The Lisbon Administrative Court has ordered the state to compensate the former director of the Office of Prevention and Investigation of Aircraft Accidents (GPIAA), Álvaro Neves, for his “unfounded” dismissal in 2017.
The ruling was the result of an administrative action filed eight years ago by Neves against the dismissal ordered by the Ministry of Planning and Infrastructure, then led by Pedro Marques, alleging that Neves “repeatedly opposed” government directives.
The termination order, which Neves viewed as politically motivated, was published in the Diário da República on February 3, 2017, and signed by former Secretary of State for Infrastructure, Guilherme d’Oliveira Martins.
“Contrary to the Ministry’s [respondent] claims, the Plaintiff [Álvaro Neves] neither showed nor admitted an inability to hold the position; rather the Plaintiff did not lack the capacity for the role of Director but highlighted that the office’s budget compromised his duties. He intended to clarify that if unable to perform, it should not be attributed to him,” stated the court.
The judge found that Neves demonstrated a strategic vision that differed significantly from that of the Ministry, which he shared publicly, causing the Ministry to openly justify its position not only within official channels but also through the media.
“The Ministry did not provide evidence nor assert that the Plaintiff had received specific superior directives regarding the operation, strategy, and development of the Office, nor that he displayed an inability to accept and execute such directives in his director role,” the court stated.
Thus, as per the court, “there was no evidence of the Plaintiff’s incapacity to execute superior directives, revealing an error in the factual premises and consequently, in the legal premises of the dismissal, warranting its annulment due to a violation of law.”
In a response, Álvaro Neves criticized the lengthy judicial process, expressing that “challenging political power poses risks.”
“That’s what I experienced in 2017: an exercise in arrogance and incompetence, leading to my summary dismissal for not aligning with the official narrative. I created discomfort because I refused to comply. Because I defended the GPIAA’s autonomy. Because I dared to be independent. The response was to create a hybrid structure, merging aviation and rail—trains and planes—as a justification to remove a troubling presence. An authoritarian decision, as typical of those who see themselves as rulers rather than public servants,” asserted Neves.
The former GPIAA director remarked that the decision “recognized the obvious.”
“My actions followed the GPIAA’s norms and mission—an organization meant to be independent of both industry and governing political power. It wasn’t my competence that was questioned, but my independence. Now with the court’s ruling, I can affirm what I’ve always believed: those who value freedom and integrity must not remain silent,” he emphasized.
