In a general voting session held on July 11, a proposal by Chega was approved with support from the Social Democrats, Liberal Initiative, and CDS-PP, but it has now been rejected by PSD and PS due to concerns about “respect for constitutional principles.”
Instead, PSD’s project, opposed by Chega, gained PS’s support for criminalizing the act of invading or occupying immovable property with intentions of claiming ownership not recognized by law. This crime will now carry a penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment or a fine for up to 240 days.
The PSD’s proposal includes “increased penalties, with prison terms of up to three years, or fines for actions involving violence or targeting residential properties.” The penalty can increase to four years if the offense is committed professionally or for profit.
Chega’s main proposal, which was rejected, advocated for summary conviction processes. In response, the Social Democrats proposed an alternative solution “to ensure a prompt and swift response to illegal occupation within the criminal process.”
This includes the legal authority for a criminal investigation judge to order the immediate return of the property to its owner if there is strong evidence of the crime of property usurpation.
“The amendments now introduced to the crime of property usurpation provide greater effectiveness in applying this faster and more expeditious procedural means,” states the PSD’s bill, which accepted two amendments from PS.
On PS’s suggestion, it was established that “if the complainant’s ownership of the property is strongly indicated, the judge can require the return of the property to its owner.”
“For public housing properties used for residential purposes, the authority responsible for filing a complaint about property usurpation will analyze the socioeconomic conditions of the affected parties and may activate appropriate social or housing responses. They can waive filing a complaint if the property is voluntarily vacated,” added the PS.
Chega, the party initiating the review of laws on illegal occupation, argued it was “essential for property usurpation crimes to be judged in summary proceedings.”
“Chega believes that in this type of crime, the State’s swift judgment is crucial for instilling the notion that occupying third-party properties is a crime that could result in a prison sentence of three to five years, or up to three years with an alternative fine if conducted without violence,” according to the bill rejected by PSD and PS.
