IUC Subjective Incidence: Vehicle Dealer Challenges Tax Liability Based on Legal Presumptions (CAAD 226/2016-T)

TAX ARBITRATION DECISION

1 REPORT

1.1

A…, S.A., with Tax Identification Number: …, Claimant in the tax procedure, referenced above and set forth herein, hereinafter denominated "Applicant," came, invoking the provisions of numbers 1 and 2 of article 10 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January (hereinafter RJAT), of article 99 of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process (CPPT) and of number 1 of article 95 of the General Tax Law (LGT), to request the constitution of a Single Arbitration Tribunal, with a view to:

• The annulment of 13 tax assessment acts for the Single Vehicle Circulation Tax (hereinafter designated IUC), issued by the Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter AT), relating to the year: 2012, concerning the vehicles listed in the attached notifications, as documents 1 to 13 which form an integral part of the Request for Tax Arbitration Opinion.

• The request for reimbursement of the total amount of € 1,767.29, plus the respective compensatory interest, in the amount of € 191.45, which total € 1,958.74, unduly paid by the Applicant and indemnitory interest provided for in article 43 of the LGT and article 61 of the CPPT.

1.2

Pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph a) of number 2 of article 6 and subparagraph b) of number 1 of article 11 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January, in the wording introduced by article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the Deontological Council designated as sole arbitrator Maria de Fátima Alves, who communicated acceptance of the assignment within the applicable period:

• On 14-06-2016 the parties were duly notified of this designation, and neither party expressed an intention to refuse the designation of the arbitrator, in accordance with the combined provisions of article 11 number 1 subparagraphs a) and b) of RJAT and articles 6 and 7 of the Code of Conduct,

• Whereby, the arbitration tribunal was constituted on 01-07-2016, as prescribed in subparagraph c) of number 1 of article 11 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January, in the wording introduced by article 228 of Law 66-B/2012, of 31 December.

1.3

The Applicant, in substantiation of its request for arbitration opinion, alleges, in summary, the following:

• The assessment acts, to which the single vehicle circulation taxes relate, assessed and identified in documents no. 1 to 13, attached to the PI, were directed directly at the Applicant;

• Now, the Applicant is engaged in the commercialization of vehicles, representing various automobile brands, whereby the "vehicles subject to the contested assessments are part of its activity of selling new vehicles to the network of its dealers and, in other cases, to car rental companies";

• With respect to the vehicles in question, the Applicant acted as an intermediary between the manufacturers of the brands it represents and the dealers, under concession contracts (doc. no. 14) and, with the car rental companies, acted under supply agreements (doc. no. 15), both documents are attached to the case file;

• Thus ascertaining that the 13 vehicles in dispute were commercialized by the Applicant under the aforementioned concession contracts or supply agreements;

• Whereby, the Applicant only proceeds to register vehicles that it orders for the execution of the aforementioned supply agreements, in order to deliver the vehicles already registered (cf., clause 3 of doc. no. 14, attached to the case file);

• Furthermore, the Applicant proceeded to issue sales invoices up to the date of vehicle registration attribution in Portugal;

• In the case of the Applicant's sales to dealers, invoice issuance occurs prior to the registration date, being identified by chassis numbers and subject to subsequent debit note for Vehicle Tax (ISV), already with registration;

• In the case of car rental companies, the invoice date coincides with the registration date (cf., the 13 invoices issued by the Applicant, attached to the case file, as doc. no. 20);

• Also, in accordance with document no. 20 (attached to the case file), the entire procedure carried out by the Applicant regarding vehicle registration is verified, both in the context of dealers and in the context of agreements with car rental companies;

• Which, in the present case, eliminates any responsibility of the Applicant regarding the payment of IUC, as it was never the owner of any of the 13 vehicles in question, as demonstrated and proven in the facts, documented, presented and attached to the case file, because, at the time of the year of registration of the tax assessment of the vehicles in question, they no longer belonged to the Applicant;

• For, from the foregoing, "the vehicles in question were all sold to dealers and car rental companies prior to the date of the tax facts and the exigibility of the tax" and, it must be considered that, the Applicant "proceeded to invoice the vehicles in question, even before the assignment of registration;

• Whereby, on the date of the tax facts, the Applicant could not be considered a taxpayer of the tax, a fact that precludes any subjective responsibility for its payment.

