IMI Tax Benefit for Real Estate Investment Funds Under Article 49 EBF – CAAD Case 389/2014-T

ARBITRAL DECISION

CAAD: Tax Arbitration

Case No. 389/2014 – T

Subject Matter: IMI – applicability of the tax benefit provided for in Article 49 of the EBF

I – Report

1.1. Special Closed Real Estate Investment Fund "A", with tax identification number …, and with registered office at Rua …, No. …, …-… Lisbon, represented here by its management company "B" - Real Estate Investment Fund Management Company, S.A., with tax identification number …, and with registered office at the same address indicated above (hereinafter referred to as "claimant"), having been notified of IMI assessments for the years 2010 and 2011, in the total amount of €47,976.30, filed, on 22/5/2014, a petition for constitution of an arbitral tribunal and for an arbitral decision, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 2, No. 1, subsection a), and 10, Nos. 1 and 2, of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20/1 (Legal Regime for Arbitration in Tax Matters, hereinafter referred to only as "LRATM"), and of Articles 1 and 2 of Ordinance No. 112-A/2011, of 22/3, in which the Tax and Customs Authority (TCA) is requested, in order to "declare the illegality of the tax assessment acts [of] IMI and, consequently: a) the tax assessment acts which constitute its subject matter, relating to the IMI assessments [...] identified, be partially annulled due to violation of law, due to error in the factual and legal assumptions; b) the Claimant be compensated for the partial value of the IMI assessments here contested, paid in full and on time; and c) the Tax and Customs Authority be ordered to pay to the Claimant here the compensatory interest accrued and to accrue until full reimbursement of the amounts owed."

1.2. On 28/7/2014 the present Sole Arbitral Tribunal was constituted.

1.3. In accordance with Article 17, No. 1, of the LRATM, the TCA was cited, as defendant, to file a response, in accordance with the referred article, on 30/7/2014. The TCA filed its response on 30/9/2014, arguing for the total dismissal of the claimant's petition.

1.4. By order of 10/12/2014, the Tribunal considered, in accordance with Article 16, subsections c) and e), of the LRATM, that the hearing provided for in Article 18 of the LRATM was unnecessary and that the case was ready for decision. The date of 19/1/2015 was further fixed for the pronouncement of the arbitral decision.

1.5. The Arbitral Tribunal was properly constituted, is materially competent, the case is not affected by defects that would invalidate it and the Parties have legal standing and capacity, being legitimately constituted.

