Summary
Full Decision
Arbitral Decision
The Arbitrator Raquel Franco, designated by the Deontological Council of the Administrative Arbitration Centre (CAAD) to form the collective arbitral tribunal constituted on 21 June 2017, decides as follows:
REPORT
On 12-06-2017, the company "A…, UNIPESSOAL, LDA, NIPC …, B…, LDA.", NIPC…, filed a request for constitution of a single arbitral tribunal, under the terms of the combined provisions of articles 2nd and 10th of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January (Legal Regime of Arbitration in Tax Matters, hereinafter referred to only as RJAT), in which the Tax and Customs Authority is the Respondent.
The request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted by the Illustrious President of CAAD and automatically notified to the Tax and Customs Authority. Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph a) of article 6, section 2 and paragraph b) of article 11, section 1 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January, with the wording introduced by article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the Deontological Council designated the undersigned as arbitrator of the single arbitral tribunal, who communicated acceptance of the office within the applicable period and notified the parties of this designation on 03-08-2017.
Thus, in accordance with the provision of paragraph c) of article 11, section 1 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January, with the wording introduced by article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the collective arbitral tribunal was constituted on 21-08-2017, with the relevant legal procedures having been followed.
Positions of the Parties
Through the present request for arbitral determination, the Claimant comes to challenge the corporate income tax assessment act no. 2017…, relating to the year 2012 originating from the inspection procedure carried out by the tax inspection services of the Porto Finance Directorate, with service order no. OI2014….
The Claimant does not challenge the full amount of the assessment above identified: as regards the amount of € 13,228.00, relating to expenses for uncollectable debts irregularly deducted in 2012, the Claimant conforms to that part of the correction and does not intend to challenge it" (cf. article 3 of the request for arbitral determination).
Therefore, the object of the request is limited to "(…) regarding the non-acceptance as a fiscal expense in 2012 of the amount of € 89,911.36 relating to purchases of merchandise from company C…, Lda, as the TA considers that the same is supported by false invoices, not corresponding to real transactions." (cf. point 4 of the request for arbitral determination). Thus, it petitions, ultimately, that "a) The assessment above identified shall be partially annulled, in the terms challenged, on the basis of its illegality due to violation of law and erroneous qualification of the tax fact. b) Furthermore, it should be considered that the Taxpayer is entitled to the full consideration as a fiscal expense of the 2012 tax year, for corporate income tax purposes, of the amount contained in the invoices issued by C…, Lda, in the total amount of € 89,911.36, since the same title true operations."
The Claimant is a company whose activity includes, among others, the trade, manufacture and refinement of gold and silver.
In the exercise of this activity, it acquires fine silver and gold in panned form, and it was in the exercise of this activity that it made purchases from C…, Lda., purchases that are at issue in the present proceeding.
The assessment challenged has its origin, as mentioned above, in an inspection procedure based on the following motivation:
"II.2.1 - Reason
Taxpayer selected, due to the fact that, in the context of the inspection action on company C…, Lda., NIF …, which took place under OI2013…, the issuance of invoices without correspondence with real transactions destined to A…, in the period between October and December 2012, was detected."
With regard to transactions with company C…, LDA, the tax inspection services determined the following:
"III.2 TRANSACTIONS WITH C…
As initially mentioned, the issuance of invoices without correspondence with real transactions destined to A…, in the period between October and December 2012, by company C…, Lda., hereinafter referred to only as C…, NIF …, was detected.
In fact, analyzing the accounting of A…, it is attested that between 10 (ten) October and 17 (seventeen) December of the year 2012, supplies from company C… of 106,272.10 grams of fine silver and 519.56 grams of panned gold, according to the breakdown contained in article 11 of the Respondent's Reply."
The inspection services concluded, in the Tax Inspection Report whose corrections are being challenged by the Claimant, the following:
"Furthermore, it was concluded in the course of the inspection procedure on company C…, Lda. that such supplies, given the facts described, constitute strong indicators that these are invoices that do not correspond to real transactions, of which the following stand out:
Non-existence of facilities for the exercise of the declared activity, it did not have, nor did it have at the time of the facts, facilities through which it could exercise the activity, the owner of the facilities indicated as headquarters by the taxpayer, declared not to know the company and the managing partner, alleging to have lent the facilities to D…, brother of E…, facilities which were found not to have conditions for the exercise of any activity, that is, nothing was found of interest or that would suggest that any activity related to the commercialization of gold was being developed in that location.
