A person found a wallet on the ground on an Avenue in Lisbon, on an August day, around nine in the morning. The wallet contained documents and a medal. The person went to a police station to hand in the found object, arriving late for work that should have started at nine o'clock. At the police station, they had to fill in by hand a form with numerous personal data, including full name, parents' names, address, parish, municipality, Citizen Card data, telephone number and, when the process seemed to be finished, they were also asked about their marital status. When questioned about the need for this data, the agent's response was: "These are the rules, gentlemen". The process took more than half an hour, and the person left the police station after half past nine, arriving at work at ten o'clock.
The article analyzes the legal framework for lost and found objects in Portugal. Article 1323 of the Civil Code establishes that whoever finds a lost item must return it to the owner or notify the authorities. A 2007 decree created the Integrated System of Information on Lost and Found Items (SIISPA) to modernize procedures, and in May 2025 a new decree amended the framework, introducing increased concerns about personal data protection. The legislation provides that the identification of the finder may be necessary to exercise rights under the Civil Code, but also establishes that only the location, day and time of the find should be indicated.
The author argues that the identification of the finder may have legal basis, but questions whether all the data requested is really necessary for the specific purpose of the procedure. It emphasizes that data protection law enshrines the principle that data must be adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary, and that having access to data does not mean it needs to be collected. The article warns that unnecessarily lengthy procedures represent significant administrative costs for citizens and for the economy, and that an Administration that hinders the making of correct gestures may inadvertently incentivize indifference.
The article proposes a reflection on administrative modernization, questioning not only whether procedures are legal, but whether they are necessary; not only whether staff comply with the rules, but whether these were designed to properly fulfill their purpose; and not only how much the Administration costs the State, but how much it costs the citizen. It advocates for the importance of administrative literacy and the need to create conditions so that the normal procedure itself is reasonable, allowing a person who finds a wallet to do the right thing without excessive loss of time.
