This table summarises all completed investigations by Portugal’s competition authority (the Autoridade Da Concorrenca—AdC) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions (Articles 101/102 TFEU and national equivalents) since 2018. Note—only investigations that have been made public are included in this table. 2026 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Article 9 of the 2012 Competition Act Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Telecommunications• Unknown Restrictive agreements • Infringement decision announced—05/06/2026; fines totalling €13,351,000 imposed Temporary labour services• Portuguese Association of Private Employment and• Human Resources Companies Restrictive agreements—no poach agreements • Infringement decision announced—13/03/2026; fines totalling €4.5m imposed Tourist guide services• Azores Tourist Information Guides Association Restrictive agreements—price fixing • Infringement decision announced—29/01/2026; fines totalling €8,200 imposed Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/Articles 11 and 12 of the 2012 Competition Act The AdC has not yet issued any decisions under Article 102 TFEU/Articles 11 and 12 of the 20212 Competition Act in 2026 2025 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Article 9 of the 2012 Competition Act Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Technology

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Portugal and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Portuguese merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Portugal? The Portuguese merger control regime was last amended in 2012 with the adoption of the current Competition Act (Law 19/2012 of 8 May 2012) (Competition Act). The Competition Act was most recently amended in 2022 to implement the EU ECN+ Directive, though these amendments did not introduce any material changes to the merger control framework. 2024 was the busiest year for merger control in the past decade. The Authority issued 93 final decisions, including 79 clearances, five conditional approvals (two of which followed an in-depth investigation), eight inapplicability decisions, and one prohibition decision. The two Phase II cases involving remedies—Live Nation/MEO Arena R&B and Ylport Iberia GSMarítima/Sotagus—were particularly protracted, taking 19 and 11 months to resolve, respectively. Between January and October 2025, the Authority

The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) has received written notification of withdrawal from the ECT from the Government of the Portuguese Republic. The withdrawal will take place on 2 February 2025 and, under article 47(3) of the ECT, all investment made at the time of the withdrawal will continue to have protection for 20 years. Other states that have withdrawn from the ECT include, France, Germany, Poland, Luxembourg and Slovenia.

Restructuring and Insolvency analysis: Harneys has released its March 2020 Position Paper on Parallel Schemes of Arrangement: the Schemario Rules. Schemarios are ‘scheme-scenarios’ which form governing rules to establish when a parallel scheme of arrangement is necessary. Schemarios will be helpful to practitioners of cross-border restructuring around the world. Harneys’ Schemarios illustrate how the operation of the ‘rule in Gibbs’ can be used to distinguish between cases where further steps (in particular, a parallel scheme of arrangement) are likely to be necessary. Written by Ian Mann, Phillip Kite, Chai Ridgers, Paula Kay, Peter Ferrer, Nicola Roberts, Nick Hoffman and Vicky Lord of Harneys. With many thanks to David Allison QC and Henry Phillip, both of South Square, London.

Applicable legislation Under the Insolvent Partnerships Order 1994 (IPO 1994), SI 1994/2421, as amended, the IR 2016, SI 2016/1024 'as from time to time in force' apply to insolvent partnerships with such modifications as the context requires to give effect to the provisions of IA 1986 and the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (IPO 1994, SI 1994/2421, Art 18 and Sch 10) (see Practice Note: Partnerships and the disqualification regime). Prior to 8 December 2017 (and subject to the transitional and savings provisions in the Insolvency (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2017), the IPO 1994 provided that the IR 1986, SI 1986/1925 ‘as from time to time in force’ applied to insolvent partnerships. This wording suggests that, subject to what is stated below, the extensive amendments to IR 1986 effected by the Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2010 with effect from 6 April 2010, applied to insolvent partnerships. In the event of conflict between IR 2016 and IPO 1994, the IPO 1994 prevails (IPO 1994, SI 1994/2421, Art 18(2)). The IPO 1994 also prevailed in the

The recast Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID II) and the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (EU) 600/2014 (MiFIR) repealed and replaced the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2004/39/EC (MiFID). MiFID II and MiFIR introduced a commodity derivatives position limits and reporting regime which is aimed at preventing market abuse and supporting orderly pricing and settlement conditions by improving transparency and oversight of financial markets. The regime came into force on 3 January 2018. This Practice Note sets out the position reporting requirements under MiFID II, which apply to trading venues, investment firms trading in commodity derivatives, emission allowances, or emission allowance derivatives, and trading venue members and highlights the changes made by Directive (EU) 2024/790 (the MiFID II Review). The MiFID II Review, together with Regulation (EU) 2024/791 amending Regulation (EU) 600/2014 (the MiFIR Review) was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 8 March 2024. Member States are required to transpose the provisions of the MiFID II Review into national law by 29

To [Insert Building Owner] Of [insert Building Owner’s main address] The Party Wall etc Act 1996 Acknowledgement of Notice As Adjoining Owner[s]

To [insert Building Owner] Of [insert Building Owner’s main address] The Party Wall etc Act 1996 Acknowledgement of Notice As Adjoining Owner/s under

This Practice Note considers the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) in relation to positive action in employment and the workplace, and identifies, where relevant, the difference between positive action (which is permitted by EqA 2010), and positive discrimination, which is generally not permitted. The Practice Note: • explains what positive action is and sets out the statutory framework for positive action in EqA 2010, with reference to the EHRC Code of Practice and other guidance • describes the difference between positive action and positive discrimination • identifies who can take positive action measures • outlines the reasons why employers may wish to use positive action • examines the conditions which must be met for general positive action measures, in relation to: ◦ action to remedy disadvantage ◦ action to meet needs ◦ action to encourage participation in activities • explains the need for positive action to be ‘proportionate’ and time-limited • examines the specific provisions that apply in relation to positive action in recruitment and promotion • notes the interaction with the public sector equality duty

An obligation arising out of a deed to do some positive act on land belonging to the covenantor.

What is a positive covenant? A covenant is a form of contract. Examples of positive covenants which typically appear in transfers of land include obligations to: • repair or maintain (eg accessways), or contribute to the costs of repair and maintenance incurred by someone else • erect buildings or boundary fences (eg in the case of a transfer of part) • pay further money (ie overage) if, for example, planning permission is obtained or on a sale after the land has been developed What is the issue with positive covenants? It is a well-established common law principle that the burden of a positive freehold covenant does not run with the land. Consequently, where a party to a transfer of freehold land (Party B) enters into a positive covenant with the other party to the transfer (Party A), the burden of that covenant will not bind Party B’s successors in title, notwithstanding Law of Property Act 1925, s 79. The burden of the covenant is directly enforceable only against Party B in its capacity as original

A covenant is a form of contract. The doctrine of privity of contract establishes that the rights and liabilities created by a contract bind the parties to it but no-one else. However, in the case of a covenant relating to land, property law principles may allow that covenant to be enforced by and/or against persons other than the original parties. The applicable principles are: • in most cases, the benefit of a restrictive covenant and a positive covenant is enforceable by successors in title by virtue of it 'running with the land' both in common law and in equity • subject to certain requirements, the burden of a restrictive covenant will run with the land in equity only (so as to be enforceable against successors in title), but • the burden of a positive covenant will not run with the land (but see Statutory exceptions below) The fact that the burden of positive covenants does not run with the land is generally regarded as a serious deficiency in English property law. It is not possible