It registered for the exercise of manufacturing activity on 2012/07/11, and as early as 2012/07/17 it began to issue invoices for the sale of metal gold and silver;
Lack of economic and financial resources of the company, constituted with capital of only €1.00, and of the managing partner to exercise the activity. Partner who since 2009 had not declared income, and from the income declared in 2012, € 2,425.00 from Category A paid by company C…, which he did not receive, and only €3,086.13 from category A that were paid to him by company F…, SA;
It concealed from the TA and the TOC the high amounts invoiced and VAT liquidated, since despite proceeding to send the periodic VAT statements, it declared no amount of sales or VAT liquidated, and from the known documents reaching the amount respectively of € 817,962.77 and € 81,735.92, with part of the issued invoices still unknown. It attempted to justify the existence of such invoices with the fact that someone, who it claims not to know, was improperly using the company's name, without it having had any participation in the issuance and requisition of the same from the printing shop.
The managing partner denied having issued any invoice in the name of the company, and the TOC also declared not to know the Invoices/Receipts in question;
Despite the high amounts of precious metals invoiced, no one declared sales to the taxpayer;
The known Invoices – Receipts present different handwriting in their completion, depending on the user;
At the printing shop it was determined that the first invoice-receipt book was requisitioned by E… and the second invoice-receipt book was requisitioned by his brother D…. In fact, in the year 2012, company C…, Lda., issued invoices to three entities, among which A… (...)."
Given the above, the tax inspection services set forth the following conclusions:
"In sum, combining all the evidence, the factuality described and the evidential elements collected constitute strong indicators that the invoicing issued in the name of C… to A… does not constitute real and effective transactions between those two entities, being false invoicing.
Despite the managing partner of C… claiming to have transacted nothing, we are led to believe that this entire scheme was developed with the collaboration of the managing partner, since it was demonstrated that it was he himself who requisitioned the 1st invoice book at the printing shop and withdrew at the counter the cheques issued by the users, with a view to giving credibility to the invoices. Accounting and fiscally, the amount of € 89,911.36 positively influenced the cost of goods sold (COGS), decreasing the net result of the exercise (NRE) of entity A… by the same amount, whereby under the terms of art. 23 of the CIRC it cannot be accepted as a fiscal expense. For VAT purposes, under section 3 of art. 19 of the CIVA, the VAT deducted by A…, in the months of October, November and December of the year 2012, contained in the invoices issued by C… does not confer the right to deduction, according to the following table:
Note: In the VAT statement, of the period of October 2012, relating to invoice/receipt 30, of 10/10/2012, issued by C…, although the amount of €1,184.21 of VAT appears therein, only the amount of €1,184.11 was deducted."
The Claimant refers, regarding the list of circumstances invoked by the Respondent to justify the corrections made, that the inadequacy of the supplier's business structure cannot be used, by itself, to consider the invoicing as simulated. On the other hand, it argues that indications collected only on the basis of an analysis of the accounting and organization of the invoice issuer cannot be considered as strong indicators of false invoicing, without any analysis of the invoice user. Moreover, given the type of commercial operations carried out with C… and the business sector in which they fit, it was not required of the Claimant to have knowledge of the organizational structure behind the people it contacted at C….
For example, given that the quantities of silver transacted were always relatively small, it was not necessary for C… to have a warehouse or its own facilities to store and sell the metal; on the other hand, purchases were made by C… and almost immediately it proceeded to sell, namely to the Claimant, whereby it was normal that transport took place in the managing partner's own vehicle. It is also not strange that C… did not need silver melting or testing and refining equipment because it resorted to third parties to provide these services. With regard to financial resources to operate, there were also no great requirements: the company made small transactions at a time, between € 2,000 and € 15,000, paying promptly and receiving promptly: the realization of liquidity in one transaction allowed for another to be carried out immediately afterwards.
