A product is manufactured, placed on the European Union market, supplied to a retail chain, and offered for sale in a shop. During a market surveillance inspection, shortcomings are found in the instructions, safety information or conformity documentation.
The product is the same. The economic operators are not. Who is liable?
The regime has a particularly broad practical reach. For the purposes of Decree-Law No. 57/2017 of 9 June, as currently in force, radio equipment is not confined to products traditionally associated with telecommunications. It covers a wide range of everyday products, including mobile phones, laptops, smartwatches, printers, routers, surveillance cameras, earphones, loudspeakers, and drones. The Decree-Law transposed Directive 2014/53/EU and imposes obligations on economic operators according to the capacity in which they participate in the supply chain.
In practice, however, the technical documentation often remains with the manufacturer, the EU declaration of conformity is passed on by the supplier, the Portuguese-language instructions are prepared by another party, and the equipment is ultimately inspected at the retailer’s premises.
That is when a distribution chain may become an enforcement chain.
One product, distinct liabilities
The regime imposes separate obligations on manufacturers, importers, and distributors. Depending on the role performed, a supplier or retailer may qualify as a distributor.
The fact that separate proceedings concern the same equipment does not amount to duplication prohibited by the ne bis in idem principle. Broadly speaking, that principle prevents the same person from being tried or penalised more than once for the same facts; it does not preclude different entities from being held liable for separate conduct relating to the same product.
A manufacturer may fail to comply with obligations concerning the design, manufacture, or documentation of the equipment.
An importer may omit the checks required before the equipment is placed on the market. A distributor may make it available without the information required by law or fail to take the necessary measures after becoming aware of the non-compliance.
The fact that the same product is involved does not remove the autonomy of those acts or omissions. Nor does it allow the same irregularity to be attributed indiscriminately to every company involved in its commercialisation.
Non-compliance may travel with the product through the chain. Fault does not.
A documentary shortcoming may be enough
The courts have taken a stringent approach to distributors’ obligations.
The Lisbon Court of Appeal has held that making radio equipment available without the required safety information may satisfy the objective elements of the administrative offence, even where no specific danger to consumers’ health or safety has been established. The distributor must also ensure that the equipment is accompanied by instructions and safety information in Portuguese and must hold the documents needed to demonstrate its conformity, including the EU declaration of conformity.
Conformity is therefore not limited to the equipment’s operation or material safety. It also encompasses documentation, information supplied to users, traceability and compliance with requests made by market surveillance authorities. The existence of those obligations does not, however, dispense with the need to establish intent or negligence.
In separate proceedings concerning radio equipment, the Lisbon Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal of a company because the mental element of the offence had not been established. Without that evidence, proof of the objective elements was insufficient to sustain a finding of liability.
The presence of equipment in a shop may establish that it has been made available on the market. It does not, without more, establish fault on the part of the operator.
Liability will depend on the documentation accompanying the product, the information provided by the supplier, the checks that could reasonably be required of the distributor and the steps taken in response to the non-compliance.
Cooperation does not mean shared liability
Where the irregularity originates upstream, the manufacturer or supplier will ordinarily be asked to provide the EU declaration of conformity, laboratory reports and technical clarifications.
That cooperation is essential, but it is not a substitute for the defence of the operator under investigation. Each company must answer for its own conduct.
Likewise, any liability of the distributor towards ANACOM does not exclude potential contractual liability on the part of a supplier that provided inaccurate information or incomplete documentation.
Supply agreements should therefore precisely define the documentation to be delivered, responsibility for keeping it up to date, cooperation during market surveillance inspections and the consequences of non-compliance attributable to another participant in the chain.
The risk is real
ANACOM’s enforcement activity confirms the practical significance of these issues. In September 2025, the Authority published details of fines imposed on several companies for breaches relating to the commercialisation of radio equipment. In one case, it imposed a single fine of €55,175 and ordered the forfeiture to the State of 33 items of equipment.
Compliance cannot therefore begin only when a notice is received. It must accompany the product throughout the distribution chain. Retaining documents is not enough. Businesses must ensure that the documents correspond to the equipment marketed, that the mandatory information is available in Portuguese and that they can demonstrate who checked what, when and based on which information.
The same product may legitimately prompt the authority to act in relation to several operators. What it cannot justify is collective, automatic, or presumed liability.
The supply chain explains the product’s journey. Liability for an administrative offence requires the conduct attributed to each operator to be identified individually and the relevant mental element to be established.
Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P. advises businesses on preventing and managing the regulatory risks associated with the commercialisation of products, from designing compliance procedures and allocating responsibilities throughout the distribution chain to assisting with market surveillance inspections and administrative offence proceedin