Huawei Case: Apritel asks for equal security rules for all

O apritel’s Secretary-General today argued that all suppliers in the telecommunications sector must have the same level of security, obligations must be equal and this is what guarantees a competitive offer.

Pedro Mota Soares spoke to journalists, as part of the presentation of the study on its sustainability in Portugal, carried out by EY-Parthenon at the request of Apritel, an association representing electronic communications operators, which took place at the Communications Museum in Lisbon.

Asked about the issue of ‘high risk suppliers’, where Huawei is included, the responsible stressed that the association representing the operators of electronic communications Apritel always argued that “all suppliers should have the same level of security”.

Therefore, the “bonds should be equal for all suppliers, this is what guarantees a competitive offer”, extends to the level of options that are on the market and increases access to technology, removing additional pressure “on costs”, he pointed out.

“That’s what it really means to have freedom of choice, freedom of choice from the point of view of having technological options”, that is, alternatives,” Pedro Mota Soares continued, classifying it positive.

We have also said “that any government that makes transitions [provider change as was the case with Huawei in Portugal], these transitions have to [...] avoid ‘swaps’ [exchanges] that are ‘swaps’ unproductive”, that is, if they want to do so, that at least align with the life cycle of the equipment, he pointed out.

The essential point for us “is that obligations should be equivalent for all suppliers. That’s what guarantees security, that’s what guarantees freedom of choice, that’s what guarantees a more competitive offer, ” and access to the best of technology, it’s over.

In 2023, the Security Assessment Commission, within the framework of the Cyberspace Security Board, released a deliberation on the “high risk” for the security of networks and services 5G of the use of suppliers’ equipment which, among other criteria, are from outside the EU, NATO or OECD and which “the legal order of the country in which it is domiciled” or linked “allows the government to exercise control, interference or pressure on its activities in third countries”.

The deliberation did not refer to names of companies or countries, but the entity concerned was the Chinese Huawei, who filed an administrative action against the deliberation on 5G equipment of the Security Assessment Committee, with the aim of safeguarding its legal rights.

However, three years later (2026) of the decision of the Security Assessment Commission, Meo filed a lawsuit against the Portuguese State to be compensated for Huawei's exclusion as a 5G supplier, claiming 82 million euros of compensation, which is an estimate of the impact of the decision.

The company does not request the annulment of the decision that banned Huawei, but compensation for the resulting costs.

The replacement of equipment from risk providers on mobile, fixed and transport networks in the EU, such as Huawei, could cost operators between 30 and 40 billion euros, according to the GSMA report Intelligence released this summer.

A study by the consultant EY at Huawei's request and released in September 2024 stated that the exclusion of Chinese technology from 5G networks in Portugal could cost the Portuguese economy more than EUR 1 billion.