
Council of Ministers (Portugal)
Portugal's cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister, which approves government decrees and legislative proposals.
Portugal's cabinet, which approved diplomas on 23 July 2026 creating specialised immigration courts and ending Lisbon's monopoly on migration lawsuits, against a 152,000-case backlog resolved at just 34% so far.
Last refreshed: 28 July 2026 · Appears in 1 active topic
Can Portugal's new immigration courts clear a 152,000-case backlog?
Timeline for Council of Ministers (Portugal)
Failed to bring the national housing decree-law to a vote
Nomads & Communities: Navarra writes the rule Madrid could notApproved diplomas creating specialised immigration and asylum courts
Nomads & Communities: Portugal's backlog moves to the courtsBackground
Portugal's Council of Ministers, chaired by the Prime Minister, is the body that approves government decrees and legislative proposals before they proceed through Parliament or take direct effect as administrative diplomas.
Its 23 July 2026 approval responded to official figures showing 152,000 cases pending in first-instance administrative and fiscal courts, a resolution rate of just 34%, and a 216% rise in case volume between 2023 and 2024, growth driven largely by litigation against the migration agency AIMA.
The reform's two elements, dedicated immigration and asylum courts and the end of Lisbon's sole jurisdiction over AIMA suits, are meant to work together: specialisation for expertise, geographic spread for capacity.
Council creates specialised immigration courts
Acting under its authority to approve government decrees before they take effect as administrative diplomas, the cabinet responded on 23 July to figures showing a 216% rise in case volume between 2023 and 2024 and a first-instance backlog stuck at 34% resolved out of 152,000 pending files. Its remedy paired two instruments: dedicated immigration and asylum courts for the roughly 124,000 suits filed against migration agency AIMA, and the removal of any single court's exclusive claim on hearing them.
The reasoning was explicitly structural: a 28-judge task force had already cleared 22,436 of those suits between April and June working within the old system, so ministers judged that specialisation and geographic spread, not simply more judges on the existing model, was what the caseload needed next.