Stuck in Your AIMA Process? Legal Options To Accelerate Your Case in Portugal

If your immigration process in Portugal has been pending for months or even years without any update, and you feel increasingly uncertain, anxious or simply stuck, you are far from alone. Many applicants comply with every legal requirement, submit all documents, attend appointments and pay the fees, only to face prolonged administrative silence that disrupts their personal and professional plans.

What most people do not realize is that this silence is not an inevitable part of the system, as Portuguese law provides a specific judicial mechanism that allows applicants to challenge excessive delay and compel the authorities to issue a decision.

This text explains, in clear and accessible terms, what this mechanism is, when it can be used, the deadlines that must be respected and what alternatives exist if too much time has already passed.

Excessive delay has become a structural feature of immigration procedures, with individuals often feeling powerless as weeks turn into months and, in many cases, years. Although it is understandable that people assume nothing can be done until the administration “gets to their file”, this assumption is incorrect. Portuguese administrative law recognizes that silence can cause serious harm and therefore provides tools to prevent authorities from indefinitely postponing decisions. When the legally prescribed decision deadline is exceeded, the law allows the individual to trigger judicial intervention to restore legality and compel the authority to act.

The key instrument in this context is the administrative action compelling the practice of a legally due act, set out in Article 66.º, in connection with Article 37.º (1)(b) of the Code of Procedure in the Administrative Courts (CPTA), which enables the administrative court to order the authority to issue the decision that it is legally obliged to take.

Importantly, the purpose of this action is not to influence the substance of the decision, that is to say, whether the residence permit is granted or denied, but to ensure that the administration fulfils its duty to decide, rather than allowing silence to obstruct rights. It is therefore a remedy against inaction, not a second opportunity to argue the merits of your application.

It is also important to distinguish this mechanism from the urgent subpoena set out in Article 109.º-A of the same Code. While Article 66.º addresses unlawful administrative silence after a missed decision deadline, Article 109.º-A is a separate and exceptional mechanism designed for situations where fundamental rights are at stake, and in which urgent judicial intervention is necessary to avoid serious and irreparable harm. Both instruments aim to restore legality, but they operate independently and under different assumptions.

Despite historically Portuguese administrative courts avoided compelling the public administration to act, for fear of violating the separation of powers, the changes in the legislation shifted this paradigm: today, judges may intervene whenever the law imposes a clear duty to act, and the administration unjustifiably fails to comply. This does not mean that the court replaces the authority in matters involving discretionary evaluation, but rather that it may set a binding deadline and require the decision to be issued within the parameters defined by law.

It is also important to understand that the effect of this action depends on the nature of the act. If the act has strictly binding content, meaning the law leaves no discretion because all requirements are met, the court may ultimately substitute the missing act through its ruling. If the act involves administrative discretion, the court cannot decide the content on behalf of the authority, but it can impose a binding deadline and parameters to ensure that a decision is finally issued. In both situations, the purpose is the same: preventing the administration from paralyzing rights through inaction.

For applicants considering this mechanism, it is essential to understand how Article 66.º CPTA operates in practice. The first requirement is that the authority must have exceeded the legal deadline for issuing the decision. For many residence permit applications, this deadline is often around ninety days, although it is only an indicative reference and varies depending on the specific procedure. Once the deadline has passed, the applicant must send a written request asking the authority to decide. Only if the authority remains silent following this request does the right to judicial intervention arises. This requirement preserves the principle of dialogue between the individual and the administration and provides the authority with a final opportunity to fulfil its duties voluntarily before judicial escalation.

A crucial dimension of this mechanism, and one that is often overlooked, is that the right to bring the action expires. Under Article 69, the right to compel the practice of the legally due act must be exercised within one year after the legal decision deadline expires. This one year period begins on the day immediately following the expiry of the legal deadline for deciding, which is the moment when tacit refusal legally occurs. After that period, the right is extinguished, regardless of the merit of the underlying application. This is especially relevant for applicants who have been waiting “for years”: unfortunately, in many such cases the time limit to litigate has already passed, not because the administration acted lawfully, but because the passage of time eliminated the possibility of judicial enforcement under Articles 66.º CPTA, requiring a different legal assessment of the case.

If the action is filed in time and upheld, the court may order the authority to issue the pending decision within a fixed period. If the administration continues to delay, the CPTA includes enforcement tools, such as financial penalties for continued non-compliance, and, in situations involving strictly binding acts, the judge may ultimately substitute the missing act. These measures reinforce the idea that a judicial decision cannot remain theoretical; it must have practical consequences that restore legality and protect the individual’s rights.

Although this remedy has proven effective in immigration cases, particular caution is required when dealing with Portuguese nationality procedures. Citizenship follows its own normative framework and engages constitutional rights of a different nature. In many situations involving urgency, the mechanism applicable to citizenship is not Article 66.º but rather the subpoena for the protection of rights, freedoms and guarantees set out in Article 109.º-A of the Code. Delay in citizenship processes, therefore, must be assessed separately and through the judicial pathways that are specifically designed for that legal context.

Taken together, the appropriate legal response to administrative delay depends on several factors: the duration of the delay, whether the applicant is still within the strict one-year period established by Article 69.º CPTA, and whether the matter concerns immigration or citizenship.

For recent delays within the time limit, Article 66.º CPTA may offer an effective means of unlocking a long-awaited decision. For delays extending beyond one year, this mechanism may no longer be available, and alternative legal strategies must be explored.

At LVP Advogados, we assist clients in evaluating whether Article 66.º CPTA is still available in their specific situation, preparing the necessary preliminary requests to the administration, and, when justified, initiating judicial proceedings before the Administrative Courts. If the statutory period has already expired or if the matter concerns citizenship rather than residence, we identify and pursue the legal mechanisms that remain available.

If your case has been pending far beyond the legal timeframe and you would like to know whether judicial intervention is still possible, or which options remain available, you are welcome to contact us for individualized and comprehensive legal support.