1.4

The Respondent, Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter designated AT), presented a response, from which it is clear that the contested tax acts do not suffer from any vice of violation of Law, pronouncing itself in favor of the inadmissibility of the claim and the maintenance of the questioned assessment acts, defending, summarily, the following:

• It challenges the cumulation of the disputed facts presented by the Applicant, concerning the 13 vehicles listed in documents numbered: 1 to 13 attached to the PI, considering that under the terms of number 1 of article 3 of RJAT, in the case in dispute "the existence of the same circumstances of fact is not verified";

• Alleging that the Applicant "presents separately the substantiation of fact concerning each of the situations" (factual situations, relating to "dealers" and "car rental companies)";

• Presupposing the consequent dismissal of the instance;

• As a precaution, the Respondent impugns the facts carried out by the Applicant, both in the context of registration and in the context of registration, in national territory;

• Facts which challenge the exigibility of the single vehicle circulation tax;

• Alleging that the tax legislator, in article 6 of CIUC, clearly establishes the taxable event of the tax, as well as its exigibility, since such event is constituted by vehicle ownership, as attested by registration in national territory;

• It substantiates this situation, under the terms of article 24 of RRA, whereby the Applicant upon completing the Vehicle Acquisition Declaration (DAV), paying the Vehicle Tax (ISV) and requesting the registration certificate, it fulfills the taxable event of the tax (objective/subjective incidence), being liable for its payment under the terms of article 3 of CIUC;

• Therefore, the taxable event of the tax is attested by the assignment of registration;

• It requests, in light of the exception invoked (illegal cumulation of claims), dismissal of the instance, under the terms of article 278, number 1 subparagraph b), of the CPC and,

• The arbitration process should continue in its precise terms, to conclusion.

1.5

The meeting provided for in article 18 of RJAT was waived, as it concerns issues already sufficiently debated, both in the case file and in case law, this Tax Arbitration Tribunal understanding it unnecessary for final arguments; the examination of witnesses was dispensed with;

• The Tribunal, in compliance with the provisions of article 18, number 2 of RJAT, designated, foreseeably, until 07-12-2016, the delivery of the arbitration decision.

2 ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

2.1

Given the foregoing in the previous numbers, regarding the parties' statements and arguments presented, the principal issues to be decided are the following:

• The allegation made by the Applicant regarding the material assessment of the assessment acts, relating to the year 2012, concerning the IUC on the 13 vehicles aforementioned in the PI;

• The preliminary issue of the exception invoked by the AT;

• The erroneous interpretation and application of the rules on subjective incidence of the single vehicle circulation tax assessed and collected, which constitutes the central issue to be decided in the present process;

• The legal value of the registration of motor vehicles.

3 FACTUAL BASIS

3.1

As a matter of fact, relevant to the decision to be rendered, this Tribunal considers the following facts to be established, based on the elements existing in the case file:

• The Applicant presented evidentiary elements contained in documents nos. 1 to 13, 14, 15 to 20, attached to the PI, which are considered to be fully reproduced for all legal purposes;

4.1.1 SUBSTANTIATION OF PROVEN FACTS

• The facts established as proven are based on the documents attached to the request for arbitration opinion of the aforementioned PI, which are considered to be fully reproduced for all legal purposes.

3.1.2 UNPROVEN FACTS

• There are no facts established as unproven, given that all facts deemed relevant for assessing the claim were proven.

4 LEGAL BASIS

4.1

The Tribunal is materially competent and regularly constituted, under the terms of articles 2 number 1, subparagraph a), 5 number 2, subparagraph a), 6 number 1, 10 number 1, subparagraph a) and number 2 of RJAT:

• The parties have legal personality and judicial capacity and are legitimate, by virtue of articles 4 and 10, number 2, of RJAT and article number 1 of Order no. 112-A/2011, of 22 March;

• The process does not suffer from nullities;

• There exists a preliminary issue on which the Tribunal must pronounce itself.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE

1st - The Tax Authority, Respondent in the aforementioned process, comes, within its Response, presented under the terms provided for and for the purposes foreseen in number 1 and 2 of article 17 of RJAT, to invoke a dilatory exception consisting of "illegal cumulation of claims, concerning the 13 tax acts contained in documents nos.: 1 to 20 attached to the case file;

2nd - It substantiates the exception on the fact that there exist disparate factual situations consisting of different vehicles, with sales on different dates made to dealers and car rental companies;

3rd - Requesting dismissal of the instance, under the terms of subparagraph d) of number 1 of article 278 of the CPC.

