Summary
Full Decision
ARBITRAL DECISION (consult full version in PDF)
I – REPORT
On 26 April 2018, A... SGPS, S.A., NIPC..., with headquarters at Rua ..., n.º..., ..., ...-... Vila Nova de Gaia, filed a request for constitution of an arbitral tribunal, under the combined provisions of Articles 2nd and 10th of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January, which approved the Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters, as amended by Article 228 of Law No. 66-B/2012, of 31 December (hereinafter, abbreviated as RJAT), seeking the declaration of illegality of the corporate income tax (IRC) assessment act No. 2017..., the respective interest accrual, and the account settlement statement No. 2017..., concerning the fiscal year 2013, in the total amount of €99,611.33.
To substantiate its request, the Applicant alleges, in summary:
-
the illegality of the tax act, by violation of Article 32, No. 2 of the EBF [Corporate Income Tax Code], by the fact that the Tax Authority (AT) took into account the amount of €896,490.39 in the calculation of non-deductible financial charges, because allegedly attributable to the acquisition of capital shares;
-
defect of violation of law, by application of indirect method without foundation;
-
violation of the principle of legal certainty;
-
unconstitutionality by violation of the principles of legality and tax capacity.
On 27-04-2018, the request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted and automatically notified to the Tax Authority.
The Applicant did not proceed to appoint an arbitrator, whereby, under the provisions of subsection a) of No. 2 of Article 6 and subsection a) of No. 1 of Article 11 of the RJAT, the President of the Ethics Council of the CAAD [Administrative Arbitration Centre] appointed the signatories as arbitrators of the collective arbitral tribunal, who communicated acceptance of the assignment within the applicable period.
On 14-06-2018, the parties were notified of these appointments, having expressed no intention to refuse any of them.
In accordance with the provision of subsection c) of No. 1 of Article 11 of the RJAT, the collective Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 04-07-2018.
On 24-09-2018, the Respondent, duly notified for this purpose, filed its reply defending itself solely by way of challenge.
Under the provisions of subsections c) and e) of Article 16, and No. 2 of Article 29, both of the RJAT, the holding of the meeting referred to in Article 18 of the RJAT was dispensed with.
Having been granted a period for the presentation of written submissions, these were presented by the parties, pronouncing themselves on the evidence produced and reiterating and developing their respective legal positions.
It was indicated that the final decision would be rendered by the end of the deadline set in Article 21/1 of the RJAT.
The Arbitral Tribunal is materially competent and is regularly constituted, in accordance with Articles 2, No. 1, subsection a), 5th and 6, No. 2/a), of the RJAT.
The parties have legal personality and capacity, are entitled and are legally represented, in accordance with Articles 4 and 10 of the RJAT and Article 1 of Ordinance No. 112-A/2011, of 22 March.
The case is free from nullities.
Thus, there is no obstacle to the examination of the merits of the case.
Having considered all the foregoing, it is necessary to render
II. DECISION
A. MATTER OF FACT
A.1. Facts established as proved
-
The Applicant is, and was in 2013, a company dedicated to the management of equity interests of companies in the B... Group in Portugal.
-
The Applicant is, and was in 2013, integrated in the economic group called "B... Group", a leader in the hospitality sector at world level.
-
In the fiscal year 2013, the Applicant was subject to taxation under IRC, pursuant to the Special Tax Regime for Groups of Companies (RETGS), being the parent company of the group.
-
The Applicant proceeded to submit the Model 22 IRC income tax return of the group, in which a negative tax result of €2,443,064.83 was determined.
-
The Applicant is integrated in a group of companies that adopts a centralized treasury management system, whereby treasury surpluses are transferred to the parent company and deficits are covered by it.
-
Treasury operations are remunerated, with amounts relating to interest recorded as a debit in account 6918 – "Interest Paid – Group Interest" and recorded as a credit in account 791400 – "Interest Received – Group Interest", with balances of €896,490.39 and -€905,355.66, respectively, in 2013.
-
In the fiscal year 2013, to meet the treasury needs of the B... Group in Portugal, various treasury operations were carried out, applying the remuneration policies defined by the Group.
-
Treasury operations carried out with entities of the B... Group in Portugal were limited to entities within the scope of tax consolidation (RETGS).
