The Portuguese Competition Authority (AdC or Authority) initiated proceedings on 23 October 2019 against the companies 2045, 2045-Gália, Comansegur, Esegur, Gália, Grupo 8, Prestibel, Prosegur, Ronsegur, Securitas, Strong Charon and Vigiexpert in order to investigate the existence of practices prohibited under Article 9 of the Portuguese Competition Law and Article 101 of the TFEU. The proceedings followed the receipt of several complaints submitted to the AdC by contracting authorities reporting allegedly anti-competitive conduct in the context of participation in public tenders launched for the provision of surveillance and manned security services in Portugal by the main companies operating in that market.
For the purpose of establishing the facts, several investigative measures were carried out pursuant to Article 17(2) and Article 18 of the Competition Law, namely inspections, examinations, the collection and seizure of copies of documents and other materials, as well as requests for information addressed to the undertakings concerned and to third parties.
On 16 July 2021, the Board of Directors of the AdC closed the investigation phase, pursuant to and for the purposes of Article 24(3)(a) of Law no. 19/2012.
The AdC concluded, with regard to Esegur – Empresa de Segurança, S.A., Gália – Empresa de Segurança, S.A., Ronsegur, Rondas e Segurança, Lda., and Vigiexpert – Prevenção e Vigilância Privada, Lda., that case PRC/2019/4 did not contain sufficiently conclusive evidence of an infringement of Article 9(1) of Law no. 19/2012 attributable to those companies, such as would allow their liability to be established. The AdC therefore ordered the closure of case PRC/2019/4 in respect of those undertakings, pursuant to Article 24(3)(b) of Law no. 19/2012.
On the other hand, based on the investigation carried out, the AdC concluded that there was a reasonable likelihood that a condemnatory decision could be adopted in the proceedings. It therefore opened the statement of objections phase and issued a Statement of Objections against the undertakings 2045 - Empresa de Segurança, S.A., 2045 - Gália/Serviços de Vigilância e Segurança, A.C.E., Comansegur Segurança Privada, S.A., Grupo 8 – Vigilância e Prevenção Electrónica, S.A., Prestibel – Empresa de Segurança, S.A., Prosegur – Companhia de Segurança, Lda., Securitas – Serviços e Tecnologia de Segurança, S.A., and Strong Charon – Soluções de Segurança, S.A., pursuant to Article 24(3)(a) of Law no. 19/2012.
On 12 July 2022, the AdC concluded the proceedings by adopting a Final Decision imposing fines on the undertakings addressed in the Statement of Objections.
Two of the addressees of the Final Decision lodged appeals before the Lisbon Court of Appeal (“TRL”), arguing the nullity of the inspection measures and of all evidence seized and collected in that context.
As a result of those appeals, on 5 June 2024 the TRL ruled that the evidence — emails, whether opened or unopened, and other equivalent means of communication — obtained through the inspections/seizures carried out by the Competition Authority at the premises of the appellant undertakings was null and void.
Consequently, the Competition Court (TCRS) ordered an assessment of the validity of the email messages seized by the AdC on the basis of authorisation from the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Accordingly, by judgment dated 4 April 2025 (Case no. 399/22.8YUSTR, Citius reference: 520344), the TCRS in compliance with the above-mentioned ruling of the TRL, held that email messages seized by the AdC without authorisation from an investigating judge and without the consent of the entities subject to the inspections must be removed from the proceedings case files, and declared both the Statement of Objections and the Final Decision adopted by the AdC to be null and void.
The case file was subsequently returned to the AdC so that, within the scope of its powers, it could continue the investigation at the investigation stage.
In this context, the proceedings reverted to the investigation stage, during which a new decision was adopted in light of the facts established and the subject matter of the case, based on the items of evidence that were not affected by the aforementioned nullity.
In view of the evidence currently contained in the file, it was considered insufficient to conclude, in this case, that the objective and subjective elements of the infringement under investigation were met.
Accordingly, on 28 January 2026, the AdC adopted a decision to close the case.