World

Álvaro Pires dismissed from position as financial director of the Judiciary Police

The decision to dismiss Álvaro Pires was made by the national director of the PJ, Carlos Cabreiro, who did not renew his term of service.

4 November 2026Tagblick Newsdesk

AI-generatedWritten by an AI system, editorially responsible — how we work

Archive photo: Álvaro Pires dismissed from position as financial director of the Judiciary Police — Archive photoPhoto: GualdimG · Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 4.0

The financial director of the Judiciary Police (PJ), Álvaro Pires, has been dismissed from his position following a decision by the national director of the PJ, Carlos Cabreiro, who did not renew his term of service.

RTP reported that the decision was confirmed to Observador by Álvaro Pires himself, who stated that he had not been informed about the reasons for his dismissal.

Since his appointment, Pires has been involved in controversies, including a suggestion made to the Minister of Internal Administration, Luís Neves, which raised questions about his conduct.

Although the news of the dismissal was initially reported by RTP, several sources, including Observador and ECO, corroborated the information, also detailing that Pires requested not to continue in his role.

According to Observador, the confirmation of the dismissal occurred on Wednesday, November 4, when the PJ acknowledged the decision not to renew Pires' term of service.

Additionally, the Prime Minister of Portugal is scheduled to meet with the leaders of CHEGA and PS at São Bento, although this is not directly related to Pires' dismissal.

This item was written by an AI system on the basis of the headlines and short teasers of the independently operating newsrooms named below. We disclose this under Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act). Before publication we check origin and verifiability — anything that appears in only one place is not published — as well as language, substance and legally sensitive content. No separate substantive review of each individual item by a natural person takes place; we therefore do not rely on the exemption in Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of the AI Act. Editorial responsibility for this publication rests with the person named in the imprint (§ 18 Abs. 2 MStV). Please report errors to [email protected] — we will correct or remove the item. Full reports are available from the sources listed.