-
Interest received by the Applicant by virtue of financial operations with related parties was as follows:
[Table information preserved in context]
- Interest paid by the Applicant by virtue of financial operations with related parties was as follows:
[Table information preserved in context]
-
In 2014, the B... Group in Portugal decided to automate the centralized treasury management with the objective of meeting the treasury needs of companies and improving their management, saving on interest and banking charges and improving liquidity.
-
On 11-11-2014, the Applicant entered into a "Zero Balance" contract with Bank C... S.A. and other companies in the Group, which allowed it to centralize the Group's accounts through a system of automatic transfer movements from each company's accounts to the Applicant's accounts and vice-versa, seeking to avoid the occurrence of negative balances and optimization of interest rates.
-
In the fiscal year 2013, although the channeling of surpluses and the meeting of deficits were not automated, this system of centralized treasury management was already in place.
-
The said treasury operations are short-term operations, all under one year.
-
The group of companies dominated by the Applicant adopts the zero balance cash pooling system, whereby treasury surpluses of the subsidiaries are sent to the centralizing entity.
-
The calculation of interest carried out internally with respect to the aforementioned treasury operations does not imply actual disbursement of such amounts.
-
The amount of €896,490.39, relating to intra-group interest, recorded as a debit in the parent company and as a credit in the subsidiary companies did not count as an expense for the formation of taxable profit, particularly given the balance between interest debits and credits which, in the treasury centralization account, results from the operation of cash pooling.
-
After 31-12-2004, equity interests were acquired in 2007, in company D..., S.A., for the value of €6,000, and in 2008, in company E...., S.A., for the value of €50,000.00.
-
The Applicant proceeded to acquire, at the end of 2009, the equity interest in company F... for €836,350.00.
-
The acquisition value of the capital shares is broken down as follows:
[Table information preserved in context]
-
The acquisition of equity interests in companies G... and H... took place in 1992.
-
With respect to the acquisitions of equity interests in companies I..., in the value of €100,000,000, J..., in the value of €50,000.00 and K..., in the value of €50,000.00, all occurred in 2003.
-
The companies forming part, since 2003, of the B... Group were established with their own capital, without any recourse to financing:
-
Company J... was established by public deed, with share capital of €50,000.00, fully paid in cash;
-
E... was established by private document, with share capital of €50,000.00, fully paid in cash;
-
Company I... was established by public deed, with share capital of €50,000.00, fully paid in cash;
-
Company K... was established by public deed, with share capital of €50,000.00, fully paid in cash.
-
-
It results from the balance sheet of 31-12-2014 that remunerated assets exceeded total remunerated liabilities.
-
The Applicant, as an individual company, was subject to an internal inspection action, relating to the fiscal year 2013, initiated by service order No. OI2016... .
-
The draft inspection report was notified to the Applicant through Office No. 2017... of 26-09-2017.
-
The Applicant did not exercise the right to be heard, whereby the Tax Authority proceeded to prepare and notify the Final Tax Inspection Report, maintaining unchanged the corrections contained in the respective Draft Tax Inspection Report, in a total amount of €99,611.33.
-
The final inspection report contained the following:
[Information preserved in context]
-
Corrections were made to the declared taxable profit of €99,611.33, by disregarding financial charges relating to the acquisition of capital shares.
-
As a result of the amendments made, the taxable profit was altered from a tax loss of €70,692.34 to taxable profit of €28,918.99.
-
The Applicant was also subject to an internal inspection procedure, relating to the fiscal year 2013, as the parent company of the B... Group, under Service Order No. OI2016... .
-
This inspection action had the purpose of reflecting in the periodic income tax return of the Group, in order to determine the corrected tax result of the Group, the corrections, under IRC, for the year 2013, resulting from the inspection procedure carried out on the Applicant as the parent company individually considered.
-
The Applicant did not exercise the right to prior hearing with respect to the corrections proposed in the draft report of the B... Group.
-
The final inspection report on the Applicant, as the parent company of the B... Group, contained the following:
[Information preserved in context]
-
From the said inspection actions resulted a correction to the taxable profit of the Applicant, in the amount of €99,611.33, resulting from the disregarding as an expense of the fiscal year of financial charges considered as incurred with the acquisition of capital shares, under No. 2 of Article 32 of the EBF.
-
In this manner, the individual tax result of the Applicant changed from a tax loss of €70,692.34 to taxable profit of €28,918.99.