Regarding other circumstances alleged by the Respondent, the Claimant refers to the following:
As to the allegation that it would not have been the managing partner of C… who filled in the invoices issued to the Claimant, it states it is not true as it was he who issued and filled them in;
As to the allegation that it would not be the managing partner of C…'s handwriting, but rather that of the invoice users, appearing on the invoices, it equally contests and repudiates saying that it was always the managing partner, E…, or his assistant and brother, D…, who filled in said invoices;
The commercial operations between the Claimant and C… were always carried out in the exact terms contained in the invoices;
The material in question was always delivered at the Claimant's facilities in …, municipality of Gondomar;
The metal was always weighed at the Claimant's facilities, by an employee named G… or by the managing partner H…;
The Claimant immediately issued the cheque and handed it to the representative of C… and at no time was any amount paid to C… returned to the Claimant;
All the silver acquired was subsequently resold by the Claimant to I…, S.A., which operates in Portugal as an agent of a Spanish company (J…) within the activity of buying and selling precious metals. The Claimant attached to the proceedings proof of the delivery of the silver to J…;
It reiterates that the indications of falsity possibly found in the sphere of C… could only be used against the Claimant to justify the corrections made if they could be corroborated by elements collected from it, which is not the case.
Thus, they argue for the maintenance of the deduced costs and for the annulment of the assessment challenged in this regard, resulting from the corrections made by the Respondent as a result of the inspection action.
In Reply, the Respondent stated the following:
Beyond what had already been referred to in the tax inspection report, in part reproduced above, the TA counters, in its reply, the Claimant's understanding that sufficient proof of the falsity of the invoices has not been made.
It refers, for this purpose, that, having provided evidence that the legal requirements legitimizing the corrections to the declared taxable matter are verified, it then fell to the Claimant to prove which places in question the amounts determined, namely it being incumbent upon it to prove the veracity of the amounts in question, according to the rules on burden of proof contained in article 74 of the LGT. It also cites varied jurisprudence, of which some excerpts stand out:
- Judgment handed down by the TCA Norte on 2015-02-26, proc. no. 3276/09.4BEPRT:
That is, when false invoicing indicators are at issue, the ATA does not have the burden of proving the falsity of the invoices; it is sufficient for it to demonstrate the indicators of falsity and that these are consistent, serious and indicative of a high probability that the invoices are «false» to fulfill its burden of proof (art. 74/1 and 75/2,a) LGT);
The law requires nothing but "founded indicators", that is, it does not impose on the Administration the "proven proof" that behind the documents there is not the reality that they normally reflect and prove, sufficing itself with founded indicators to cause the presumption in favor of the taxpayer to cease.
- Judgments of the Plenary of the Supreme Administrative Court of 17-02-2016, proc. no. 0591/15, of 16-03-2016, proc. no. 0587/15, and of 16-03-2016, proc. no. 0400/15:
II - For the TA to proceed with the correction of taxable profit by disregarding the costs supported by invoices existing in the taxpayer's records and in relation to which it considers that the operations contained therein have not actually been carried out, it does not have to prove the existence of a simulated agreement (existence of divergence between the declaration and the negotiating intention of the parties by force of agreement between the declarant and the declaratee, with the intent to deceive third parties – cfr. art. 240 of the CC) to satisfy the burden of proof that lies upon it. III - It suffices for the TA to prove the factuality that led it not to accept those costs, factuality that must be susceptible to shake the presumption of veracity of the operations contained in the taxpayer's records and the respective supporting documents, only then does it fall to the taxpayer the burden of proof of the right that it claims (the right to exercise the right to deduct the costs from taxable profit) and which is not recognized by the TA, that is, the burden of proof that the operations were actually carried out and the requirements on which his right to such deduction depends are met."
As to the interpretation of article 23 of the CIRC, it should be clarified that the basis for the correction relates to doubt as to whether the alleged acquisition of the goods in question actually occurred, indispensable proof to the contrary not having been made.
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
On 07.12.2017 a meeting took place for the taking of evidence by witness examination and by statements of party.
At this meeting a question was raised by the Claimant concerning the absence of page 9 of the administrative proceedings of the case. It was then determined that said page would be added to the case file and that the subsequent procedural sequence would then be determined. With this matter closed, evidence was taken into account the factuality indicated by the Claimant. The report of this proceeding is contained in the "Minutes of the Meeting of the Single Arbitral Tribunal – Witness Examination – Proceeding 366/2017-T", to which reference is made.
