ostensibly breaches an essential legal rule or a fundamental right. In this regard, the SCJ analysed the application of the principle of the higher interests of the State, the principle of non-interference, the principle of proportionality, and the prohibition of abuse of rights. The SCJ ruled that, in this case, Venezuela had failed to prove the facts that would have prevented recognition of the arbitral award, upholding the decision of the Lisbon Court of Appeal.
Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, Case No. 1999/24.7YRLSB.S1 (Emidio Francisco Santos), 2 October 2025
In an action seeking for the review of a foreign arbitral award issued by the Council of the Refined Sugar Association (London) regarding a case that opposed LP Grace PTE, LDT (a Singaporean company) to Energy ECP, Unipessoal, Lda (a Portuguese company based in the Autonomous Region of Madeira), the latest challenged the confirmation of the award, stating, among other motives, that a decision rendered under the Portuguese law would have been more favourable to its interests.
The SCJ, however, confirmed the arbitral award, stating that it was not incompatible with the Portuguese public policy and that any error in the decision on the merits does not constitute grounds for refusal to recognise foreign arbitral awards.
Other Decisions
As far as we are aware, no other decisions were issued by Portuguese courts regarding the enforceability of foreign arbitral awards.
Conclusion
The analysis of these judgments shows that Portuguese courts are increasingly:
- declaring their own incompetence in cases involving arbitration clauses;
- confirming the validity of arbitral awards and setting high (mainly formal) standards for their annulment; and
- confirming the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
Thus, the Portuguese jurisprudence continues to demonstrate a pro-arbitration approach, which we consider extremely positive for ensuring that Portugal is an arbitration venue that offers security and efficiency.
Discover more insights into the latest developments in arbitration in 2025 from around the world now
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Beatriz Vitorino is a Teaching Assistant at the University of Lisbon School of Law and a Researcher for theResearch Centre for Private Law (“CIDP”). Beatriz Vitorino is also currently enrolled as a PhD student in Legal Sciences. Previous experience includes having worked as a Junior Consultant at MLGTS, as well as a Case Manager in the Arbitration Centre Concórdia. Beatriz serves as a PT-VYAP Co-Coordinator and is a member of Young ICCA.
Rita Niny de Castro is a Principal Associate in the Litigation & Arbitration team of Cuatrecasas. She graduated from the Nova University of Law (2016), has a master’s degree in Litigation from the Portuguese Catholic University, Faculty of Law (2019) and holds a post-graduate degree in Arbitration from the University of Lisbon, Faculty of Law (2022). Rita serves as a PT-VYAP Co-Coordinator and is a member of APA and CEIA-40.
Victoria Paiu is an Associate Lawyer in the Litigation & Arbitration team of CS’Associados. She graduated from the University of Lisbon, Faculty of Law (2021), holds a post-graduate degree in Arbitration from the same institution (2022) and has a master’s degree in Litigation from the Portuguese Catholic University, Faculty of Law (2024). Victoria along her co-authors, serves as a PT-VYAP Co-Coordinator and is a member of CEIA-40, ICC YAAF, and Young ICCA.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
