In the final version of the text from the Constitutional Affairs Committee, Chega, Livre, and Bloco de Esquerda voted against it, while PAN chose to abstain.
Last week, PSD and PS reached a consensus in committee on tougher penalties for illegal property occupation, excluding Chega, the party that initially sought to revise the legislation.
On July 11, in the general voting, Chega’s proposal, which was later rejected in committee, had been approved with votes from the Social Democrats, Liberal Initiative, and CDS-PP. However, during the committee debate, PSD rejected it, citing “respect for constitutional principles.”
As an alternative, PSD, facing opposition from Chega regarding its proposal, secured support from PS for criminalizing the act of invading or occupying someone else’s property with the intent to exercise ownership, possession, use, or servitude not protected by law, court order, or administrative act. This offense will be punishable by up to two years in prison or a fine of up to 240 days.
The PSD’s proposal suggests increasing the penalty to up to three years in prison or a fine when the actions involve violence or target properties intended for personal and permanent residence. The penalty could extend to four years in prison “when the offense is committed professionally or with the intent of profit.”
One of the key points of Chega’s rejected project was the call for summary conviction processes. In contrast, the Social Democrats proposed an alternative solution “to ensure an immediate (and consequently quick) response to illegal occupation within criminal proceedings.”
“With the changes now introduced to the crime of property usurpation, greater effectiveness in applying this faster and more expedient procedural method is assured,” states the PSD’s legislative proposal, which accepted two amendments from PS.
In its proposal, PSD sought to establish that “if the complainant’s ownership of the property is strongly indicated, the judge must impose on the defendant the obligation to immediately return the property to the rightful owner.”
At this point, PS introduced a change, replacing “the judge must impose” with “the judge may impose” on the defendant the obligation to immediately return the property to the rightful owner.
“When properties are part of the public housing stock and are being used for residential purposes, the competent body to file a complaint for property usurpation will assess the socioeconomic conditions of those involved and, where applicable, will activate the appropriate social or housing responses as provided by law and regulations, and may waive filing a complaint if the property is voluntarily vacated,” added PS.
Chega, the party that initiated this criminal review process regarding illegal occupation, insisted that it is “essential that property usurpation crimes are judged in summary proceedings.”
Following the vote, PSD Vice President Hugo Carneiro expressed satisfaction with reaching an agreement with PS, emphasizing respect for constitutional principles and remarking on the consequences of his party’s project approval: “Illegal occupants’ days are numbered.”
Madalena Cordeiro from Chega criticized PSD for agreeing with PS on this matter, alleging that the PS “promotes illegal property occupation,” a claim which PS Deputy Pedro Delgado Alves immediately deemed defamatory.
Pedro Delgado Alves also distanced PS from PSD by stating that PS believes the scale of this issue in Portugal is not as severe as perceived by the Social Democrats. He acknowledged, however, the need for faster procedures in these criminal cases.