Subsequently, the Respondent submitted a copy of said page 9 of the administrative proceedings, which corresponds to the page of signatures of the statement of E…, with the Claimant subsequently submitting a request in the following terms:
"It should not be admitted as an element of evidence to be considered in this case, either because the reasons for its admissibility are not verified, or because it does not meet the formal and substantive requirements for its validity;
b. The document presented has no probative value whatsoever given that the statement allegedly contained therein was not subject to any contradictory examination;
c. It is unknown who signed the document and who is the author of the statements contained therein, whereby procedurally the falsity of the document is invoked.
d. Indeed, such falsity is evident in the fact that it contains statements that contradict objective data contained in the case file (namely the authorship of the completion and issuance of the invoices in question)."
In Reply, the Respondent came to state the following:
Mr. E… was heard by a tax inspector, in the course of an inspection procedure, in the exercise of its functions and competencies.
6. So much so that the tax inspector was equipped with the legally stipulated credential for this purpose, which embodies dispatch no. DI2016…, which is proven by the reading of the data entered in the statement of declarations, in compliance with article 46 of the Supplementary Regime of Tax and Customs Inspection Procedure (RCPITA).
7. From the statement of declarations, in addition to the signature of Mr. E…, the signatures of the accredited tax inspector as well as of a witness are also affixed.
8. It cannot be accepted that the Claimant wishes to question the veracity of the document when it results from an inspection procedure carried out taking into account the prerogatives legally granted, as follows from paragraph e), of article 29 of the RCPITA.
It should not be forgotten that, according to paragraph b), of article 55 of the RCPITA "The collection of elements in the scope of the inspection procedure must comply with objective criteria and contain: b) The complete transcription of the statements, with identification of the persons who made them and their respective functions, said statements, when made orally, being reduced to writing."
Subsequently, the Parties submitted written pleadings, in which they repeated, summarizing, the arguments already presented, which they based on the testimonial evidence carried out in the hearing in the meantime.
Matters of Fact
Proven Facts
The Claimant is a company under Portuguese law that is engaged, among other activities, in the trade, manufacture and refining of gold and silver.
The assessment challenged is a consequence of an inspection action carried out with the following motivation:
The tax inspection services initiated the inspection procedure based on the following motivation:
"II.2.1 - Reason
Taxpayer selected, due to the fact that, in the context of the inspection action on company C…, Lda., NIF…, which took place under OI2013…, the issuance of invoices without correspondence with real transactions destined to A…, in the period between October and December 2012, was detected."
Given the above, the tax inspection services set forth the following conclusions:
"In sum, combining all the evidence, the factuality described and the evidential elements collected constitute strong indicators that the invoicing issued in the name of C… to A… does not constitute real and effective transactions between those two entities, being false invoicing."
The Claimant was notified to exercise the right to be heard on 06/12/2016, a right which it did not come to exercise, the draft of the tax inspection report becoming final.
The Claimant's accounting is properly organized;
In the normal exercise of its activity, the Claimant purchases fine silver and gold in panned form;
Between 10 (ten) October and 17 (seventeen) December of the year 2012, the Claimant recorded acquisitions from company C… of 106,272.10 grams of fine silver and 519.56 grams of panned gold;
The silver sold was acquired by C… already melted or, at times, in panned form;
The gold was acquired in panned form and in small quantities;
The purchase of materials by C… was made in small quantities at a time;
The transport of materials was carried out in the vehicle of the managing partner of C…;
When the merchandise was presented to it, the Claimant proceeded with the respective weighing and verification, at its own facilities.
The price agreed between the Parties, an invoice was issued by the representative of C… in the negotiation.
Unproven Facts
There are no facts relevant to the decision that have not been proven.
Reasoning of the Decision as to Matters of Fact
The facts were established as proven on the basis of the documents attached with the request for arbitral determination, in the administrative proceeding, in facts stated by the Parties in their respective procedural pleadings in relation to which there is no controversy, and in the testimonial evidence and statements of party carried out in the hearing held for this purpose.
Regarding matters of fact, the Tribunal does not have to rule on everything alleged by the Parties, it being incumbent on it, rather, to select the facts that matter for the decision and to discriminate the proven and unproven matters (cf. article 123, section 2, of the CPPT and article 607, section 3 of the CPC, applicable ex vi article 29, section 1, paragraphs a) and e) of the RJAT).
The facts are selected in accordance with their legal relevance, which is determined in function of the various possible solutions for the case (cf. the previous article 511, section 1, of the CPC, current 596, applicable ex vi article 29, section 1, paragraph e) of the RJAT).
