Fatal fall in Belas, Sintra: two workers killed on a site the council says was never notified

On the morning of Wednesday 19 August 2026, a lifting machine, described by most outlets as a crane, fell onto the public road on Rua D. Inês de Castro in Belas, in the municipality of Sintra. Two workers painting a building facade from the machine's basket were thrown clear and died at the scene. The alarm was raised at 08:04. A third worker, at the rear of the building, was unhurt. The fall also damaged vehicles parked on the street.

The victims were two Brazilian men. Reported ages differ between sources (28 and 40 according to Lusa, 38 and 40 according to other outlets), so we do not treat them as established. The height of the fall is described as six or seven storeys, again depending on the source. Público refers to the machine as an elevating work platform; most other outlets call it a crane.

This article sets out what the council has said publicly, what remains to be established, and the general legal framework that applies to building work in Portugal. It does not identify the company or the project owner, because no official source has done so, and because there is no court decision in this case at this date.

What Sintra Council said

The president of Sintra Municipal Council, Marco Almeida, went to the scene and spoke to SIC. The findings of the municipal technicians' inspection were attributed to the president's office and distributed by Lusa, republished by several outlets. We have not found a statement published on the council's own website, so what follows is statements and municipal information quoted by the press, not an official document. According to that information, the site had three administrative problems:

• No permit to occupy the public highway. The machine was standing on the street, and that use of public space requires council authorisation.
• No notice of the start of works was given to the council. According to the council, the person responsible for the works did not notify the start.
• Breaches were found of the "duties of those involved in carrying out the works", in the council's own wording.

"We are looking into the licensing of these works because this is work in public space that necessarily requires a permit from the council."

Marco Almeida added that "this kind of situation has rules and they are there to be respected". The council announced that "the infringements found, within our remit, will give rise to formal reports that will be sent to the public prosecutor to supplement the authorities' proceedings". Inspectors from the Authority for Working Conditions (ACT) were also asked to attend, to assess the safety conditions in which the work was being carried out. The PSP is investigating the circumstances of the accident.

What is not yet known

Two things need separating, and press coverage tends to run them together.

The failings identified by the council are administrative and planning matters: they concern permits and notifications. The cause of the machine's collapse is a different question, still under investigation by the ACT, the PSP and, subsequently, the public prosecutor. Until that investigation concludes, it is not possible to say that the absence of licensing caused the fall. No authority has said so.

Several residents told reporters at the scene that the machine had been visibly swaying in the preceding days. "That basket where they worked was always swaying", one resident told JN. These are witness accounts, not technical findings, and should be read as such.

No charge, formal suspect status or court decision is known at this date. The presumption of innocence applies to everyone involved.

There is, even so, one thing this case makes plain that does not depend on the outcome of the investigation: the authority called in to assess safety conditions on this site, the ACT, is the same one whose penalties are public before anyone signs a contract. That is the point we return to below.

The context: what the accident figures say

The case comes in an already heavy year. According to ACT figures reported on 20 August by Jornal de Notícias and CNN Portugal, 81 people have died in workplace accidents in Portugal since the start of 2026, roughly three deaths a week. In 2025 the figure was 160, up from 124 in 2024, and you have to go back ten years to find a higher number. Construction remains the sector with the most fatal accidents.

What the law requires before work starts

Setting this case aside, it is worth recalling what the legal framework asks of whoever commissions and whoever carries out building work.

Under the wording currently in force, Portugal's planning and building regime (RJUE) already provides, in Article 80.º-A, for notice of the start of works to be given to the council up to five days beforehand. Occupying public space with machinery, scaffolding or containers is a matter for municipal regulation and requires authorisation from the relevant council.

From 1 October 2026, the RJUE reform approved by Decreto-Lei n.º 108/2026, of 29 May, takes effect. The date originally set was 3 August, but Decreto-Lei n.º 155-B/2026, of 31 July, amended Article 13 so that "this decree-law enters into force on 1 October 2026", giving municipalities time to adapt their IT platforms and allowing the implementing regulations to be published.

That reform strengthens the duty of prior notice, additionally requiring the developer to give the identity of the person or company carrying out the works, with a public notice displayed on site, even for works exempt from a permit or prior notification. And it extends joint and several civil liability (Article 100.º-A): under paragraph 3, where works subject to a permit or notification proceed without the required procedure, or at odds with its preconditions, the developers and project owners, the contractors and the site managers are jointly and severally liable.

There is no formal legal duty to vet the builder you hire. There is, however, a very concrete self-interest: whoever commissions the work may be called to answer alongside whoever carries it out.

This legal framework is general and does not mean these rules apply to this particular accident. The reform's rules only take effect from 1 October 2026, after the events described here, and establishing what was required on this site is a matter for the authorities.

What you can find out beforehand, which no one here will learn in time

The obvious needs saying first: nothing that follows would necessarily have prevented what happened in Belas. We do not know why the machine fell, and vetting a company is no substitute for inspected equipment and safe working. What follows is what anyone can find out about a company before hiring it, and which is frequently skipped.

Start with the question this case raises: has the company already been penalised by the ACT?

The Authority for Working Conditions, the same body called to this site, imposes and publishes penalties for labour breaches, including on safety. That information is public and can be checked before signing a contract, and almost nobody checks it. It is one of the verifications we run: the ACT publishes penalties in its own listings, and we keep our own history of the penalties we have collected over time.

Then three questions to put in writing, each with a verifiable answer:

1. Does the company hold an IMPIC permit or registration appropriate to the nature and value of the work? Holding a permit is not enough: it has to be of the right class and category for the job in question. From 1 October, the new RJUE strengthens that check within the council procedure; for hiring, the practical point is simple: ask for the document and confirm it with IMPIC.
2. Who is behind the company? Trading names change easily; the history of the people connected to the company stays in the register. Tax and social security debts, earlier insolvencies, court proceedings and companies wound up by the same people are signals that only surface when the information is cross-referenced, company by company and person by person.
3. Was the work notified to the council, and is the public space authorised? Ask, and ask to see it. That is the difference between work that is properly framed and work running at the margins.

If the client is a condominium

This deserves its own section, because it is the most common situation and the least guarded against. Painting a building facade is not, as a rule, work commissioned by an individual: it is commissioned by the condominium, decided in a residents' meeting, often on the cheapest of three quotes, and awarded to a company nobody has checked. The scaffolding or platform occupies the public highway, and that occupation needs council authorisation.

This is where the reform makes the risk more explicit from 1 October. Article 100.º-A of the republished RJUE includes project owners among those jointly and severally liable where works subject to a permit or notification proceed without the required procedure. In a residential building, that risk may fall on the condominium as the body that commissions and awards the work. A managing agent that awards facade painting without confirming who is carrying it out, and without confirming that the procedures are in place, may be taking on a risk that is not theirs alone, but every owner's.

What we do

At ObraXRAY we bring together, from official public sources, more than 20 checks on a construction company and on the people connected to it: ACT labour penalties, IMPIC permits, tax and social security debts, court proceedings, insolvencies, and the history of earlier companies run by the same people. Cross-referenced, not merely listed: the signal that matters is almost never in a single source.

Searching for a company is free. The full report costs €19.99, paid once, with 90 days of online access and a permanent PDF to keep. If you are at an earlier stage, working out what procedure your own project requires, we have a free tool for that.

Our condolences to the families of the two workers. This article does not identify any company or individual involved and will be updated as the authorities publish their findings.