Age Discrimination – Employee Hired After the Age of 70
Judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeal of 11.03.2026
Case No. 15080/22.0T8LSB.L1-4
The central issue in this judgment is whether Article 348 of the Labour Code – which provides for the conversion of a permanent employment contract into a fixed-term contract upon retirement by old age or upon the employee reaching the age of 70 – is applicable to an employee who is already over 70 years of age at the time the (permanent) employment contract is entered into.
The Lisbon Court of Appeal answered in the negative on the following grounds:
- The literal and systematic argument: For a conversion to take place, there must already be a permanent contract, entered into before the employee reaches the age of 70, which can be transformed into a fixed-term contract.
- The non-application of Article 348 of the Labour Code by analogy: Fixed-term hiring is exceptional in nature, and exceptional provisions are not susceptible to application by analogy.
- The principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age: The Lisbon Court of Appeal invoked the international, European and national regulatory framework, reaffirming the prohibition of age discrimination as a general principle of European Union law.
- The teleology of the provision: Advanced age does not have the same effects on all individuals, and its repercussions on the employment contract depend on multiple factors, which may justify the conversion mechanism provided for in Article 348 of the Labour Code; however, an employer who chooses to hire an employee over the age of 70 voluntarily assumes the risk.
Disciplinary Proceedings – Prohibited Evidence
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 04.03.2026
Case No. 12355/23.4T8SBT-B.L1.S1
The judgment in question concerns the limitation period of disciplinary proceedings, with particular focus on determining the relevant point in time for the commencement of the 60-day limitation period provided for in Article 329(2) of the Labour Code.
The Supreme Court of Justice ("STJ") held that the 60-day period only begins to run upon the employer's or the hierarchical superior's with disciplinary authority actual knowledge of the infringement, and that, for this purpose, any knowledge acquired by employees or hierarchical superiors without disciplinary powers is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the person or body with the power to decide on the initiation of proceedings has effectively become aware of the facts, thereby being in a position to make an informed decision. The STJ further noted that it is perfectly normal for investigative acts or the gathering of evidence to be carried out by the employer's employees or even by third parties; however, the 60-day period only begins to run when the results of such steps come to the knowledge of the person with the power to decide whether or not to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
Service Commission – Written Form Requirement
Judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeal of 25.03.2026
Case No. 11728/24.0T8LSB.L1-4
This judgment addresses the question of the validity of a service commission agreement that was not reduced to writing at the time of its conclusion and the (im)possibility of remedying that defect through a written agreement entered into at a later date.
The Lisbon Court of Appeal recalls that the written form of the service commission constitutes a formality ad substantiam, which cannot be substituted by any other means of proof or subsequently validated by a later declaration of the parties to that effect. In the absence of written form, the duties performed by the employee are deemed to have been carried out on a permanent basis, under an ordinary employment contract or, where the employee was already engaged by the company, as a modification of the pre-existing employment contract.
Presumption of Acceptance of Dismissal – Deposit with the Court
Judgment of the Porto Court of Appeal of 05.03.2026
Case No. 11302/25.3T8PRT.P1
This judgment, handed down by the Porto Court of Appeal, concerns the challenge of a dismissal on grounds of redundancy and, in particular, whether the employee succeeded in rebutting the presumption of acceptance of the dismissal provided for in Article 366(4) of the Labour Code (which arises from the receipt of the full amount of compensation paid by the employer on account of the dismissal).
In the case at hand, on the date on which proceedings were brought to challenge the dismissal, the employee deposited the amount of the compensation with the court, rather than returning it directly to the employer.
The Porto Court of Appeal observed that the law does not prescribe a specific method for returning the compensation, requiring only that the employee relinquish the sum from his or her disposal and make it accessible to the employer, and held that an autonomous deposit with the court satisfies those requirements.