GIVEN THE FACTS BRIEFLY STATED,

• This Tribunal Considers:

4th "It is not necessary for the cumulation of claims to be viable (.....) that there be an absolute identity of factual situations, it sufficing that the legal-fiscal question to be considered be essentially identical and that the factual situation be similar in the points that are relevant to the decision"(SOUSA. Jorge Lopes, 2013.p.147 CAAD, Almedina;

5th - In the case at hand, although there is verification of "sales of vehicles of different brands, some sales made to Dealers and other sales made to car rental companies, this Tribunal understands that the criteria established by the tax legislator in number 1 of article 3 of RJAT are satisfied, "the permission for the cumulation of claims, even if relating to different acts when the merits of the claims depend essentially on the assessment of the same circumstances of fact and the interpretation and application of the same principles or rules of law";

6th - Given the foregoing, the alleged exception of illegal cumulation raised by the Respondent is judged inadmissible, since:

• "the validity of the cumulated acts may be verified based on the assessment of the same circumstances of fact and the same legal grounds" (Tax Arbitration Guide, p.146).

4.2

The claim, subject of the present process is the declaration of annulment of the 13 IUC assessment acts relating to motor vehicles better identified in the case file;

4.2.1

Condemnation of the AT to reimburse the amount of tax relating to such assessments in the amount of € 1.958,74;

4.2.2

Condemnation of the AT to payment of indemnitory interest on the same amount.

4.3

The factual matter is fixed, as appears in number 3.1 above, and it now becomes important to determine the Law applicable to the underlying facts, in accordance with the issues to be decided, identified in number 2.1 above, it being certain that the central issue in the present case, regarding which there are absolutely opposing understandings between the Applicant and the AT, consists of determining whether number 1 of article 3 of CIUC establishes or not a rebuttable presumption.

4.4

Everything analyzed and, taking into account, on the one hand, the positions of the parties in confrontation, mentioned in points 1.3 and 1.4 above and, considering, on the other hand that the central issue to be decided is whether number 1 of article 3 of CIUC establishes or not a legal presumption of tax incidence, it is necessary, in this context, to assess and render a decision.

5 THE ISSUE OF THE ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE RULE ON SUBJECTIVE INCIDENCE OF IUC

5.1

Considering it to be undisputed in legal doctrine that in the interpretation of tax laws the general principles of interpretation apply fully which will be only and naturally limited by the exceptions and particularities dictated by the law itself being subject to interpretation. This is an understanding that has been welcomed in the General Tax Laws of other countries and that also came to be enshrined in article 11 of our General Tax Law, which moreover has been frequently emphasized by case law.

It is consensually accepted that, with a view to grasping the meaning of the law, interpretation resorts, a priori, to reconstructing legislative intent through the words of the law, which means seeking its literal meaning, evaluating it and assessing it in light of other criteria, with the so-called elements of a logical, rational or teleological nature and of a systematic order intervening:

• Regarding the interpretation of tax law, case law must be considered, namely, the Court of Appeals decisions of 05-09-2012, case no. 0314/12 and of 06-02-2013, case 01000/12, available at www.dgsi.pt, the importance of the provision in article 9 of the Civil Code (CC), as a fundamental element of legal hermeneutics;

• Number 1 of article 3 of CIUC provides that "Taxpayers of the tax are the owners of vehicles, being considered as such the natural or legal persons, of public or private law, in whose name the same are registered";

• The formulation used in the aforementioned article resorts to the expression "being considered" which raises the question of whether such expression can be attributed a presumptive meaning, equating it to the expression "is presumed," these are expressions frequently used with equivalent meanings;

• As Jorge Lopes de Sousa teaches, in Code of Tax Procedure and Process, Annotated and Commented, volume I, 6th Edition, Área Editora, SA, Lisbon 2011, p. 589, that in matters of tax incidence, presumptions may be revealed by the expression "is presumed" or by similar expression, mentioning therein various examples of such presumptions, referring to that contained in article 40, number 1 of CIRS, in which the expression "is presumed" is used and that contained in article 46 number 2 of the same Code, in which the expression "is considered" is used, as an expression with an effect similar to that one and, equally embodying a presumption;