II – Grounds: The Facts

2.1. The claimant alleges, in its initial pleading, that: a) "[Article No. 2 of Article 46 of the EBF], which entered into force on 1 January 2007, came [...] to provide that «mixed or closed real estate investment funds of private subscription by non-qualified investors» - as Fund "A" here represented by the Claimant - benefit from the application of a reduced IMI rate of one half. [...]. However, three years after the entry into force of that tax benefit, the State Budget Law for 2010 came to repeal the referred Article 49, [former Article 46], No. 2, of the EBF. [...]. However, although the referred Article 49, No. 2, of the EBF was repealed, the tax benefit established therein continued to be applied in accordance with the terms and conditions provided by law"; b) "the purposes of the regime established in Article 3 of the EBF, successor [to] Article 14 of the GTL, are necessarily the same. [...]. The difference between Article 3 of the EBF and the (repealed) Article 14 of the GTL results only from the simplification of the drafting given to the norm, having eliminated the reference to the indeterminate concept of «tax benefits of a structural character», a concept which, not being concrete in the law, made that norm completely inoperative. Given the historical framework set out above, it is evident that Article 3, No. 1, of the EBF, establishes a minimum duration period for certain tax benefits, aiming to provide taxpayers with the necessary «security» and «stability» regarding the minimum period during which they may benefit from that benefit"; c) "moreover, the referred «security» will only cease to be afforded in situations where the norm that grants the benefit «provides otherwise», i.e., in situations where the norm itself that provides for the benefit determines that the same will not be in effect during the five-year period provided for in the general rule of Article 3 of the EBF. In fact, only that norm - or, at most, a norm contemporary with or prior to it - can «provide otherwise». Such a condition can never be determined by a norm posterior to the one that granted the benefit, under penalty of eliminating the guarantee granted by Article 3, No. 1, of the EBF, contrary to, moreover, the general regime for the application of law in time"; d) "given what has been set out above, [...], it must be concluded that, although Article 49, No. 2, of the EBF has been expressly repealed, the tax benefit granted therein did not cease, without more, to apply to taxpayers who had been benefiting from it in previous years. [...]. Thus, in accordance with the regime established in Article 3, No. 1, of the EBF, Fund "A" should have continued to benefit from the IMI reduction provided for in Article 49, No. 2, of the EBF, even after the repeal of this norm"; e) "in accordance with the extinction regime established in Article 3, No. 1, of the EBF, the (repealed) Article 49, No. 2, of the EBF - a norm included in Part II of the EBF - maintained its application even after its respective repeal, continuing this norm to apply, up to the limit of the referred minimum duration period of five years, to taxpayers who had been benefiting in previous years from the reduction of the IMI rate provided for therein, as Fund "A""; f) "in accordance with the regime for the application of law in time expressly established in Article 3, No. 1, and in Article 11, both of the EBF, tax benefits, as a general rule, do not cease to be applied immediately and generally after the repeal of the corresponding legal provisions. [...]. In this context, the application of Article 49, No. 2, of the EBF could not have been summarily disregarded after the repeal of that norm, and should instead be maintained"; g) "the repeal of Article 49, No. 2, of the EBF could not produce immediate effects on the sphere of taxpayers who had been enjoying the tax benefit established therein [...] under penalty of directly conflicting with their acquired rights, contrary to the [...] principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty established in Articles 2 and 8 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic." The claimant further requests that, if the arbitral decision now requested is granted, "it be paid, in accordance with No. 5 of Article 24 of the Legal Regime for Arbitration in Tax Matters and of Articles 43 and 100, both of the General Tax Law (GTL), the respective compensatory interest for overpayment of the tax obligation."

2.2. The claimant concludes that it should be "declared the illegality of the tax assessment acts [of] IMI and, consequently: a) the tax assessment acts which constitute its subject matter, relating to the IMI assessments [...] identified, be partially annulled due to violation of law, due to error in the factual and legal assumptions; b) the Claimant be compensated for the partial value of the IMI assessments here contested, paid in full and on time; and c) the Tax and Customs Authority be ordered to pay to the Claimant here the compensatory interest accrued and to accrue until full reimbursement of the amounts owed."

2.3. For its part, the TCA argues, in its answer: a) that "temporariness, in the sense that all tax benefits have a duration that is simultaneously maximum and minimum, is not a characteristic of all tax benefits referred to in the EBF and, in particular, of the tax benefit of Article 49, but only of the tax benefits referred to in Part III of the EBF"; b) "the interpretation defended by the Claimant in the sense that the period referred to in Article 3, No. 1, of the EBF, is a minimum period with a binding character, which the ordinary legislator could not subsequently put in question, is not only devoid of any legal basis, as it directly contradicts the hierarchy of legal norms [since] the EBF is not, unlike the GTL, despite the objectives that guide it, a reinforced law [nor] does it bind [...] the tax legislator in the exercise of the powers that it continues to hold to approve, amend or repeal the norms of tax law [and therefore applies] fully to the succession of the EBF norms by other subsequent norms, whether or not formally integrated in that Statute, the principle «lex posterior legi anterior derogat» [not providing] Part I of the EBF, in which Article 3, No. 1 is integrated, any primacy or superiority before the tax codes and laws"; c) "Article 176 of Law No. 3-B/2010 determines its entry into force at the moment of publication. The taxable event in IMI is, in accordance with Article 8, No. 1, of the [CIMI], the ownership of real estate property on 31 December of the year to which the tax relates. Article 3, No. 1, of the EBF, does not prevail over such legal dispositions, and is owed from the entry into force of the norm that determines the cessation of its validity"; d) "moreover, from the expression contained in No. 1 of Article 3 of the EBF «unless the law provides otherwise» it follows that such regime - the rule of five-year duration of tax benefits - only does not apply when the norm instituting the benefit expressly provides a different period, greater or lesser, of duration, such as are the examples of Articles 36, 45, 47, 50, 69 and 71 of the EBF, which is not the case"; e) "although it is recognized that holders of tax benefits hold a legitimate expectation regarding their maintenance at least during the period for which they were granted. However, this does not constitute an absolute prohibition on repeal and such expectation is not always protected by law. In fact, the non-retroactive repeal of tax benefits before the duration period has elapsed is even a constitutional obligation, when the tax benefit has become a privilege contrary to the principle of tax equality. This would be the understanding that the legislator would adopt. Faced with a serious financial crisis, it would understand that there is no justification, in light of the principle of equity, for the maintenance of the granting of that benefit"; f) "the tax benefit of Article 49 of the EBF is not covered by the safeguard of the mentioned Article 11, No. 1, of the EBF [and even if] it were understood that the benefit of Article 49 of the EBF were temporary, the fact that Article 176 of Law No. 3-B/2010 establishes its entry into force the day following its publication, would, moreover, always be sufficient, as it falls within the provision of Article 11, No. 1, final part, of the EBF, to prejudice the grounds of the petition for arbitral pronouncement". The TCA further alleges that, as "the contested acts do not suffer from the defects indicated by the Claimant, [...] the prerequisites for compensatory interest to be paid are not present."

