EMEL legal action could lead to repayment of millions in fines

EMEL - Lisbon’s Mobility and Parking Company - is set to face legal action that could pave the way for the repayment of millions of euros in fines.

The case is being prepared by Carlos Barroso & Associates and is expected to be filed with the administrative courts in early September. The allegations concern the boundaries of parking enforcement powers, the handling of motorists’ defences and the collection of cases said to be time-barred.

According to lawyer Carlos Barroso, the firm is currently dealing with more than one thousand cases involving offences identified through EMEL enforcement.

“I have been contacted extensively by a number of people reporting situations in their dealings with EMEL, and I have to compile these so that I can also include them in the action,” said the lawyer.

The aim is to obtain a court ruling on whether the disputed practices comply with the law. If the courts uphold the arguments put forward, this could lead to the reimbursement of fines and other sums paid improperly.

What is the issue?

One issue raised by the law firm concerns the limits of EMEL’s enforcement remit. Carlos Barroso disputes whether the company can issue notices for parking offences outside the areas it manages or beyond the hours during which parking charges apply.

The lawyer cites the example of a bus stop in an area where paid parking operates from 09:00 to 19:00. “At eight in the morning, there is a car parked on the yellow markings at the stop and an EMEL vehicle goes past. Can it issue a fine or not? Can it tow the car or not? In my view, it cannot, but EMEL is doing so,” he said.

EMEL disagrees. In comments to CNN Portugal, the municipal company said it has authority, delegated by Lisbon City Council, to enforce parking rules across the entire municipality, regardless of whether the location is a charged parking area or of its operating hours.

The company bases its position on Article 5 of Decree-Law No. 44/2005 and Decree-Law No. 107/2018. The latter gives municipalities powers to enforce parking regulations on roads and public spaces under municipal jurisdiction, and allows those responsibilities to be delegated to a local company.

The right of defence is also challenged

Another allegation relates to how motorists’ submitted defences are dealt with.

After receiving notification of an offence report, motorists have 15 working days in which to lodge a defence. Barroso alleges that, in some cases handled by the firm, EMEL has failed to ensure that cases are properly examined before moving through the next stages of the procedure.

EMEL again rejects that interpretation, stressing that it is not responsible for the final decision in road traffic offence cases. For minor parking offences, that authority rests with Lisbon City Council. In other circumstances, it may lie with the National Road Safety Authority (ANSR), depending on the offence.

The company says the notification specifies the body to which a defence must be sent. Where an appeal is mistakenly submitted to EMEL, it says the document is forwarded to the relevant authority.

The firm also questions the enforced recovery of cases it regards as time-barred. Carlos Barroso gives the example of a case where limitation was allegedly invoked but collection nevertheless continued. EMEL says it does not have the information required to confirm situations of this kind, as such procedures are handled by the bodies responsible for deciding cases.

More than €37 million has been paid in fines

Figures released by EMEL illustrate the scale of its enforcement work, although they do not show how much money might potentially be repaid.

From 2020 to 2024, the company issued notifications for more than 1.13 million offence reports. Between 2020 and 2025, payments of fines arising from its enforcement activity totalled approximately €37.7 million.

That figure does not represent the amount at stake in the legal action. It is not currently known how many cases could be covered should the court rule in favour of the arguments advanced by the firm.

Asked about the potential repayment of fines or charges for wheel-clamping, towing and vehicle storage, EMEL said it would comply with any court decision requiring this. However, the company denies acting unlawfully and says it follows the applicable rules when exercising its powers.