The Internet is open to anyone with a mobile phone hiding behind an Internet ‘identity’, and this is where the real work is for Governments and Regulators to step in to protect our communities.
MV Conversations with António de Macedo Vitorino
Recent and past atrocities have thrust the Internet and social media into the spotlight. From cyberbullying, slander and trolling to live streaming terror, the worldwide web is becoming ever more entangled.
While there is legislation in place to punish those held accountable, one of the main problems facing our Governments is the anonymity of those actually responsible, says António Macedo de Vitorino. “The priority is rectifying the lack of regulation governing digital identities and Internet and social media conduct, as well as evolving and accepting a degree of control in the public interest.”
In the old days, the village gossip sat in the main square passing judgement and spreading rumours, similar to the way people use the Internet today, explains António Vitorino. “The huge difference is that in those days the gossip stayed within the village: today it goes viral at the click of a button for anyone to comment on, share, judge and use against others.”
This immediate and unlimited access to information is one of the Internet’s most defining features, but also its Achilles heel. What we need to address is the ease with which people can set up fake profiles, accounts and hide IP addresses. This is where the real work is, says António Vitorino. “If you choose to use the Internet then you need to have a verifiable digital identity. We must have clear controls worldwide over digital identities, safeguarding the Internet and being able to hold people accountable for what they do and say.”
This would be a step forwards, but if we take the recent New Zealand terrorist attacks as an example, those were committed by someone with an identifiable Internet persona, they were effectively hiding in plain sight. “So, the second question is what is permitted on the Internet and how can you bar conducts that fall foul of this?”
Freedom, censorship: who decides?
While we cannot give away our freedom of expression or free speech, unfortunately we cannot stop people from ‘thinking’ the unthinkable, says António Vitorino. What we must put an end to is an unpoliced forum where hate, violence, racism, etc can be disseminated and acted upon, and apply real world standards to Internet conducts.
As important is how 'normal' everyday people have been transformed by the Internet, and seemingly freed from moral and social constraints. When speaking in cyber space, many times using their personal identities, they often expressive themselves in extremely offensive or utterly slanderous ways, saying things that they would never say face-to-face in the real world. The problem then is that this 'outrageous' behavior is shared worldwide on social media triggering equally offensive/slanderous comments and often resulting in hate campaigns.
But where do we draw the line when it comes to freedom of opinion or speech? “Slander, defamation, scare mongering, racism, etc? Yes of course, that shouldn’t be allowed” he says. “Use of words or conduct that incite violence or racism? Again, without a doubt.”
But if we put a blanket ban on certain words or opinions, we can’t forget that a great deal of art has been built on these words and opinions he adds. From the ancient Greek comedies to the rock songs of the 60s, if you just dig a little deeper you find many things that could fall into the censorship net. “Take the Sex Pistols’ ‘Schools are Prisons’ or Pink Floyd’s ‘We don’t need no Education’ - these are touted as freedom anthems, but really these are closer to manifestos against education. Can you say they can’t write those songs or express their opinions? No, you can’t. But how or who do we have that will be able to take the decision on what gets banned and what gets through?” One way would be to apply double standards, policing the use of certain words or words in a certain context on the Internet while allowing them to be used in public spaces, such as print media or before live audiences.
However, this policing of the Internet cannot realistically be done by humans, it’s just too big. While having AI systems in control would be another step forward, says António Vitorino, it still doesn’t tackle the question of who decides what can and can’t be said.
“Facebook, Instagram and other social media, all have their internal policies and can decide what words, comments and conducts will be banned, and no one has really been questioning that. That’s the status of where we are now. But why should they have the right to decide how to police the Internet? Shouldn’t that be our right as a community?” he asks.
Legislating for change
Ultimately, we need to tackle this from both a legal and political standpoint on a worldwide basis because the Internet knows no frontiers. The builders of the Internet wanted a space that was completely free of regulation, but that was built on the assumption that everyone that uses it does so with good intentions.