In summary, the TCA maintains that "the contested acts do not suffer from any illegality, [...] and the Claimant's claim should be considered unfounded and the Respondent absolved of all requests."

2.4. The following facts are considered proven:

i) The Real Estate Investment Fund "A", represented by the claimant, is a closed fund of private subscription, with registered office in Portugal, and which has as its activity the management of real estate investments. Within the scope of that activity, the Fund is owner of various real estate properties that make up its assets.

ii) From 2007 to 2009, Fund "A" benefited from the reduction by half of the IMI rate applicable to real estate properties included in its assets, in accordance with the now repealed Article 49, No. 2, of the EBF.

iii) Following the inspection action that took place in compliance with Service Order No. OI…, relating to the 2010 tax year and the referred Fund, the IT considered that, having Article No. 2 of Article 49 of the EBF been repealed by means of the legislative amendment provided for in Law No. 3-B/2010, of 28/4 (State Budget Law for 2010), such amendment means that, "in the context of IMI, real estate properties registered on 31 December [of 2010], in the name [of] Closed Real Estate Investment Funds became equally subject to taxation" (see pp. 14 et seq. of the IT report appended to the proceedings), and that, as a result of the legislative amendment provided for in Article 119 of Law No. 55-A/2010, of 31/12 (State Budget Law for 2011) in the wording of No. 1 of Article 49 of the EBF, remain, "for the tax years 2011 and 2012, [...] without acquired subjective rights [...], without the right to the tax benefit of IMI/IMT exemption, Closed Real Estate Investment Funds of Private Subscription" (see p. 15 of the referred report).

iv) In view of the understanding referred to above, the TCA considered, regarding the IMI assessments for the years 2010 and 2011, now in question, that the application of the IMI rate should be in full, without reduction thereof by half, thus excluding the application of the tax benefit that was provided for in the repealed Article 49, No. 2, of the EBF.

v) Not in agreement, the claimant herein requested, through this Tribunal, the annulment of the following IMI assessments: assessment No. …, in the partial amount of €18,588.83; assessment No. …, in the partial amount of €5,497.42; assessment No. …, in the partial amount of €18,588.83; and assessment No. …, in the partial amount of €5,301.22 - which totals the amount in question of €47,976.30 (see documents 1 to 4 appended to the proceedings). The claimant further requested partial compensation for the value of the assessments referred to and payment of compensatory interest.

vi) The tax in question was paid voluntarily and there was no filing of a grace period claim against the assessments here contested (see documents 1 to 4 and file appended to the proceedings).

2.5. There are no unproven facts relevant to the decision of the case.

III – Grounds: The Law

In the case now under analysis, there are four controversial legal issues: 1) whether, despite the repeal of No. 2 of Article 49 of the EBF, such provision continues to apply to taxpayers who had been benefiting from the reduction of the IMI rate; 2) whether, as the claimant alleges, No. 1 of Article 3 of the EBF establishes a minimum duration for certain tax benefits, and therefore the validity of No. 2 of Article 49 of the EBF cannot cease; 3) whether, as the claimant alleges, "the repeal of Article 49, No. 2, of the EBF [with immediate effects on the sphere of taxpayers who had been enjoying the tax benefit established therein, conflicts] directly with their acquired rights, contrary to the [...] principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty" established in Articles 2 and 8 of the CRP; and 4) whether compensatory interest is owed.

