What Article 87-B Establishes
Article 87-B of Portugal's revised immigration law formally establishes that all actions against AIMA decisions follow administrative-action procedures through the administrative courts. This provision clarifies the legal framework for challenging AIMA's decisions and actions (or inaction), providing a clear pathway for individuals to seek judicial review when they believe AIMA has acted incorrectly, unfairly, or has failed to act within required timeframes. The article also explicitly preserves individuals' right to urgent judicial protection when AIMA's inaction gravely compromises personal rights.
The significance of Article 87-B lies in its formal codification of rights that existed in practice but were not always clearly defined in the immigration legal framework. During the transition from SEF to AIMA, there was some legal uncertainty about the correct procedures for challenging immigration decisions, as the institutional change raised questions about jurisdiction and applicable procedures. Article 87-B resolves this uncertainty by clearly placing AIMA under the jurisdiction of administrative courts and confirming that standard administrative law protections apply to all AIMA interactions.
Administrative Court Procedures
Under Article 87-B, challenges to AIMA decisions follow the standard Portuguese administrative litigation framework. This means that if AIMA denies your application, imposes conditions you believe are unlawful, or fails to act within statutory deadlines, you can file an action in the competent administrative court. The court with jurisdiction is typically the administrative court in the judicial district where the AIMA office handling your case is located or where you reside. Administrative litigation in Portugal provides for various types of actions including annulment of illegal administrative acts, condemnation of the administration to perform a duty, and compensation for damages caused by administrative action or inaction.
The procedures require legal representation, as parties before administrative courts must be represented by a lawyer. The court process begins with filing a petition that sets out the facts, the legal arguments, and the remedy sought. AIMA is served with the petition and has the opportunity to respond. The court may hold hearings or decide based on the written submissions, depending on the complexity of the case. Administrative court decisions can be appealed to higher administrative courts, providing multiple levels of judicial review. While the process is more formal and potentially slower than informal resolution, it provides binding decisions that AIMA must comply with.
Urgent Judicial Protection
The most powerful aspect of Article 87-B is the explicit preservation of the right to urgent judicial protection. This allows individuals to seek expedited court action when AIMA's inaction or delay gravely compromises their fundamental rights. Urgent protection proceedings are faster than standard administrative actions, with courts typically issuing decisions within weeks rather than months. The urgency threshold is met when the delay causes or risks causing serious, irreparable harm such as loss of legal status, inability to work, family separation, or inability to travel for essential reasons.
Urgent judicial protection can take several forms. An intimação para proteção de direitos (subpoena for the protection of rights) compels AIMA to perform a specific action within a court-set deadline. A providência cautelar (precautionary measure) can suspend an AIMA decision that is being challenged, maintaining the status quo while the main action proceeds. These urgent mechanisms are particularly valuable because they provide relief on a timeline that matches the urgency of the applicant's situation, rather than requiring the applicant to wait for the full duration of standard court proceedings while their rights are being compromised.
When to Use These Legal Tools
Judicial oversight under Article 87-B is appropriate in several situations. Application denial is the most straightforward case: if AIMA denies your application and you believe the denial is based on an incorrect interpretation of the law, a factual error, or a failure to consider relevant circumstances, you can seek annulment of the denial through the administrative court. Processing delays beyond statutory deadlines also warrant judicial action, particularly when the delay causes concrete harm. Unfair conditions attached to permit issuance, such as restrictions that go beyond what the law permits, can be challenged.
Before filing court action, exhaust accessible administrative remedies first, unless the urgency of your situation makes waiting impractical. File an internal complaint with AIMA, request a formal review of the decision, and document all your attempts to resolve the matter administratively. This record demonstrates to the court that you have acted reasonably and that judicial intervention is necessary because administrative channels have failed. However, for urgent situations where fundamental rights are at stake, you can proceed directly to court without exhausting all administrative steps, as the law recognizes that requiring exhaustion of remedies in urgent situations would defeat the purpose of urgent judicial protection.
Practical Steps for Filing
To file a judicial action under Article 87-B, engage an immigration lawyer experienced in administrative litigation. Provide your lawyer with complete documentation of your case, including all AIMA correspondence, application submissions, decision notifications, and evidence of any harm caused by AIMA's action or inaction. Your lawyer will assess the merits of your case, identify the appropriate type of action, and prepare the petition for filing with the administrative court.
Key deadlines must be observed. For challenging a specific AIMA decision, you typically have three months from notification of the decision to file an annulment action. For cases of administrative silence where AIMA has failed to act, the one-year deadline from the expiration of the statutory processing period applies. Missing these deadlines extinguishes your right to judicial challenge, so act promptly once you identify the need for legal action. Court fees for administrative actions vary based on the type and value of the case but are generally moderate. Legal aid is available for those who cannot afford representation, ensuring that access to justice is not limited by financial means.