While there is no current legislation in Portugal or the EU focused on Internet and social media regulation, António Vitorino believes that most of the relevant legal problems can be solved with the laws we now have. “Accountability is covered by the laws we have in place; the recourse is there to punish those that commit crimes through their Internet conduct. But those are only workable if we tackle the issue of regulating digital identities and do so on a worldwide basis. This is the first and probably most difficult step to take.”
Policing the Internet begins with policing those hiding behind ‘virtual personas’ using and misusing information, spreading lies and hate and fabricating fake news, he adds. “We’ve seen it most recently at the highest levels of decision-making and influence, from the Trump campaign to Brexit. It is not just a criminal problem but a problem for society as a whole and we must bring regulation of the Internet up to speed in line with how we regulate the real world.”
The second step is what sanctions we should apply to those that breach those laws. In the same way football hooligans can banned from matches, Internet ‘abusers’ could be prohibited from going online. But all of this must be done within the rule of law, with appropriate safeguards and judicial control.
The bottom line is that we need to align the Internet with the real world and not the other way around or we risk living in a real-world videogame nightmare.
How the Government almost got it right with Novo Banco
MVConversations with António de Macedo Vitorino
By failing to fix a crucial piece of the puzzle, has the success of Novo Banco been undermined by an inability to draw a line under the BES legacy?
The €4.9 billion bailout of Banco Espírito Santo (BES) by a special bank Resolution Fund in 2014 saw one of Portugal’s largest listed banks split into Novo Banco, the ‘good’ bank, and a ‘bad bank’ of toxic assets.
This split, however, is turning out to be more of a ‘break’ than a clear-cut divorce, and Novo Banco is now set to receive a fresh capital injection after posting losses of over €1.4 billion.
The root of the problem, according to António de Macedo Vitorino, stems not from the good or bad bank, but from bad strategic decision-making by the Government, an open backdoor in the contract, and a free ride to the private sector resulting in a tremendous amount of collateral damage.
“What has been really ‘bad’ in the BES situation is the unacceptable and illogical transfer of taxpayer money by the Government to the private sector and a total lack of protection of the public interest,” he explains. “Added to the damage done to the victims of BES and the taxpayers, we have the unseen costs to the judicial system, where the courts are faced with hundreds of ongoing lawsuits, and the reputational damage to Portugal as a whole.”
The Resolution
While there is no doubt that major mistakes have been made in the handling of BES and Novo Banco, the fundamental action taken by the Bank of Portugal with the Resolution Fund has, according to António Vitorino, cost the taxpayer less in the long run than had BES been nationalised or if the Government had funded the recovery of the bank.
All things considered, while not without flaw, the Resolution has paid off. “When regulations are made in the midst of a crisis, it's difficult to achieve the desired end result as the whole issue becomes so politicised and discussions are based more on ideology than reality,” he says. “The Government at the time was under a pressure to please the public, it was close to the elections etc, but there would always be some damages and losses coming out of the BES/GES fraud case that would be paid by the taxpayer.”
The fact that Novo Banco is alive is a victory in itself, he adds, we could have lost much more. “But the real question is could we have lost less if the Government and the Bank of Portugal had acted in a speedy and competent manner ensuring that Novo Banco was clear of the BES legacy? We knew that BES loans to the Espírito Santo group would be lost; but these bad loans were supposed to stay with BES. We believed that Novo Banco would have a fresh start.”
The Irresolution
The real issue is an inability of the Government and regulators to manage processes and make decisions with the same level of professionalism as private companies, says António Vitorino. “They went back and forth without actually taking definitive action, as if they needed someone to decide for them. Add to that political agendas, calendars and economics, and there is an inefficiency across the board whereby politics and reality clash.”
Of course, everyone makes mistakes, he adds, but here it’s the taxpayers that are having to foot a far higher bill than necessary. “If things had been done properly, if the Government and the Bank of Portugal hadn’t dragged their feet and had wrapped up the resolution in a couple of months, ensuring the Novo Banco sale contract was watertight and insulating the system and the various players/stakeholders, we would not be in the situation we are now in.”