Taking into account the positions assumed by the Parties, the facts above stated are considered proven, with relevance to the decision, taking into account, in particular and as was written in the Judgment of the TCA South of 26-06-2014, handed down in proceeding 07148/13, "the probative value of the tax inspection report (…) may have probative force if the assertions contained therein are not challenged."
REASONING OF LAW
In accordance with the request formulated by the Claimant, in the present case, an analysis is required regarding the veracity of the facts evidenced by the invoices issued by C… and accounted for as costs by the Claimant throughout the 2012 tax year.
At issue is whether the set of facts indicated by the TA in the inspection report on which the assessment challenged was based, and which served as the basis for the disregard of the costs of the acquisitions of silver and gold throughout that year from C…, are sufficient to put in question the presumption of veracity of the documents that make up the Claimant's accounting that results from the provision of article 74, section 1, of the LGT. In fact, under the terms of this rule, taxpayers do not need to demonstrate that the documents in their accounting, namely the invoices relating to acquisitions of goods or services, correspond to operations actually carried out, given that they are presumed to be true, and it falls to the TA to rebut this presumption. Thus, knowing that "whoever has the presumption at their favor does not need to prove the fact to which it leads" (cf. art. 350, section 1 of the Civil Code, applicable ex vi article 2 paragraph d), of the LGT), this rule relieves the taxpayer of the burden of proof of the tax facts resulting from its accounting and records.
The presumption of veracity of the operations recorded in regularly organized accounting, under the terms of article 75 of the LGT, ceases with the demonstration that there are founded indicators that the documents relate to simulated operations. This means that, where false invoicing indicators are at issue, the TA must demonstrate what the indicators of falsity are and that these are consistent, serious and indicative of a high probability that the invoices are «false» to fulfill its burden of proof (art. 74/1 and 75/2, a) LGT).
In the present case, the TA considered the following as indicators of falsity of the invoices:
- The non-existence of facilities of C… for the exercise of the declared activity;
- The fact that C… registered on 11.07.2012 and as early as 17.07.2012 began to issue invoices for the sale of metal gold and silver;
- C… had lack of economic and financial resources and was constituted with a share capital of only € 1.00 and the managing partner had meager declared income;
- C… concealed from the TA and the TOC the high amounts invoiced and VAT liquidated, having not declared any amount of sales;
- No one declared sales to C….
As to the existence or non-existence of facilities where C… could exercise its activity, it follows from the testimony of the witnesses and the managing partner of the Claimant, through the description they all gave of the manner in which a company like C… exercises its activity, that such circumstance is not relevant to consider as real or simulated the facts evidenced by the invoices. That is, the type of activity carried out by C…, which consisted of collecting metals from individuals and other small suppliers and taking them to the Claimant, did not imply the performance of operations for which the existence of physical facilities would normally be required. As reported in the hearing, what happened was that materials were purchased from its sellers and immediately transported to the Claimant so that it could decide whether to buy them or not. The activity of C… – and the business added value that the same seems to have represented for the Claimant – is merely to proceed with the collection of material from small sellers and, once some quantity of the material in question has been gathered (predominantly silver), to go to the Claimant to sell it and thus realize capital for subsequent acquisitions. In this manner, in fact, it does not seem to be a requirement of a "real" activity the existence of facilities, especially given that, when it was necessary to perform small metal transformation operations before sale, the company could do so with other companies with special competence for that purpose.
As to the fact that C… registered on 11.07.2012 and as early as 17.07.2012 began to issue invoices for the sale of metal gold and silver, it does not even seem to us to be a relevant indicator of the non-existence of effective commercial operations insofar as many times companies are constituted merely to give a certain legal framework – and tax, naturally – to activities that are already initiated or ready to be initiated. Such circumstance is not, by itself, revealing of any illegal practice nor that the activity declared through the invoices issued is not real.
Similarly, it is understood that the circumstance that C… had lack of economic and financial resources, that it was constituted with a share capital of only € 1.00 and that the managing partner had meager declared income do not constitute indicators of the falsity of the invoices at issue. It also follows from the evidence produced in the hearing that the activity carried out did not imply the performance of substantial investments – the very circumstances, invoked by the TA, of there being no facilities, of there being no staff, of the activity taking place, mostly, in the vehicle of the managing partner of C…, of the Claimant appearing to be the only buyer of merchandise from C…, point in the direction of there being no need for starting capital to initiate and then develop the activity. It also follows from the explanations given by the witnesses and the managing partner of the Claimant that, after the first transactions were made, the very sale of merchandise to the here Claimant allowed for financing the purchase of new merchandise from the small sellers from which C… sourced itself. As to the share capital of € 1.00, being an advantage permitted by commercial law, its use should not be seen as an indicator of the non-existence of operations on the part of the company in question.