• In the legal formulation set out in number 1 of article 3 of CIUC, in which a presumption is established, revealed by the expression "being considered," of similar significance and equivalent value to the expression "is presumed," in use since the creation of the tax in question;

• The use of the expression "being considered" aimed at nothing more than establishing a stronger and clearer approximation between the taxpayer of the IUC and the actual owner of the vehicle, which is in line with the emphasis given to vehicle ownership, which came to constitute the taxable event of the tax, under the terms of article 6 of CIUC;

• The relevance and interest of the presumption in question, which historically was revealed through the expression "is presumed" and which now resorts to the expression "being considered," resides in the truth and justice that, thereby, is conferred to tax relations and that embody fundamental tax values, allowing the taxation of the real and actual owner and not that which, due to circumstances of various natures, is sometimes nothing more than an apparent and false owner. If the case were not so considered, not admitting and recognizing the presentation of evidentiary elements intended to demonstrate that the actual owner is, after all, a person different from the one registered and who initially, and in principle, was supposed to be the true owner, such values would be objectively subordinated.

5.2

The principle of equivalence, inscribed in article 1 of CIUC, must also be considered, which has underlying it the polluter-pays principle and, embodies the idea inscribed therein that whoever pollutes must, therefore, pay. The aforementioned principle has constitutional basis, in that it represents a corollary of the provision in subparagraph h) of number 2 of article 66 of the Constitution, and also has basis in community law, whether at the level of original law, article 130-R of the Treaty of Maastricht (Treaty on European Union, of 07-02-1992), where the aforementioned principle came to appear as support for Community Policy, in the field of the environment and which aims to hold responsible those who contribute to the damages that accrue to the community, resulting from the use of motor vehicles, are assumed by their owner-users as costs that only they should bear.

5.3

Given the facts described above, it is important to note that the aforementioned elements of interpretation, whether those related to literal interpretation, supported by the words legally used, or those regarding logical elements of interpretation, of a historical or rational nature of a systematic order, all point in the direction that the expression "being considered" has a meaning equivalent to the expression "is presumed," and should therefore be understood that the provision in number 1 of article 3 of CIUC establishes a legal presumption which, in light of article 73 of the LGT, which establishes that "Presumptions established in tax incidence rules always admit proof to the contrary," will necessarily be rebuttable, which means that the taxpayers are, in principle, the persons in whose name such vehicles are registered. They will, therefore, be those persons, identified under such conditions to whom the AT must necessarily direct itself;

• But it will be, in principle, given that within the scope of the mandatory prior hearing, under the provision in subparagraph a) of number 1 of article 60 of the LGT, the tax relation may be reconfigured, validating the initially identified taxpayer or redirecting the procedure toward that which is, after all, the true and actual taxpayer of the tax in question.

• The taxpayer has the right to be heard, by way of prior hearing (José Manuel Santos Botelho, Américo Pires Esteves and José Cândido de Pinho, in Code of Administrative Procedure, Annotated and Commented, 4th edition, Almedina, 2000, annotation 8 of article 100).

• The prior hearing, which naturally must be concretized at a moment immediately before the assessment procedure, corresponds to the proper place and time to, with certainty and security, identify the taxpayer of the IUC.

• That in the case at hand, the Applicant demonstrated, to the AT, in the scope of the prior hearing, that the facts fell within the scope of contracts to dealers and agreements with car rental companies, whereby, through documents attached to the case file never could the Applicant be held responsible for the payment of IUC.