The State holds a tremendous amount of power in public negotiations, he explains, with that a habit of saying no, we won't do it, we don't accept it, and if you are on the other side you have to swallow it. “The problem is that they don’t have the flexibility to truly understand the private sector’s concerns while properly protecting the public interest, so when they do yield pressed by the political demands and accept things, they always give away too much.”
In the sale of a 75% stake in Novo Banco to US Fund Lone Star, assurances were given to the public that a €3.9 billion cash reserve was there as a ‘last ditch resort’ but would not be touched. “But the Government knew that by allowing discussions to be centred on the intended value of Novo Banco’s assets and bad loans, they had a problem: they opened a back door in the contract and set in stone the fate of the so-called reserve fund,” says António Vitorino. “This reserve was not a ‘last ditch resort’ at all, it was always to be used up to the full €3.9 billion”.
In a typical M&A, especially involving banks, the reps and warranties given by the seller rest on what they have and not on what the buyer would expect or ‘like’ to have, he explains. “It’s an important distinction, and with Novo Banco, the Government didn’t hold their ground when it came to the scope of the offer from Lone Star, nor mark a line that if crossed would result in a failed negotiation. They allowed for discussions to take place that fundamentally changed the entire tender offer and the rules mid-way through the game.”
And it's important to note that this is a legal discussion, he adds. It has to do with strategic legal decisions that needed to be taken along the way. “It’s not unexpected for any bank coming out of a crisis to have non-performing loans and other troubled assets, wherever they are in the world. But if there is a tender document with an offer on the table for assets and then you allow the buyer to open up discussions on price or cherry-picking assets, as well as allowing for additional capital calls, then any lawyer would, or should, know that you are creating a backdoor in the contract that will ultimately be used by the buyer.”
Year-on-year, Novo Banco has been eating into this capital. The recent fresh injection of capital into Novo Banco has prompted Portugal’s Finance Minister to order an audit to get some clarity on Novo Banco’s capitalisation, but nothing new will be uncovered. “This is only for show, to save the face of the political decision makers.”
These consequences are completely uncalled for, says António Vitorino, and one wouldn’t have expected all these problems to emerge after the act. By giving this free ride to the private sector instead of safeguarding the Portuguese taxpayer monies, the Government has undermined what could have been a successful resolution.
“The main Portuguese banks had serious bad loan problems,” he adds. “But all private banks were able to repay the money loaned by the Government and paid interest on it. No public money was lost in BCP and BPI for instance.” Only the money given to banks that ended up under State control was lost, namely BPN, Novo Banco and Banif. CGD was also State-owned.”
As an asset Novo Banco is positioning itself extremely well to generate more money for its shareholders than the losses sustained, explains António Vitorino. “But because of the Government’s inability to draw a line through where the BES legacy ends and Novo Banco’s begins, we can see big profits coming through in the future that won’t be used to cover the resulting costs of the bondholders’ claims or pay for the extra taxpayer money that is being injected into the bank. All these unnecessary loose ends will end up being covered by the resolution fund and so ultimately the taxpayer will lose yet again.”
Footnote: Macedo Vitorino & Associados is advising several Novo Banco bondholders and investors in Espírito Santo securities in various proceedings related to the BES/GES collapse.
Blackmail, extortion, corruption, extradition and football – it’s what media dreams are made of.
But do the ends justify the means?
MVConversations with António de Macedo Vitorino
Football leaks – the largest data leak to date revealing some of the sport’s best kept secrets – has prompted a media firestorm in Portugal. One man’s fight for transparency in the world of football, uncovering widespread wrongdoing at some of Europe’s biggest Clubs and by world class players, is being done at the expense of everybody’s right to privacy.
While what Rui Pinto exposed is clearly a Pandora’s box of criminal conduct prompting numerous investigations by authorities in nine EU countries, is that enough to forget the small detail of how it was obtained? Not according to António de Macedo Vitorino.
Whistleblower or hacker?
Pinto’s lawyer, William Bourdon, is arguing that Pinto must be protected by certain fundamental legal principles, specifically that of EU whistleblowing legislation. The paradox, however, is that a fundamental legal principle is obstructed when it comes to the source of the incriminating information.