Let us consider them, then.

1 and 2) The first questions require an analysis of the evolution of the regime relating to the provision of the EBF in question. In that sense, a brief description of the same is warranted, which can be summarized in the following steps:

i) The former Article 46 of the EBF, as worded by Article 82 of Law No. 53-A/2006, of 29/12 (State Budget Law for 2007), which had as its heading "Real estate investment funds, pension funds and retirement savings funds", provided as follows:

"1. Real estate properties integrated in real estate investment funds, pension funds and retirement savings funds that are constituted and operate in accordance with national legislation are exempt from municipal property tax (IMI) and municipal stamp duty on transfers of real estate (IMT).

1. Real estate properties integrated in mixed or closed real estate investment funds of private subscription by non-qualified investors or by financial institutions on behalf of such investors do not benefit from the exemptions referred to in the previous number, with the IMI and IMT rates reduced by half."

ii) For its part, Article 88, subsection j), of the State Budget Law for 2007 provided that:

"The provision of No. 2 of Article 46 of the Tax Benefits Statute applies, from the entry into force of this law, to real estate properties integrated in mixed or closed real estate investment funds of private subscription by non-qualified investors or by financial institutions on behalf of such investors constituted after 1 November 2006 or that carry out capital increases after this date and, also, to real estate properties integrated in funds with identical characteristics whose participation units were, on the date of 1 November 2006, held exclusively by non-qualified investors or by financial institutions on behalf of such investors."

iii) Decree-Law No. 108/2008, of 26/6, proceeded, under the legislative authorization contained in Article 86 of the State Budget Law for 2007, to the republication and renumbering of the EBF, with Article 46 becoming Article 49.

iv) Through Article 109 of Law No. 3-B/2010, of 28/4 (State Budget Law for 2010), the scope of the tax benefit established in the EBF was limited, as can be verified by the following excerpt:

"1 - Real estate properties integrated in open real estate investment funds, pension funds and retirement savings funds that are constituted and operate in accordance with national legislation are exempt from municipal property tax and municipal stamp duty on transfers of real estate."

v) Through Article 119 of Law No. 55-A/2010, of 31/12 (State Budget Law for 2011), the tax benefit was again expanded, in the terms that follow:

"1 - Real estate properties integrated in open or closed real estate investment funds of public subscription, pension funds and retirement savings funds that are constituted and operate in accordance with national legislation are exempt from municipal property tax and municipal stamp duty on transfers of real estate."

The tax benefit contained in Article 49 of the EBF, attributed to real estate investment funds, is part of Part II of the EBF, being qualified as a tax benefit with a structural character. Accordingly, the application of the EBF rules intended for temporary benefits is excluded. And, as the tax benefit contained in that Article 49 is not susceptible to being qualified as a conventional, conditional or temporary benefit, the provision of No. 1 of Article 11 of the EBF does not apply either.

It remains, therefore, to determine whether a minimum period of validity applies to structural tax benefits - such as the one at issue.

In this regard, it is important to note that Article 83 of the State Budget Law for 2007 added to the EBF Article 2-A (current Article 3), which establishes the following:

"1 - The norms that establish the tax benefits contained in Parts II and III of this Statute apply for a period of five years, unless they provide otherwise.

2 - Tax benefits whose rights were acquired during the validity of the norms that establish them are maintained, without prejudice to any contrary legal provision.

3 - The provision of No. 1 does not apply to the tax benefits contained in Articles 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 32, 44, 60 and 66-A, as well as to Chapter V of Part II of this Statute."

It should also be noted that, in accordance with Article 88, subsection a), of the referred State Budget Law for 2007, "tax benefits contained in Parts II and III whose rights were acquired until 31 December 2006 are maintained in the terms in which they were granted."

Finally, subsection b) of the cited Article 88 states that "the application of the regime provided for in No. 1 of Article 2-A cannot result in the extension of the periods established for the duration of the benefits contained in the Tax Benefits Statute approved by Decree-Law No. 215/89, of 1 July."