-
Regarding the tax results of the B... Group, the tax loss remained unchanged.
-
The Applicant was notified of the IRC assessment No. 2017... which incorporated the corrections made under the inspection action.
-
The Applicant proceeded to voluntary payment of said assessment.
A.2. Facts established as not proved
With relevance for the decision, there are no facts that should be considered as not proved.
A.3. Substantiation of established and unestablished matters of fact
With respect to matters of fact, the Tribunal need not pronounce on everything alleged by the parties; rather, it has the duty to select the facts that matter for the decision and distinguish established from unestablished facts (see Article 123, No. 2, of the CPPT and Article 607, No. 3 of the CPC, applicable by virtue of Article 29, No. 1, subsections a) and e), of the RJAT).
Thus, the facts relevant to the judgment of the case are chosen and delimited according to their legal relevance, which is established in light of the various plausible solutions to the question(s) of Law (see former Article 511, No. 1, of the CPC, corresponding to current Article 596, applicable by virtue of Article 29, No. 1, subsection e), of the RJAT).
Thus, taking into account the positions assumed by the parties, in light of Article 110/7 of the CPPT, the documentary evidence and the proceedings attached to the case, the facts listed above were considered proved, with relevance for the decision, taking into account that, as stated in the Decision of the Court of Appeal South of 26-06-2014, rendered in case 07148/13, "the probative value of the tax inspection report (...) may have probative force if the assertions contained therein are not challenged."
No statements made by the parties and presented as facts, consisting of strictly conclusive statements, incapable of proof and whose truthfulness must be assessed in relation to the concrete matter of fact consolidated above, were given as proved or not proved.
B. ON THE LAW
In question in the present proceedings is the examination of the legality of the act of assessment of Corporate Income Tax (IRC) accrued with No. 2017..., of 12-12-2017, relating to the fiscal year 2013, resulting from a correction in the amount of €99,611.33, concerning "non-deductible financial charges relating to capital shares", in which the provisions of Circular No. 7/2004, of 30 March, were applied, which embodies the Tax Authority's interpretation of the provision of Article 32, No. 2 of the EBF.
It is therefore necessary to examine.
Article 32/2 of the EBF, in the applicable wording, provides, among other things, that "financial charges incurred in connection with the (...) acquisition [of equity interests held for a period not less than one year] do not contribute to the formation of taxable profit" of SGPS [Investment Company], SCR and ICR entities.
For its part, Article 120 of the CIRC [Corporate Income Tax Code] applicable, requires IRC taxpayers to present their periodic income tax return, in accordance with law, this return being, as a rule, the basis for tax assessment, as provided in Article 90/1/a) of the same CIRC, and it is certain that the declaration model provided contains its own field to include the value referred to in the above provision of Article 32/2 of the EBF, namely Table 07.
Thus, IRC taxpayers to whom the provision of the aforementioned article of the EBF applies have the obligation to include in their respective periodic IRC return the value of financial charges incurred with the acquisition of equity interests held for a period not less than one year, and cannot be exempted from such obligation, alleging, for example, that it is not possible for them to establish any direct allocation of the financial charges incurred to the equity interests held.
Indeed, not only does the principle of legality not require that an expense be accepted by reason of the difficulty or subjective impossibility of demonstrating the requirements which the law makes dependent on its deductibility (in this case, not having been incurred with the acquisition of equity interests held for a period not less than one year), but, in concrete terms, such difficulty will – exclusively and in the first instance – always be objectively attributable to the taxpayer who, as the one who incurs the expenses for financial charges and who determines their purpose, is the one who can demonstrate, better than anyone, whether there are expenses, and which such expenses had as their purpose the acquisition of capital shares held for a period not less than one year.
Thus, regardless of the greater or lesser difficulty – or even the impossibility – subjectively in determining the value relevant for purposes of Article 32/2 of the EBF, taxpayers covered by its provision shall be obliged to include in their respective tax return a value for this purpose – even if it is zero, as is the case – and cannot be exempted from such obligation under the pretext that it is difficult, or impossible, to specify such value.
