Portugal's Maximum EAA Fine Is €44,891.81 — a Number Inherited From 1982
Portugal's accessibility law doesn't set its own ceiling. It borrows one from the 1982 general statute on administrative offences, which is why the maximum is an oddly precise escudo-conversion figure. But the fine isn't the sanction that should worry you — every conviction is published in two national newspapers, at your expense.
Quick answer
Portugal's EAA law (Decreto-Lei n.º 82/2022) grades every breach as grave or muito grave and attaches a band to each. For a company: €12,000–€24,000 for a serious offence, and €24,000 up to the general RGCO ceiling for a very serious one — which works out at €44,891.81, among the lowest maximums in the Union. For an individual the bands are €650–€1,500 and €2,000–€3,740.98. Enforcement is split across ten authorities. And under Art. 29(9), a condemnatory decision is always published, at the offender's cost, in two national newspapers.
A ceiling that was never set for accessibility
Portugal took the same shortcut as the Netherlands and Belgium: rather than writing its own maximum, it pointed at an existing one. Art. 29(2) gives the very-serious band as running from €24,000 "até ao limiar máximo previsto no Decreto-Lei n.º 433/82" — up to the maximum in the 1982 Regime Geral das Contraordenações, Portugal's general administrative-offence statute.
That statute's Article 17 fixes the ceiling:
« o montante máximo da coima aplicável às pessoas singulares é de (euro) 3740,98 » … « o montante máximo da coima aplicável às pessoas colectivas é de (euro) 44891,81 »
("the maximum fine applicable to natural persons is €3,740.98… the maximum fine applicable to legal persons is €44,891.81")
— Decreto-Lei n.º 433/82, Art. 17
The strange precision is the giveaway: these are escudo amounts converted at the euro changeover, in a statute written in 1982 for administrative offences in general. No one chose €44,891.81 as the right price for an inaccessible bank. Portugal's accessibility ceiling is a rounding artefact of a currency conversion.
What the law says
The bands themselves are in Art. 29(2):
« Contraordenação grave: i) Pessoa singular, € 650 a € 1500; ii) Pessoa coletiva, € 12 000 a € 24 000. Contraordenação muito grave: i) Pessoa singular, € 2000 até ao limiar máximo previsto no Decreto-Lei n.º 433/82; ii) Pessoa coletiva, € 24 000 até ao limiar máximo previsto no Decreto-Lei n.º 433/82. »
("Serious administrative offence: (i) natural person, €650 to €1,500; (ii) legal person, €12,000 to €24,000. Very serious administrative offence: (i) natural person, €2,000 up to the maximum threshold in Decree-Law No. 433/82; (ii) legal person, €24,000 up to that maximum.")
— Decreto-Lei n.º 82/2022, Art. 29(2) (Diário da República)
| Individual | Company | |
|---|---|---|
| Serious (grave) | €650–€1,500 | €12,000–€24,000 |
| Very serious (muito grave) | €2,000–€3,740.98 | €24,000–€44,891.81 |
| Negligent or attempted | Both limits halved | Both limits halved (max ≈ €22,446) |
Everything in Art. 29(1) is grave by default; Art. 29(4) then lists the specific subparagraphs that are elevated to muito grave. Broadly, the very-serious tier captures placing non-compliant products on the market, failing to take corrective action, failing to produce documentation, and failing to cooperate with the surveillance authorities — including, for service providers, the corrective-action and cooperation duties in Art. 13(2)(c)–(e).
Three further paragraphs shape the real exposure. Art. 29(5) requires repeat offending, the number of non-conforming units, and the number of people affected to be weighed in setting the amount. Art. 29(6) is unusually generous: attempted and negligent offences are punishable with both limits halved — so an inadvertent breach caps out around €22,400 for a company. And Art. 29(7) makes explicit that paying the fine doesn't discharge the underlying duty.
The sanction that bites
Art. 29(9) is where Portugal stops being a low-penalty jurisdiction:
« Há sempre lugar à publicidade da decisão condenatória, a expensas do infrator, designadamente em dois jornais de âmbito nacional. »
("There shall always be publication of the condemnatory decision, at the offender's expense, in particular in two national newspapers.")
— Decreto-Lei n.º 82/2022, Art. 29(9)
Há sempre lugar — always. Not at the regulator's discretion, not reserved for serious cases, not an ancillary sanction the authority may add. Publication is automatic on conviction, in the national press, and you pay for the advertising.
Czechia requires its regulators to publish lists of non-compliant products and services on their websites. Portugal goes further: your name, in two newspapers, on your own money. For a consumer-facing brand that is a far larger number than €44,891.81, and it is the reason Portugal's low ceiling shouldn't be read as low risk.
Where the money goes is itemised too, in Art. 32(1):
| Recipient | Share |
|---|---|
| The State | 40% |
| The authorities that investigated | 30% |
| The authority that drew up the infringement notice | 10% |
| INR, I.P. (National Rehabilitation Institute) | 10% |
| The disability support fund | 10% |
Note the 40% flowing back to the enforcing bodies themselves — an incentive structure worth knowing about.