In conducting an interpretive analysis of Article 3 of the EBF, it is concluded in the same sense as that which follows from arbitral case law, namely from Arbitral Decision No. 89/2013-T, of 22/11/2013, and Arbitral Decision No. 107/2012-T, of 5/3/2013, since here too it will be understood that the teleological meaning of Article 3 of the EBF is to limit the validity of tax benefits temporally. This means that, by this means, the legislator intended to prevent the indefinite application of norms that may lose their justification due to the subsequent non-existence of the interest that legitimized them, affecting, unnecessarily, the principle of tax equality.

In fact, with Article 3, No. 1, of the EBF, the legislator intends to avoid the persistence in the legal order of tax benefits that have ceased to have justification from the point of view of public interest. Thus, the State is obliged to periodically reassess the system of tax benefits to decide whether they should be maintained or not. As is well noted, in this regard, in Arbitral Decision No. 2/2013-T, of 20/6/2013, "the reason that [...] underlies [the extinction rule provided for in Article 3, No. 1, of the EBF,] is to prevent that, by virtue of mere legislative inertia, there persist in the legal order tax benefits that have ceased to be justified in light of the reasons that initially dictated their creation, that have lost utility from the point of view of extrafiscal public interest, but that continue to be a source of waste of public resources through the tax expenditure they generate. In fact, in recent years various national and international reports that have studied the Portuguese tax system invariably point out the unusual proliferation of tax benefits, which unnecessarily distorts and complicates the system, making it very difficult to manage, with the inherent increase in its administrative cost, in addition to generating excessive and unnecessary tax expenditure from the point of view of public interest. The basis for the extinction rule provided for in Article 3, No. 1, of the EBF is, therefore, to impose on the State, indirectly, an obligation of periodic reassessment of the system of tax benefits, so that the legislator can decide with discernment which benefits should be maintained and which may cease. It is a very relevant contribution to the emergence of a culture of evaluation of the results of public policies, in this case reflected in economic intervention through the granting of benefits."

Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that the claimant is not correct, since the five-year period provided for in Article 3, No. 1, of the EBF should be considered a maximum period of validity of tax benefits, without prejudice to tax benefits being freely extended by the legislator.

Supporting this understanding is another important element for the proper interpretation of this norm, which is the Report of the State Budget Law for 2007, when it states there that the "extinction rule applicable to tax benefits contained in the EBF is reformulated, safeguarding those whose rights were acquired during the validity of the norms that establish them. By the creation of an extinction rule, for the first time the Portuguese legislator assumes in effective legal terms the need to review, on a periodic basis, the tax benefits in force." This means that it was assumed that Article 3, No. 1, of the EBF does not intend to create a minimum period of validity to guarantee taxpayer expectations, rather it intends to impose on the legislator the obligation to periodically review those benefits.

The "ratio" of Article 3, No. 1, of the EBF is, therefore, to require periodic reassessment of the justification of tax benefits. Which is only required in the case of tax benefits that are not of a structural nature (in Article 3, No. 3, of the EBF are enumerated the tax benefits that do not need periodic reconfirmation).

In summary: the rights arising from temporary benefits should be maintained until the end of the original validity of the same, this in order not to harm the legitimate expectations of taxpayers, in accordance with the principle of legal certainty; whereas as to benefits of a structural nature (as is the case with the one under analysis here), which apply as long as the norm that created them remains in effect, the repeal of this norm immediately terminates them.

In the same sense, see what is referred to, e.g., in Arbitral Decision No. 89/2013-T, of 22/11/2013: "No. 1 of Article 3 of the EBF does not guarantee taxpayers a minimum duration period for tax benefits, because the ratio of the provision is different. Thus, if the law does not guarantee a minimum duration period for the tax benefit, it is not possible to maintain that a taxpayer who is enjoying a tax benefit of a structural character has acquired the right to maintain it beyond the validity of the norm that establishes it until it reaches five years of enjoyment. The EBF does not confer the guarantee of five-year duration of structural character tax benefits."