The declared value shall, provided that the respective requirements are met, enjoy the presumption of veracity enshrined in Article 75/1 of the General Tax Law (LGT), whereby, once the value that, in the taxpayer's judgment, is adequate has been declared, it shall be the responsibility of the Tax Authority, if it disagrees with it, to produce proof that such value is not correct, either by demonstrating a direct allocation of the financial charges incurred to the acquisition of the equity interests, or by using a direct criterion – direct assessment – or by resorting to indirect taxation methods, in accordance with the general terms of the LGT, also provided that the respective requirements are met, which includes "Impossibility of substantiation and direct and exact quantification of the elements necessary for the correct determination of the taxable matter of any tax" (Article 87/1/b) of the LGT).
On this particular question, the Respondent raises in the present arbitral proceedings that "if a SGPS claims the right to full deductibility of financial charges incurred, it must possess conclusive evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the financing undertaken is not associated with the acquisition of capital shares generating capital gains exempt from IRC. Which the Applicant failed to do in the inspection procedure, due to the absence of exercise of the right to prior hearing, and in the present case, due to lack of evidence".
However, the Respondent's argument has no merit. Indeed, and in the first place, as stated in the Decision rendered in case 258/2015T, of the CAAD, cited by the Respondent itself, "with respect to expenses properly documented (with respect to which the veracity of the cost is presumed for the purposes of determining taxable profit under IRC), it is the responsibility of the Tax Authority to allege the existence of elements capable of casting doubt on that veracity, namely by the statement of objective, solid and consistent indications, which reflect a high probability that these documents do not evidence real operations."
On the other hand, what is not in question in the proceedings, as the basis for the corrections made by the Tax Authority, to which the Tribunal is bound to adhere, is the application of Article 23 of the CIRC, but, as we have seen, the application of Article 32 of the EBF, as interpreted by Circular No. 7/2004, of 30 March. It was that provision of the EBF that was applied by the tax act now being examined, and it is on the basis of the enactment of that same provision, insofar as it prohibits the consideration of the expenses provided for therein in the calculation of taxable profit, that the Tax Authority intends to rely, to sustain the correction it made, whereby there is no doubt, in light of the provision of Article 74/1 of the LGT, that it is on that Authority that the burden of proof of the requirements contained in the provision of the said rule rests.
As stated in the Decision of the Court of Appeal North of 25-05-2016, rendered in case 00264/10.1BECBR:
"IV. By virtue of Article 74, No. 1 LGT, it is the responsibility of the Tax Administration to raise and substantiate the dispensability of the cost in question, in order to exercise its right to correct the alleged deductions of the amounts thereof as tax expenses.
V. It is on the Tax Administration that the burden of proving the existence of all the requirements that determined it to make corrections to that declared by the taxpayer rests, and it is therefore incumbent on it to inquire about the verification of the tax fact that it claims to have existed, through the performance of all necessary diligences to discover the material truth.
VI. Thus, it is to the Tax Administration that falls the burden of proof of the verification of the legal requirements binding its action, that is, the burden of proving that the assessment cannot be based on the elements provided by the taxpayer and that recourse to indirect methods became the only way to calculate the tax to be assessed."
It is thus concluded that, since this concerns a corrective action by the Tax Authority, it bears the burden of proving that the legal requirements of its action are met, in accordance with Article 74/1 of the LGT, and that, since this concerns a purely arithmetic correction to the value to be considered for purposes of Article 32/2 of the EBF, the burden of proof that falls on it consists of demonstrating what the correct value is for purposes of the said rule, and not, merely, that it is not possible for it to indicate a value, or "the extreme difficulty of using, in this matter, a method of direct or specific allocation".
Now, in this case, said demonstration is not, admittedly and in any way, made, whereby the assessment subject to the present arbitral proceeding suffers, from the outset, from an error in its factual requirements.
Indeed, there is no evidence that the value incurred in financial charges with the acquisition of equity interests relevant for purposes of the provision of Article 32/2 of the EBF at issue is the one considered by the assessment under challenge.
In effect, what the Tax Authority says is that it cannot determine a value for this purpose. Now, if that is the case, as the Respondent admittedly recognizes, a situation is created that is, if not one of insufficiency of proof, then at least one of well-founded doubt, which would always have to be resolved against the party burdened with the burden of proof.