6 ON THE LEGAL VALUE OF REGISTRATION

6.1

Regarding the legal value of registration, it is important to note what is established in number 1 of article 1 of Decree-Law no. 54/75, of 12 February (amended several times, most recently by Law no. 39/2008, of 11 August), when it provides that "the registration of vehicles essentially aims to publicize the legal situation of motor vehicles and their trailers, with a view to the security of legal commerce":

• Article 7 of the Real Property Registration Code (CRP), applicable, supplementarily, to vehicle registration, by force of article 29 of CRA, provides that "Final registration constitutes a presumption that the right exists and belongs to the registered holder, in the precise terms in which the registration defines it";

• Final registration constitutes nothing more than a rebuttable presumption, admitting, therefore, counter-proof, as follows from the law and case law has been pointing out, and may be seen, among others in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice nos. 03B4369 of 19-02-2004 and no. 07B4528, of 29-01-2008, available at: www.dgsi.pt;

• Therefore, the function legally reserved for registration is on the one hand to publicize the legal situation of the goods, in the case at hand, vehicles and, on the other hand, allows us to presume that the right over those vehicles exists and that the same belongs to the holder, as such registered in the registration, does not have a constitutive nature of the right of ownership, but only declarative, hence registration does not constitute a condition of validity of the transfer of the vehicle from seller to buyer;

• The acquirers of vehicles become owners of those same vehicles through the conclusion of the corresponding purchase and sale contracts, with or without registration;

• In this context it is worth recalling that, in light of the provision in number 1 of article 408 of the CC, the transfer of real rights over things, in the case at hand, motor vehicles, is determined by mere effect of contract, and that pursuant to the provision in subparagraph a) of article 879 of the CC, among the essential effects of the purchase and sale contract, the transfer of the thing stands out;

• Given the foregoing, it becomes clear that legislative intent points in the direction that the provision in number 1 of article 3 of CIUC establishes a presumption "juris tantum," consequently rebuttable, thus allowing that the person who in the registration is registered as owner of the vehicle, may present evidentiary elements intended to demonstrate that such ownership is inserted in the legal sphere of another person, to whom ownership was transferred;

• Which regarding the disputed facts, there exist, attached to the case file documents, that were proven by the Applicant, both in the scope of prior hearing and in the request for arbitration opinion, configuring, therefore the certainty that the respective owners/users of the vehicles hold the subjective responsibility for the IUCs, under the terms of number 1 and 2 of article 3 of CIUC.

7 THE PRESUMPTION OF ARTICLE 3 OF CIUC AND THE DATE ON WHICH THE IUC IS EXIGIBLE

7.1 DATE ON WHICH THE IUC IS EXIGIBLE

• The IUC is a tax of periodic taxation, the periodicity of which corresponds to the year that begins on the date of registration or on each of its anniversaries, as provided in numbers 1 and 2 of article 4 of CIUC;

• It is exigible under the terms of number 3 of article 6 of the aforementioned Code;

• It is to be noted that, as to the assessment of the IUC attributed to the Applicant on the vehicles aforementioned, in the year 2012 it must be considered that at the moment of the tax facts, the vehicles in question were in the legal sphere of the owners/users of said automobiles, because these hold the use and enjoyment of the aforementioned vehicles, whereby under the terms of number 1 and 2 of article 3 of CIUC, they must be held responsible for the payment of the obligation of said tax.

7.1.1 Regarding the burden of proof, article 342 number 1 of the CC provides "he who alleges a right must prove the facts constituting the right alleged";

7.1.2 Also article 346 of the CC (counter-proof) determines that "to the proof that is produced by the party on whom the burden of proof rests the opposing party may present counter-proof with respect to the same facts, intended to render them doubtful; if successful, the matter is decided against the party burdened with the proof." (As affirmed by Anselmo de Castro, A., 1982, ED. Almedina Coimbra, "Direito Processual Civil Declaratório," III, p. 163, "falling on one of the parties the burden of proof, the opposing party need only present counter-proof, being this a proof intended to render doubtful the facts alleged by the first").

Thus, in the case at hand, what the Applicant must prove, in order to rebut the presumption that flows either from article 3 of CIUC or from the Vehicle Registration itself, is that it Applicant was not the owner of the vehicles in question in the period to which the disputed assessments relate. It proposes to prove, as results from the case file, that the ownership of the vehicles did not belong to it in the periods to which the assessments relate. Presenting, therefore, the sales invoices, contained in documents nos. 1 to 13, 14 and 15, 16 to 20, attached to the case file, which are considered to be fully reproduced for all legal purposes.