António Vitorino believes everything hinges on where we draw the line between whistleblowing and hacking: “One upholds the law, the other falls foul of it.”
Whistleblowing, in very basic terms, denotes someone who comes across material exposing criminal wrongdoings. Be it corruption, money laundering, human trafficking etc, by coming forward with information that triggers criminal investigations, these people have acted in the public interest and are protected by the law, specifically the EU Whistleblowers Directive proposals.
Hacking, however, is built on “intent”. “This is someone who goes that one step further and mounts his own private investigation” says António Vitorino, “breaking into computers purposefully looking for incriminating material. In the last Directive proposal, a whistleblower is defined as “a natural person who reports or discloses information on breaches lawfully acquired in the context of his or her work-related activities”. This is hardly the case of Mr. Pinto.”
Crossing the ethical lines
As criminals become ever more evolved, the weapons we have to fight crime need to evolve. However, António Vitorino questions whether, as a society, we can accept the blurring of the lines between legal and illegal obtaining of information, and the overstepping of our core constitutional values.
“Police cannot enter your home or your computer without a search warrant and probable cause. Freedom is paramount and our privacy needs to be protected,” he says. “If our legal system and police powers are not up to date, then that’s something that needs to be addressed.”
In the case of Football Leaks, information was obtained by hacking into the systems of Football Clubs like Sporting CP, Porto FC, Real Madrid and Paris Saint Germain, taking information and passing this to the media. In the public interest? For António Vitorino, that one fundamental line was crossed.
But what about hacking into personal emails and client-attorney messages bound by legal privilege, or sharing confidential Club information with rivals? Is crossing these lines for information that has uncovered corruption at the highest levels of the sport seen as acceptable or should it be seen as an attack on personal privacy? One more line crossed, says António Vitorino.
The line between fair and foul play plays a crucial part in determining the legality of a subsequent investigation., he adds. “The illegal and intentional breaching of privacy cannot be an acceptable practice.”
He takes the media as an example. “Journalists have a right to protect their sources. But shouldn’t the media care about how their sources came across the information?”
If wrongdoings can only be uncovered by illegal means, there is something fundamentally wrong with society.
Ultimately, António Vitorino believes “we cannot accept that allowing unfettered access to our privacy is the only way to uncover criminal actions”.
“As citizens it is our duty to fight anyone who says that we must give up our privacy and our freedom to help put criminals away.”
For several years, the Portuguese Government supported a free market approach for renewable energy producers, withdrawing all incentives to solar energy production. This meant the end of new feed-in tariff contracts and the difficult task of promoting new solar projects with free market tariffs. Expectably, the financing of such projects was heavily affected, resulting, to quote the Minister of Environment and Energy recent interview, in “…1.2 gigawatts of solar power licensed, and only 49 megawatts implemented”.
To change this state of affairs, the Portuguese Environment and Energy Minister announced in January two auctions for solar licenses with guaranteed tariffs.
The Portuguese Environment and Energy Minister is “certain that there will be lots of investors with different dimensions” interested in bidding for the licenses under new tariff structure. Promoters will be grouped by the dimension and financing capacity. But, possibly, in the auction with guaranteed tariff will not apply to the “largest players”. Auctions with guaranteed tariffs will more likely be destined to smaller players, to facilitate the access to credit to less bankable promoters.
The impact of this policy change will, of course, depend on the guaranteed tariff’s range. So, we will have to wait until April, when the auctions’ details are to be revealed.
The new solar energy policy comes in the context of the also new National Energy and Climate Plan (in Portuguese, Plano Nacional para a Energia e Clima – “PNEC”) which is mandatory to all EU countries under Regulation 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action. The Portuguese Minister of Environment and Energy announced that PNEC is due to publication on July, after a public consultation period beginning in April.
The new PNEC targets to reduce total energy consumption in 35% by 2030. It forecasts a private investment amounting to 18 billion euros in renewable energy generation facilities and in transport and distribution networks. The aim is to achieve a 47% of renewable sourced of the total energy consumption in Portugal.