That is, and in sum: declared, in accordance with law, a value by the taxpayer, the assessment shall be made on the basis of the declaration made, as required by Article 90/1/a) of the CIRC, in the applicable wording. Such assessment may be annulled, by error of fact or law, provided that the party seeking such annulment, whether it be the Tax Authority or the taxpayer, meets the burden of proof that falls on it, which, in this case, consists of actual demonstration (beyond any reasonable doubt) of the amount of tax to be assessed, and not – as occurs in this case with the Respondent – with the demonstration of a difficulty or even impossibility in indicating the correct value, and subsequent application of a discretionarily determined criterion, without any legal support for this purpose.
It will thus not matter what the subjective motivation for the indication of a corrected value is or what the calculation method used to arrive at it is. In order to proceed with the correction of a declared value, in terms that imply its substitution by another, by means of a purely arithmetic correction, it becomes necessary to demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the new value to be considered is, in fact, correct.
Now, in this case, the Tax Authority does not do so; it does not demonstrate, nor even allege, that the new value it considered for purposes of the tax assessment, in the matter that is relevant to the present proceedings (charges relevant to the second part of Article 32/2 of the EBF), and which would justify the partial correction of the Applicant's self-assessment, is correct.
What the Tax Authority did in this case was, in fact and admittedly, the application of an indirect method of determining the taxable matter, without demonstrating the verification of the requirements that permit recourse to the same, nor following the procedures legally imposed for this purpose.
Indeed, as stated in the Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court (STA) of 08/03/2017, rendered in case 0227/16, "Point 7 of Circular No. 7/2004, of 30.03, of the DSIRC [Tax Revenue General Directorate], establishes an indirect, presumptive method of allocating financial charges in disregard of Articles 87 to 90 of the LGT and is therefore illegal."
Now, as had already been stated in the Decision of the Court of Appeal North of 15-01-2015, rendered in case 00946/09.0BEPRT:
"1. Under the provision of No. 2 of Article 31 of the EBF in the wording introduced by Law No. 32-B/2002, of 30 December, the capital gains and capital losses realized by SGPS through the sale of capital shares, provided that held for a period not less than one year, as well as the financial charges incurred with their acquisition, do not contribute to the formation of taxable profit of the companies.
- The method of determining which financial charges were incurred with the acquisition of those equity interests should aim at a criterion of direct and real allocation and not at the indirect or presumed criterion provided for in Circular No. 7/2004, of 30 March."
The jurisprudence referred to was recently reaffirmed by the STA, in its Decision of 26-09-2018, rendered in case 0406/18.9BALSB, where it reads that:
"The correction made by the Tax Authority for purposes of determining taxable profit in obedience to the guidance contained in point 7 of Circular No. 7/2004, of 30 March, of the DSIRC, is subject to illegality if, before resorting to the indirect method provided for therein, the Tax Authority failed to demonstrate the unfeasibility of direct determination of the financial charges incurred with the acquisition of equity interests [see Articles 85, No. 1 and 87, No. 1, subsection b), of the LGT], as was incumbent upon it (see Article 74, No. 3, of the LGT)."
In the same decision, it can be read, in terms directly transposable to the present case, which confirm what was previously explained (emphasis and underlining ours):
"Now, despite the fact that the administrative instructions contained in the said Circular were issued, precisely, 'in light of the difficulties and doubts regarding the possibility of using a direct allocation method and the possibility of manipulation of that same method by taxpayers', the application of indirect methods, whatever they may be, in a generalized manner and without taking into account the concrete individual situation in which each taxpayer is is prohibited by law. This prohibition results from the provision of Articles 104, No. 2 of the CRP, 81, No. 1 and 85 of the LGT, and the said administrative instructions do not prevail over any one of those legal provisions, in light of the provision of No. 5 of Article 112, No. 5, of the CRP.
Which means that the indirect method advocated in the Circular for calculating the amount of financial charges intended for the acquisition of equity interests could only be applied subsidiarily and after demonstrating the unfeasibility of direct quantification.
As an indirect method of determining taxable profit, the same would only be admissible, in accordance with general terms [see No. 1 of Article 85 and subsection b) of No. 1 of Article 87 of the LGT] in cases where the unfeasibility of direct determination of charges resulting from financing directly associated with the acquisition of equity interests is verified, with the burden of proof of the verification of these requirements falling on the Tax Authority, in accordance with No. 3 of Article 74 of the LGT, as was well stated in the foundational decision.
