Before Law 8/2022, a condominium assembly in Portugal was only valid if held in person. That changed — but "it's legal to do it over Zoom" doesn't mean "I can do it over Zoom without extra care." The law provided the flexibility; the responsibility to use it correctly still rests with the administrator.
Is It Really Legal?
Yes. Law 8/2022 legalized video-conference assemblies and hybrid assemblies (a combination of in-person and remote participation) — article 1431 of the Portuguese Civil Code. It's not a "for exceptional times" fallback; it's a fully valid format, at the same legal standing as an in-person assembly.
What Doesn't Change Compared to an In-Person Assembly
The fundamental requirements apply equally to all three formats — in-person, virtual and hybrid:
- Notice with a minimum of 10 days' advance, clearly stating the format (in-person, virtual or hybrid) and, where applicable, the link or platform to access the virtual room
- Quorum of 50% of represented ownership share on first call, or 25% on second call — quorum is calculated by represented ownership share, not by the number of people connected
- Recording of resolutions and voting with the same rigor as an in-person assembly
What the Administrator Has to Guarantee Extra
Here's the real difference: in a virtual or hybrid assembly, the burden of proof on the regularity of the process falls on the administrator more heavily, because there are more points where something can go wrong.
1. Participants' identity
Confirming that whoever is on the other side of the camera is, in fact, the owner (or their proxy) — a name on screen isn't enough. Keep a record of who participated and how (in person, virtual, or represented by proxy).
2. Correctly tallying votes weighted by ownership share
Unlike an in-person assembly where the count is visual and immediate, in a virtual or hybrid session the administrator needs a mechanism that records each participant's vote and correctly weights it by their ownership share — without this, a vote's result can be challenged.
3. An auditable record, not just "it happened"
If a resolution is challenged, the burden of proving the assembly proceeded regularly — identity, quorum, voting — falls on the administrator. Well-structured minutes, with the detail of participation and each vote's result, are the strongest defense in that scenario.
Hybrid Format: What Changes
In a hybrid assembly, some owners are physically present and some participate by video-conference, simultaneously. The previous challenges (identity, vote counting) remain — with the added complexity of synchronizing, in real time, the records of both groups, so the minutes correctly reflect who was there in person, who was there virtually, and who was represented by proxy.
Common Mistakes
- Not stating the format in the notice — if the notice doesn't make clear that the assembly is virtual or hybrid (and doesn't provide the link/platform), there's a risk of invalidity for failing to give owners essential information
- Relying only on the "list of people on the call" with no formal record of identity and each participant's join/leave time
- Not recording (or not keeping) the session — even though not legally required, a recording is the strongest evidence in a dispute over what was said or decided
- Leaving vote counting for "later, from memory" instead of recording each vote at the moment it's cast
How This Gets Simpler
A well-run assembly — in-person, virtual or hybrid — needs a single thread connecting notice, quorum, participation and voting, so the minutes generated at the end accurately reflect what happened, with no after-the-fact manual reconstruction. ActiasGest automatically validates the minimum notice period, calculates quorum by represented ownership share (50% on first call, 25% on second), records each owner's type of participation (in person, virtual, or represented by proxy), and generates the minutes from the session's real data — without relying on reconstructing everything from memory the next day.
Learn more → actias-gest.solid-ai.net