7.2 REBUTTAL OF THE PRESUMPTION

• The Applicant, as referred to in 3.1., regarding the proven facts, alleged, for the purpose of disproving the presumption, not being a taxpayer of the tax at the time of the occurrence of the tax facts, offering for this purpose the following documents:

• Sales invoices to dealers and agreements to car rental companies, documents attached to the case file with nos. 1 to 13, 14 to 15, 16 to 20;

• Now, these documents, enjoy the presumption of truthfulness provided in number 1 of article 75 of the LGT. From this it follows that on the date when the IUC was exigible the persons who held the ownership of the motor vehicles were the legitimate owners and not the Applicant.

8 OTHER ISSUES RELATING TO THE LEGALITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ACTS

• Regarding the existence of other issues relating to the legality of the assessment acts, taking into account that there is inherent in the establishment of an order of knowledge of vices, such as provided in article 124 of CPPT, that with the request for arbitration opinion based on vices that prevent the renewal of the disputed assessments becoming moot, it is not necessary to know of other vices, it does not appear necessary to address the other issues raised.

9 REIMBURSEMENT OF TOTAL AMOUNT PAID

• Under the terms of the provision in subparagraph b) of number 1 of article 24 of RJAT and, in accordance with what is established therein, the arbitration decision on the merits of the claim to which no appeal or challenge may apply, binds the tax administration from the end of the deadline provided for appeal or challenge, and the latter must, in the exact terms of the success of the arbitration decision in favor of the taxpayer and until the end of the deadline provided for spontaneous execution of the judgments of tax courts "Restore the situation that would exist if the tax act that was the subject of the arbitration decision had not been performed, adopting the acts and operations necessary for this purpose"

• These are legal commands that are in complete harmony with the provision in article 100 of the LGT, applicable to the case, by virtue of the provision in subparagraph a) of number 1 of article 29 of RJAT, in which it is established that "The tax administration is obliged, in case of total or partial success of complaints or administrative appeals or of judicial proceedings in favor of the taxpayer, to immediate and complete restoration of the situation that would exist if the illegality had not been committed, corresponding to the payment of indemnitory interest, under the terms and conditions provided for in law".

• The case contained in the present case file raises the manifest application of the mentioned rules, since as a consequence of the illegality of the assessment acts referred to in this process, there must necessarily be a place for reimbursement of the amounts paid, whether as title of tax paid, or of the corresponding compensatory interest, as a way to achieve the restoration of the situation that would exist if the illegality had not been committed.

10 RIGHT TO INDEMNITORY INTEREST

• The declaration of illegality and consequent annulment of an administrative act confers on the recipient of the act the right to restoration of the situation in which it would have found itself before the execution of the annulled act.

• In the context of tax assessment, its annulment confers on the taxpayer the right to the restitution of the tax paid and, as a rule the right to indemnitory interest, under the terms of number 1 of article 43 of the LGT and article 61 of the CPPT.

• Whereby the Applicant has the right to indemnitory interest on the amount of tax paid relating to the annulled assessments.

11 DECISION

Given the foregoing, this Arbitration Tribunal decides:

• To judge as meritorious the claim for a declaration of illegality of the IUC assessment relating to the years: 2012 concerning the 13 motor vehicles identified in the present process, consequently annulling the corresponding tax acts;

• To judge as meritorious the claim for condemnation of the Tax Administration to reimbursement of the amount unduly paid, in the amount of 1,958.74 euros, condemning the Tax and Customs Authority to effect these payments.

• The AT must also effect payment corresponding to the amount due for indemnitory interest, under the terms of number 1 of article 43 of the LGT, by virtue of number 2 of article 61 of the CPPT (wording of Law no. 55-A/2010, of 31-12, entered into force on 2011-01-01).

CASE VALUE: In accordance with the provision in articles 306 number 2 of the CPC and 97-A, number 1 of CPPT and article 3, number 2 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Processes, the case is assigned a value of € 1,958.74.

COSTS: In accordance with number 4 of article 22 of RJAT, the amount of costs is fixed at € 306.00, under the terms of Table I, attached to the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Processes, at the expense of the Tax and Customs Authority.

Notify the parties.

Lisbon, 10-12-2016

The Arbitrator

Maria de Fátima Alves

(the text of this decision was prepared by computer, in accordance with article 131, number 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable by reference from article 29, number 1 subparagraph e) of Decree-Law 10/2011, of 20 January (RJAT), its drafting governed by current spelling)