Now, in the case sub judice, with respect to the challenged corrections, the Tax Authority did not question that the requirements mentioned in Article 23 of the CIRC regarding the deductibility of costs were not met; rather, it merely used the formula contained in Circular No. 7/2004 and proceeded, in this manner, to actual use of indirect methods to determine the value of the financial charges that allegedly were incurred with the acquisition of capital shares, and it also did not identify any equity interest that was acquired using financing, nor any financing that gave rise to the financial charges that it understood should be corrected. Now, for the Tax Authority to be able to resort to the method provided for in point 7 of Circular No. 7/2004, it was necessary for it to demonstrate that it could not make a direct allocation, which it did not do, instead merely proceeding, without further ado, to apply that method.
In conclusion, it is the burden of proof that falls on the Tax Authority for the determination of the taxable matter by indirect methods, and No. 3 of Article 74 of the LGT does not permit placing this burden on the taxpayer.
In any case, it seems to us that the arbitral tribunal could never advance a different substantiation from that externalized by the Tax Authority when it carried out the additional IVA assessment in an attempt to legitimate the recourse to the proposed method in the Circular and, thus, affirm the legality of the correction that gave rise to the assessment impugned."
In this manner, in addition to suffering from an error in its factual requirements, insofar as it proceeded to apply purely technical corrections, the assessment subject to the present arbitral action, in the part now in question, suffers from a procedural defect and error in its legal requirements, by applying an indirect method of determining the taxable matter, without following the legally prescribed procedures for this purpose, and on the basis of the requirements of direct assessment.
In light of all the foregoing, the arbitral request should be granted.
The Applicant further requests that the Respondent be condemned to reimbursement of the tax unduly paid, plus compensatory interest, in accordance with Article 43, No. 1, of the LGT.
In accordance with the provision of subsection b) of Article 24 of the RJAT, the arbitral decision on the merits of the claim, insofar as no appeal or challenge may be brought, binds the Tax Administration from the end of the period set for appeal or challenge, and the latter must, in the exact terms of the granting of the arbitral decision in favor of the taxpayer and until the end of the period set for voluntary execution of the judgments of tax courts, "restore the situation that would exist if the tax act subject to the arbitral decision had not been carried out, adopting the acts and operations necessary for this purpose", which is in keeping with the provision of Article 100 of the LGT, applicable by virtue of the provision of subsection a) of No. 1 of Article 29 of the RJAT.
As for No. 5 of Article 24 of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration, which states that "payment of interest is due, regardless of its nature, in accordance with the terms provided in the General Tax Law and in the Tax Procedure and Process Code", this is nothing more than the recognition of the right to compensatory interest in the arbitral proceedings.
In the case at hand, given that the illegality of the assessment act has been declared, for a reason attributable to the Tax Authority, which carried it out in violation of the law, there is ground for payment of compensatory interest, in accordance with Article 43, No. 1, of the LGT and Article 61 of the CPPT [Tax Procedure and Process Code], calculated on the amount that the Applicant unduly paid.
Such interest shall be considered due from the date of the undue payment until the moment of its respective reimbursement.
C. DECISION
It is therefore decided in this Arbitral Tribunal that the arbitral request filed is entirely well-founded and, consequently,
-
To annul the act of assessment of Corporate Income Tax (IRC) No. 2017..., of 12-12-2017, relating to the fiscal year 2013;
-
To condemn the Respondent to restitution of the tax unduly paid, plus compensatory interest, in the terms indicated above;
-
To condemn the Respondent in the costs of the proceedings, fixed below.
D. Value of the Proceedings
The value of the proceedings is fixed at €99,611.33, in accordance with Article 97-A, No. 1, a), of the Tax Procedure and Process Code, applicable by virtue of subsections a) and b) of No. 1 of Article 29 of the RJAT and No. 2 of Article 3 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings.
E. Costs
The value of the arbitration fee is fixed at €2,754.00, in accordance with Table I of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, to be paid by the Tax Authority, since the request was entirely well-founded, in accordance with Articles 12, No. 2, and 22, No. 4, both of the RJAT, and Article 4, No. 4, of the said Regulation.
Notify accordingly.
Lisbon, 27 December 2018
The Arbitrator President
(José Pedro Carvalho)
The Arbitrator Member
(Nuno Maldonado Sousa)
The Arbitrator Member
(Luís M. S. Oliveira)
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created