PSD and PS approved this Wednesday (October 22nd), specifically, in the Constitutional Affairs Committee, an increase in crimes due to illegal occupation of properties, leaving out Chega, the party that had taken the initiative to review the legislation.
In the vote that took place in the general phase, on July 11th, the Chega project, now failed in the specialty by PSD and PS, had been approved with the votes of the Social Democrats, Liberal Initiative and CDS-PP. Now, however, the PSD has failed him, alleging, above all, problems of “respect for constitutional principles”.
Alternatively, the PSDwhich was opposed by Chega in relation to its project, had the support of the PS for the criminalization of “the conduct of anyone who invades or occupies another’s property, with the intention of exercising rights of ownership, possession, use or easement not protected by law, sentence or administrative act”. One crime that will carry a prison sentence of up to two years or a fine of up to 240 days.
In the PSD project, it is proposed “aggravation of sentence, with a prison sentence of up to three years or a fine, when the acts are carried out through violence or affect property intended for personal and permanent housing.” Aggravation can reach four years in prison, “when the agent acts professionally or with profit-making intent”.
One of the main points of Chega’s project, which was rejected, aimed at the existence of summary sentencing processes. In contrast, in this matter, the Social Democrats came up with an alternative solution “in order to guarantee, within the scope of the criminal process, an immediate (and consequently rapid) response to the illegal occupation”.
In this sense, “the power-duty of the criminal investigation judge, if there is strong evidence of the commission of the crime of usurpation of an immovable property, to impose on the defendant the obligation to immediately return the property to the respective owner” was enshrined.
“With the changes now introduced in the crime of usurpation of immovable property, greater effectiveness is guaranteed in the application of this faster and more expeditious procedural means”, states the PSD diploma, a party that accepted two amendment proposals from the PS.
By proposal from the PS, it was established that, “if the complainant’s ownership of the property is strongly suspected, the judge may impose on the defendant the obligation to immediately return the property to the respective owner”.
“When the properties are part of the public housing stock and are being used for housing purposes, the body competent to file the complaint for the crime of usurpation of immovable property analyzes the socioeconomic conditions of those affected and, when applicable, activates the appropriate social or housing responses provided for in the applicable law and regulations, being able to waive the filing of a complaint when the property is voluntarily vacated”, added the PS.
O He arrives, party that triggered this criminal review process regarding illegal occupation, argued that it was “indispensable that property usurpation crimes be judged in summary proceedings”.
“Chega understands that, in this type of crime, the speed of judgment by the State is essential to create in citizens the conviction that occupying the real estate of a third party is a crime that could result in the imposition of a prison sentence of three to five years, or imprisonment of up to three years, with a fine alternatively, if carried out without violence”, reads the diploma that was rejected by the PSD and PS.