Ten regulators, split by technology
Art. 28 splits market surveillance across ten bodies, and the boundaries are drawn by technology rather than by sector, which makes them unusually easy to get wrong:
| Authority | Covers |
|---|---|
| ANACOM | Computer hardware that operates via radio or is electronic communications equipment (but not its operating systems), plus electronic communications services |
| ASAE | Computer hardware that does not operate via radio, including the operating systems for both radio and non-radio hardware |
| ERC | Access to audiovisual media services |
| AMT and ANAC | Transport services / civil aviation |
| IMT, I.P. | Mobility and transport |
| Banco de Portugal | Most consumer banking services |
| CMVM | The securities-market subset of financial services |
| Municipalities | Self-service terminals in their area, with infringement notices drawn up by the security forces |
| IGAC | E-books |
Read the first two rows again. A laptop and the operating system running on it can fall to two different regulators, split on whether the hardware has a radio in it. That is the finest-grained enforcement boundary we've encountered in any of the 27.
Art. 31 keeps investigation and decision within whichever body has the remit; Art. 30 makes the 1982 RGCO the subsidiary law for anything the decree doesn't cover.
The requirements aren't in the law
Portugal's other distinguishing feature: Decreto-Lei n.º 82/2022 does not contain the accessibility requirements. Art. 37 delegated them to a joint ministerial order, and Portaria n.º 220/2023 of 20 July — signed by six ministers — is where they live, alongside the criteria for assessing a disproportionate burden.
That matters practically. A rectification declaration issued in January 2023 had to correct Annex II of the decree itself because it wrongly referred to requirements "in Annex I" when they are in fact set by the Portaria. If the published law can point at the wrong place, so can your compliance file.
Annex II of that Portaria is the practical part. It sets out, in Portuguese law, which costs you may count when arguing a burden is disproportionate — following the criteria in Annex VI of the Directive itself:
- One-off organisational costs — hiring people with specialist accessibility knowledge; training staff and acquiring accessibility skills; developing a new process to build accessibility into product development or service delivery; preparing accessibility guidance material; and, candidly, the one-off cost of understanding the legislation itself.
- Recurring production and development costs — designing the accessibility features; manufacturing; testing the accessibility of the product or service; preparing documentation.
Those are then set against three ratios: net compliance cost versus total operating and capital costs; estimated cost versus estimated benefit to disabled users, weighted by how much the product or service is used; and net compliance cost versus net turnover.
Every member state has a disproportionate-burden defence built on the same EU criteria. What Portugal gives you is that checklist written into its own national instrument — so a Portuguese burden assessment has a clear, local template to follow.
Has it been enforced yet?
No fines or proceedings have been reported. INR, I.P. maintains public guidance on the regime, and the professional commentary since June 2025 has been advisory rather than reporting cases. With ten authorities each running their own proceedings under Art. 31, there is also no single place where Portuguese enforcement would surface — which makes the absence of reported cases weaker evidence here than in, say, Austria.
What this means for your business
Don't price Portugal by its ceiling. €44,891.81 is low — but Art. 29(9) attaches a mandatory national-newspaper announcement to every conviction, paid for by you, and there is no discretion to avoid it. In reputational terms Portugal may be the most expensive small fine in the EU.
Three moves:
- Identify your regulator precisely. The radio-versus-non-radio hardware split between ANACOM and ASAE, with operating systems always going to ASAE, is a trap for anyone shipping connected devices.
- Read Portaria 220/2023, not just the decree, because the requirements and the burden criteria are there.
- If you rely on disproportionate burden, build the file against Annex II's cost list. It's the template a Portuguese authority will check you against.
Frequently asked questions
What is the EAA fine in Portugal?
For a company, €12,000–€24,000 for a serious offence and €24,000–€44,891.81 for a very serious one. For an individual, €650–€1,500 and €2,000–€3,740.98. Negligent and attempted offences have both limits halved.
Why is the maximum such a strange number?
Because it isn't an accessibility figure. Art. 29(2) points to the general 1982 administrative-offence statute, whose Art. 17 ceiling is an escudo amount converted to euros.
Is Portugal therefore low-risk?
Not really. Art. 29(9) requires every condemnatory decision to be published at the offender's expense in two national newspapers — automatically, with no discretion.
Who enforces it?
Ten authorities under Art. 28, split by technology as much as by sector: ANACOM, ASAE, ERC, AMT, ANAC, IMT, Banco de Portugal, CMVM, municipalities and IGAC.
Where are the actual accessibility requirements?
Not in the decree. Portaria n.º 220/2023 of 20 July sets both the requirements and the disproportionate-burden criteria, under Art. 37 of the decree.
Related
- ← Back to EAA Fines by Country — the full 27-state comparison
- Official text: Decreto-Lei n.º 82/2022 and Portaria n.º 220/2023 (Diário da República)
- Czechia's EAA fine — the other publication regime, at nearly nine times the ceiling
- The Netherlands' EAA fine — the other country that borrowed its ceiling from a general statute