The new Portuguese Real Estate Investment Trusts (“REIT”) have been established by Decree-Law no. 19/2019, of January 28, as a new type of property investment companies: sociedades de investimento e gestão imobiliária (“SIGI”).
These are the main features of SIGI:
(1) They must be incorporated as private limited liability companies by shares (sociedade anónima) with a minimum share capital of € 5,000,000. It is possible, upon decision of the general meeting, to convert already existing limited liability companies by shares or property investment undertakings with a corporate form, into SIGI.
(2) They must have a registered office and their effective management in Portugal.
(3) Their main corporate purpose is the acquisition of (i) property rights; (ii) shares of other SIGI or REIT similar companies based in another State Member, (iii) participation units or shares of real estate investment funds for urban leasing, real estate investment companies for urban leasing and also collective investment undertakings (with dividend policies similar to SIGI).
SIGI can directly manage the properties whose rights they own or contract third parties for that purpose. In addition to leasing, such properties may be used for the development of construction and rehabilitation projects and also to rehabilitation or be allocated to the use of stores or spaces in commercial centers or office spaces.
(4) SIGI shares must be listed within one year after incorporation. For that purpose, new simplified admission rules will apply, as well as specific equity dispersion requirements (at least 20% of their equity must be held by 2% or less equity holders).
(5) SIGI will be subject (i) to rules on composition and holding of assets (the value real estate assets must represent at least 75% of the total assets value and such assets must be held for at least three years after their acquisition); (ii) to the obligation of distributing a percentage of their profits in the form of dividends (iii) and to comply with a maximum indebtedness ceiling (60% of the total value of their assets).
These rules entered into force on February 1st 2019. A tax package for SIGI is expected, exempting SIGI of CIT on their asset generated income, on real estate capital gains and dividends. All combined, SIGI can be a powerful tool to foster the Portuguese real estate market, at a time this market gives signs of deacceleration.
Following devastating forest fires in 2017 and 2018, the Portuguese government published four regulations on 21 January 2019 imposing new obligations on forest land owners and tenants, as well as control measures on eucalyptus plantations and reforestation in general.
Decree-Law no. 11/2019 extends the regional forest management plans ("PROF") obligations to forest land owners and tenants.
PROF establishes specific rules for the use and exploitation of forest areas, assessing the potential of forest areas and defines the critical areas from the point of view of fire risk.
Forest land owners and tenants are required to:
- Prepare a forest management plan;
- Comply with the intervention standards in forestry areas; and
- Not to exceed the limits of area that may be occupied by eucalyptus.
With Decree-Law no. 12/2019, all afforestation and reforestation actions are subject to the authorization of the Institute for Conservation of Nature and Forests ("ICNF"), regardless of the forest species. The authorization is valid for a period of two years.
If afforestation or reforestation is not carried out correctly, ICNF may obligate the responsible land owner or tenant to remove the illegal plantations within a maximum of 180 days.
ICNF has now also the specific powers to control all areas planted with eucalyptus.
Decree-Law no. 13/2019 obliges forestry products traders to be licensed and to notify ICNF when at the beginning and end of the harvest and the places where harvesting will occur. A statement with the quantity collected must also be submitted to ICNF. After receiving that information, ICNF will issue a certificate that is now required for selling the products. Licensing and certification are both subject to the payment of fees. The entire procedures are conducted electronically at the ICNF website.
Finally, Decree-Law no. 14/2019 subjects all authorizations for the construction of buildings in areas classified as high or very high risk of rural fire and the construction of buildings for agricultural or forestry activities with municipal interest to a binding favorable opinion by the forest defense commissions.
The four new regulations are effective since January 22, 2019.
The adequacy decision of the European Commission, which allows justifying personal data transfer from the European Economic Area (EEA) to Japan, came into force on 23 January 2019.
Cross-border flows of personal data, i.e. to countries outside the EEA (third countries) are set out in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR establishes, among other solutions, that a transfer of personal data to a third country may take place where the Commission has decided that the third country ensures an adequate level of protection. In this case, a transfer will not require a specific authorization.
