Currently, for those seeking to acquire Portuguese nationality based on a de facto union, identifying the competent court is a relevant practical decision. Filing the action in the wrong court can raise an issue of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, delay proceedings, and postpone the subsequent nationality application.
In our previous article, “De facto (stable) union and Portuguese nationality: does the new wording resolve or merely postpone the issue of the competent court?”, we analyzed whether the replacement of the reference to the “civil court” with the expression “competent court”, introduced by Organic Law No. 1/2026, of May 18, effectively resolved this issue.
Meanwhile, the Porto Court of Appeal (TRP), through the Ruling of July 1, 2026, dismissed an appeal seeking to overturn a decision that found the Local Civil Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, where it was argued that, under the Nationality Law, civil courts were materially competent in accordance with prevailing case law.
The TRP decided that the new wording of Article 3(3) of the Nationality Law should be interpreted to mean that the legislative change is merely interpretative and, therefore, that actions for the recognition of a de facto union for the purpose of acquiring Portuguese nationality by the foreign member of the couple must be brought before the judicial court with subject-matter jurisdiction according to the general rules of specialization—that is, before the Family and Minor Court.
The Question That Remained Open
The new wording of the legal provision maintained the requirement for judicial recognition of the de facto union for more than three years, but now requires a decision issued by the “competent court”.
As we noted in the previous article, this new formula was more compatible with the specialization rules of the Law on the Organization of the Judicial System, particularly with the jurisdiction of the Family and Minor Courts regarding de facto unions and actions relating to the civil status of persons and the family.
However, a decisive question persisted for proceedings already initiated under the previous wording: would the change be merely interpretative, confirming that jurisdiction always belonged to the Family and Minor Courts, or would it establish a new solution, applicable only to actions filed after its entry into force?
The doubt resulted from a consolidated divergence in case law:
- One orientation held that the previous reference to the “civil court” constituted a special rule, referring these actions to the civil courts or, in their absence, to courts of general jurisdiction;
- Another held that the expression should be read in the context of civil jurisdiction in a broad sense, without overriding the subject-matter specialization of the Family and Minor Courts.
The Supreme Court of Justice even adopted, in distinct decisions, divergent orientations regarding the subject-matter jurisdiction for actions to recognize a de facto union intended for the acquisition of Portuguese nationality. In the Ruling of June 22, 2023, it held that jurisdiction belongs to the civil courts. Conversely, the Ruling of November 16, 2023, concluded that the family and minor courts have jurisdiction.
What Did the Porto Court of Appeal Decide?
The action reviewed by the TRP had been filed on February 9, 2026, before the entry into force of Organic Law No. 1/2026 of May 18. The plaintiffs argued that the then-applicable wording of Article 3(3) of the Nationality Law, by mentioning the “civil court,” mandated the jurisdiction of the Local Civil Court in line with the case law orientation that the plaintiffs considered prevailing at that time.
The court of first instance had declared the Local Civil Court to lack subject-matter jurisdiction and assigned jurisdiction to the Family and Minor Court. The TRP confirmed this decision.
One of the determining points of the ruling lies in the qualification of the legislative change. According to the TRP, the legislative change did not introduce a new solution in this matter. By replacing the expression “civil court” with “competent court,” the legislator adopted one of the interpretations already present in case law: that the previous reference referred to the specialization rules of the judicial jurisdiction.
Therefore, the TRP concluded that the change is interpretative in nature and not innovative; by applying Article 13(1) of the Civil Code, according to which an interpretative law is integrated into the interpreted law, it considered that the new wording confirms the jurisdiction of the Family and Minor Courts even for actions filed before May 19, 2026.
Furthermore, it is of paramount importance that the TRP leaned towards the case law option that considers family and minor courts to have subject-matter jurisdiction, reinforcing this understanding with the change introduced by Organic Law No. 1/2026, of May 18, and dismissed the appeal.
This divergence in case law highlights a framework of legal uncertainty, to the detriment of the rights and interests of the recipients of the Nationality Law, resulting in delays in the processing of these actions and subsequent nationality applications.
What does this mean for those who wish to proceed with a nationality application based on a de facto union?
For those who have not yet filed an action for the recognition of a de facto union, it is important to recognize that, given the divergence in case law, delays in processing, rulings of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and uncertainty are still possible.
However, the TRP Ruling reinforces that filing in the Family and Minor Court with territorial jurisdiction is, in the current context, the safest procedural option.
Regarding actions already filed before May 19, 2026 in a Local Civil Court, the solution will depend, however, on the specific situation of each case, namely the procedural stage it is in.
Is the Issue Definitely Resolved?
Not yet in a definitive way.
The TRP Ruling does not constitute a binding precedent for the harmonization of case law and does not automatically bind other courts. Other courts, including the Supreme Court of Justice, may still rule specifically on the interpretation to be given to the new wording of the legal provision that allows nationality applications based on a de facto union, as well as the retroactive temporal effects of Organic Law No. 1/2026, of May 18. In fact, it is foreseeable that this issue will be subject to further judicial review.
That said, the decision carries particular weight for two reasons:
- It was issued after the entry into force of the new wording;
- It directly addresses the previous divergence in case law, adopting the solution favorable to the jurisdiction of the Family and Minor Courts.
The orientation favorable to the Family and Minor Courts also finds support in the Ruling of the Lisbon Court of Appeal of February 24, 2026, which qualified the de facto union as a matter falling within actions relating to the civil status of persons and the family.
What the Ruling Does Not Resolve
The TRP Ruling does not resolve other issues addressed in our previous article, namely:
- The relevance of foreign decisions recognizing a de facto union;
- The necessity and effects of the review and confirmation of such decisions in Portugal;
- The sufficiency of a reviewed foreign decision to satisfy, by itself, the requirement for judicial recognition provided for in the Nationality Law;
Conclusion
The Ruling of the Porto Court of Appeal (TRP) represents, to date, one of the most recent and relevant decisions in the judicial debate on subject-matter jurisdiction. The TRP decided that the courts with subject-matter jurisdiction are the family and minor courts and supports this decision on the new wording of Article 3(3) of the Nationality Law.
The decision does not, however, constitute harmonized case law, although it represents a particularly relevant precedent for the preparation of new actions.
In cases involving relationships established abroad or foreign decisions recognizing a de facto union, autonomous issues remain that require their own analysis and which Portuguese case law is expected to clarify.
This article complements the analysis published previously and is exclusively for informational purposes. It does not replace an individualized legal assessment of the specific circumstances of each case.