As to the facts that C… concealed from the TA and the TOC the high amounts invoiced and VAT liquidated, having not declared any amount of sales and that no one declared sales to C… may be revelatory of fraud in the tax statements of the entities involved, but do not necessarily indicate the non-existence of real operations. If that were the case, we would certainly have many more cases proven of false invoicing.
Finally, regarding the question of the signature contained in the invoices, and having been challenged by the Claimant what is stated in the inspection report to this effect (namely the statements there attributed to the managing partner of C… that he had not signed such invoices), there remains doubt as to who actually filled in the invoices in question. However, in the hearing held, the brother of the managing partner of C…, who stated to have witnessed the majority of the transactions in question, stated to recognize his signature and that of his brother in the invoices presented to him. Neither an examination of the handwriting contained in the invoices was carried out nor requested by the TA and the hypothesis advanced by the TA that the handwriting would be that of the managing partner here of the Claimant was not even indiciarily proven, since that hypothesis, which represents nothing more to the tribunal than that itself, was refuted by the statements of party by H… himself, which the tribunal has no reason to question. It is further recognized by the TA itself in the RIT that "Despite the managing partner of C… claiming to have transacted nothing, we are led to believe that this entire scheme was developed with the collaboration of the managing partner, since it was demonstrated that it was he himself who requisitioned the 1st invoice book at the printing shop and withdrew at the counter the cheques issued by the users, with a view to giving credibility to the invoices."
In sum, and taking into account the presumption of veracity from which the invoices at issue benefit, under the legal terms, as well as the requirements, equally established in law, which the demonstration must meet that such presumption is not correct, it does not seem to us that sufficient proof has been carried out, on the part of the TA, for the invoices issued to be considered false by simulation of the operations evidenced thereby. This means that this tribunal understands, in light of what is established in articles 74 and 75 of the LGT, that stronger indicators would be required than those which were presented for the invoices at issue to be considered false.
We consider, therefore, in line with the established jurisprudential trend, for example, of the Judgment of the TCAS of 4-6-2013, handed down in Proceeding no. 06478/13, that the TA did not manage, in this case, to evidence the consistency of the judgment of falsity "by invoking facts that translate an elevated probability of the operations referred to in the invoices being simulated, elevated probability capable of shaking the legal presumption of veracity of the taxpayers' declarations and the data contained in their accounting - article 75 of the LGT." From this it follows that, as the existence of founded indicators of deficient accounting or that this and/or documents serving as support for it do not reflect the real taxable matter of the taxpayer is not considered proven, it is not required of the taxpayer that it be the one to prove or demonstrate any error by the TA in the quantification or in the total or partial disregard of the taxable matter. To this effect, it should be said, however, that the TA did not question the documentary evidence presented by the Claimant regarding the sale of the materials acquired from C…, nor in any other way did it question it.
DECISION
For these reasons, this Arbitral Tribunal judges the request for a declaration of illegality of the additional corporate income tax assessment relating to 2012, with no. 2017…, object of challenge, to be well-founded, with regard to the illegality of the disregard as a fiscally relevant expense of the amount of € 89,911.36.
V. Value of the Proceeding
The value of the proceeding is set at € 31,243.76 (thirty-one thousand, two hundred and forty-three euros and seventy-six cents) in accordance with the provision of articles 3, section 2 of the Regulations on Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings (RCPAT), 97-A, section 1, paragraph a) of the CPPT and 306 of the CPC.
VI. Costs
The amount of costs is set at € 1,836.00 (one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six euros), under the provision of article 22, section 4 of the RJAT and Table I annexed to the RCPAT, to be borne by the Respondent, in accordance with the provision of articles 12, section 2, of the RJAT and 4, section 4 of the RCPAT.
Notify.
Lisbon, 12 February 2018.
The Arbitrator
Raquel Franco
Text elaborated by computer, in accordance with article 131, section 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, applicable by reference of article 29, section 1, paragraph e) of the RJAT.
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created