Adequacy criterion does not require the third country's data protection system to be identical to the one of the European Union (EU). The goal is not to mirror point by point the European legislation, but to establish a «standard of essential equivalence», which involves a comprehensive assessment of this country's data protection framework, in particular of the protection guarantees applicable to personal data and of the relevant oversight and redress mechanisms available, as detailed in the Working document on Adequacy Referential from the Article 29 Working Party.
Despite the EU has adopted adequacy decisions for another countries, including Andorra, Argentina, Canada, Faeroe Islands, Guernsey, Israel, Isle of Man, Jersey, New Zealand, Switzerland, Uruguay and the United States (EU-U.S. Privacy Shield), this is the first time that the EU and a third-country agree to recognize a reciprocal adequacy protection level. Furthermore, the EU-Japan adequacy decision is the first one adopted since the GDPR became applicable by 25 May 2018.
On the EU side, this adequacy finding was decided based on a set of additional safeguards that Japan will apply to the data of European citizens, for example, the Japanese definition of «sensitive data» will be extended, the exercise of individual rights will be facilitated, and the further transfer of Europeans' data from Japan to another third country will be subject to a higher level of protection. Japan will also establish a system of handling and resolution of potential complaints from European citizens as regards access to their data by Japanese law enforcement and national security authorities, under the supervision of the Japanese data protection authority.
In case of failure of the adequacy decision by Japan, an EU citizen may lodge a complaint to the Japanese data protection authority to obtain redress via a binding decision and/or file a civil action to obtain damages or injunction with a Japanese court.
Although adequacy decisions have no time limitation, they are periodically reviewed by the Commission. The first review of the EU-Japan adequacy decision should take place at the end of two years and then at least every four years.
Together with the EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement to be entered into force in February 2019, this adequacy decision will allow creating the world's largest area of safe data flows.
Traditional Space industries, as well as the New Space activity are gathering a new set of players in the ever growing market of Space, via a great deal of new possibilities, namely micro and nanosatellites on Low Earth Orbits and Sun Synchronized Orbits.
Portugal expects to attract investors in the Space industry given the privileged geostrategic position of its Atlantic islands, Madeira and the Azores.
The newly created Portuguese Space Agency (“PSA”) will have its headquarters in Santa Maria, in the Azores, where a microsatellite launching site will be built.
Decree Law no. 16/2019, published on 22 January 2019, establishes the framework for Space exploration in Portugal in line with the Portuguese 2030 Strategy for Space (Estratégia Portugal Espaço 2030), announced in March 2018.
This new legislation regulates the access of players to Portuguese or Portuguese-based space activities, establishes mandatory licensing for launching and return operations, command and control of objects, as well as the obligation of registry with PSA of all objects operating in Space of which Portugal was a launching State.
Procedures are simplified for those willing to undertake a pre-qualification process, which is especially relevant for companies wishing to conduct multiple Space endeavors in the Portuguese jurisdiction. Once the undertakings are recognized as having the necessary requirements to venture into the said Space activities, they will be exempt from further information and disclosure obligations regarding their financial, technical and operational capabilities to lawfully and successfully operate.
The regulatory powers of the PSA include the strategy, supervision and control, as well as the application of fines that may range from €250 to €44.891,81.
The relevance of a solid framework for Space exploration activity is set to impact the Portuguese Space activity, as it may attract foreign investment and boost the national Space industry, which is estimated to be worth presently around €40 million.
In 2018, Portugal won the 25th edition of the World Travel Awards for «Best Destination in the World» and «Best European Destination». But is Portugal just a nice country to visit or can Portugal become a preferred destination for investors?
In 2018, Portugal won the 25th edition of the World Travel Awards for «Best Destination in the World» and «Best European Destination» for the second consecutive year, along with 15 other awards.
Lisbon was voted «Best Destination City» and «Best City Break Destination». Madeira was considered the «Best Insular Destination» and Passadiços do Paiva «Best Adventure Tourism Attraction».
Portugal won awards for «Best Tourism Organization» and «Best Conservation Company». The Portuguese airline TAP won three awards. Five hotels in Portugal received awards, including «World’s Leading City Hotel», «World’s Leading Classic Hotel» and «World’s Leading Design Hotel».
The World Travel Awards reward excellence across all sectors of the global travel and tourism industry. Portugal beat many other recognized destinations such as South Africa, Brazil, Spain, Greece, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, New Zealand, Kenya, Rwanda, Sri Lanka and Vietnam.
Portugal was also recognized as «Best World and European Golf Destination» in the World Golf Awards in 2018.
The surge in tourism has been fuelling Portugal’s economic growth since 2014 with significant investments in new hotels and residential projects for short-term leases.
Since 2013, the number of international visitors increased from € 15,9 million to € 24,6 million in 2017. According to the Portuguese National Statistics Institute, tourism-related revenues reached € 15,2 million in 2017.
Foreign direct investment (FDI) increased 61%. Unemployment fell to 8,9% and 7.657 new jobs were created as a direct result of FDI.
The afflux of tourists is offering Portugal an unique opportunity for showcasing the country’s best qualities, attract new business ventures and make Lisbon one of Europe’s best cities to create innovative companies.
Lisbon is now recognized as a popular city for entrepreneurship, innovation, internationalization and financing of startups.
According to EY, the perception of investors of Portugal’s future attractiveness for business increased 7% since 2013.
Portugal promotes the creation of startups through the «Startup Visa», a hosting program for foreign investors who wish to develop new projects in Portugal. Applicants for startup residence visas must among other things:
- Have a real and effective interest in developing a new venture, such as the creation of innovation-based businesses;
- Propose a project with the potential to create at least five jobs in its first 24 months; and
- Have the support of a certified incubator.
In November 2018, Lisbon hosted the annual edition of the Web Summit, now the largest event for startups in the world. The Web Summit brought about 60.000 visitors and 2.250 companies from 170 countries to Portugal.
The City of Lisbon secured the Web Summit for the next 10 years and created «Hub Criativo do Beato», a new business incubation project in the centre of Lisbon that will house innovative and technology-driven companies. Factory Berlin, one of Europe’s largest incubators, Mercedes-Benz and Web Summit are among the first companies to secure a place at Hub Criativo do Beato.
For further information about Portugal’s economy and key legal aspects visit our web platform «Why Portugal».
Portuguese Industrial Property Reform In response to the need of harmonizing the industrial property rules in the European Union (EU), Decree-Law 110/2018 of 10 December 2018 approved a new Industrial Property Code (New IP Code), implementing the EU Trademark Harmonization Directive (EU Directive 2015/2436) and the Trade Secrets Directive (EU Directive 2016/943).
The New IP Code’s rules on protection of trade secrets entered into force on 1 January 2019; the remaining provisions will enter into force on 1 July 2019.
As to the existing IP registration framework, the new rules do not introduce fundamental changes, albeit they have the merit of allowing easier access to the protection of industrial property rights by simplifying and clarifying the administrative procedures for obtaining, keeping and cancelling IP rights.
One of the main novelties of the New IP Code is the strengthening of know-how and trade secrets protection rules, which are now governed by a specific regime, and even more solid than the one provided for the Trade Secrets Directive.
The New IP Code comprehensively defines “trade secrets” and typifies the trade secrets infringements. Trade secret means information which meets all of the following requirements:
- It is secret in the sense that it is not, as a body or in the precise configuration and assembly of its components, generally known among or readily accessible to persons within the circles that normally deal with the kind of information in question;
- It has commercial value because it is secret; and
- It has been subject of reasonable steps to be taken by the person lawfully in control of the information, to keep it secret.
The New IP Code also includes the following changes: (i) for disputes involving reference medicines and generic medicine, the parties have the option of initiating voluntary arbitration or filing the claim before the Intellectual Property Court, (ii) electronic communication means are now available to contact with the National Institute of Industrial Property (Instituto Nacional de Propriedade Industrial) and (iii) the effectiveness of the fight means against industrial property infringements are reinforced at an European level.
It is foreseen that the new amendments, which have the merit of clarifying the industrial property regime, will constitute an incentive for technology businesses (start-ups) to develop their activity in Portugal.