1. Regarding the alleged violation of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, we follow the guidance already set out, for a similar case, in Arbitral Decision No. 107/2012-T, of 5/3/2013, according to which: "regarding the alleged violation of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations, good faith and legal certainty, we resort to the Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC), rendered in the context of Case No. 0894/10, dated 7 December 2011, which refers to the Judgment of the Constitutional Court No. 128/09, of 12 March 2009, which we consider applicable to the controversial matter. The referred Judgment states that «The sanctioned norm, included in the category of tax benefit, simply came to repeal an exceptional treatment». And it continues stating that «the exemption presents itself as tending to be of a conjunctural nature, that is, arising from a legislative choice that is by nature changeable. If one recalls the distinction made, with respect to the essential elements of the tax, by Alberto Xavier [...] between an exempt taxpayer and a non-taxpayer, the situation of the respondent is that of a taxpayer who, in a given temporary context, found herself in the position of an exempt taxpayer. Thus, and now attending to the prerequisites or requirements for the protection of legitimate expectations that have already been set out, it is necessary to conclude that at least two of such prerequisites are not met. From the outset, it cannot be stated that, in this case, the State (especially the legislator) undertook conduct capable of generating in individuals 'expectations' of continuity (since from the moment the exemption was approved that individuals know that this is, here, an exceptional and conditional situation). Then, it cannot be considered that the private expectations of maintenance of the legal regime of the exemption were founded on 'good reasons': since from no element of the stamp duty regime can one fail to draw the general rule according to which all transfers of real estate are subject to taxation, the repeal of the norm that provided for the exemption could not appear to the respondent as something unlikely or implausible». Also with reference to the arguments of the Claimants, alleging the frustration of expectations and the violation of trust, we accompany the argumentation of this Judgment and conclude, with reference to the controversial matter, that we do not consider it proven that the investment of the Claimants is directly and intrinsically related to the maintenance of this regime of IMI exemption. We therefore accept the understanding set out in this Judgment as to this matter, concluding also that the legal relevance of this expectation does not deserve protection under the constitutional principle of legitimate expectations. The Claimants are therefore not correct when they maintain and request the declaration of illegality of the IMI assessments in question on the grounds that they are unconstitutional, due to violation of the constitutional principles of legitimate expectations, protection, good faith and legal certainty."

For agreeing with the argumentation of the Arbitral Decision (and of the judgment cited by it), it is also concluded that there is no violation of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

1. In accordance with Article 43, No. 1, of the GTL, compensatory interest is owed when it is determined, in a grace period claim or judicial appeal, that there was error attributable to the services resulting in payment of the tax debt in an amount higher than legally owed.

It is, therefore, a necessary condition for the award of such interest the demonstration of the existence of error attributable to the services. In that sense, see, for example, the following judgments: "The right to compensatory interest provided for in No. 1 of Article 43 of the GTL [...] depends on it being demonstrated in the case that such act is affected by error regarding the factual or legal assumptions attributable to the TCA." (Judgment of the SAC of 30/5/2012, Case 410/12); "The right to compensatory interest provided for in No. 1 of Article 43 of the General Tax Law presupposes that the case determines that in the assessment «there was error attributable to the services», understood as «error regarding the factual or legal assumptions attributable to the Tax Administration»" (Judgment of the SAC of 10/4/2013, Case 1215/12).

Now, as there has been, as is noted from the reading of 1) to 3), no error attributable to the services, it is also concluded for the unfoundedness of the mentioned request for payment of compensatory interest in favor of the claimant.

IV – Decision

Based on the foregoing, it is decided:

• To dismiss the petition for arbitral pronouncement, maintaining in full in the legal order the IMI assessment acts contested, and accordingly absolving the respondent entity of the request.

• To dismiss the request also in the part concerning the recognition of the right to compensatory interest in favor of the claimant.

The value of the case is fixed at €47,976.30 (forty-seven thousand nine hundred seventy-six euros and thirty cents), in accordance with Article 32 of the CPTA and Article 97-A of the CPPT, applicable by virtue of what is provided in Article 29, No. 1, subsections a) and b), of the LRATM, and Article 3, No. 2, of the Regulation on Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings (RCPAT).

Costs are charged to the claimant, in the amount of €2,142.00 (two thousand one hundred forty-two euros), in accordance with Table I of the RCPAT, since the present request was dismissed as unfounded, and in compliance with the provisions of Articles 12, No. 2, and 22, No. 4, both of the LRATM, and the provision of Article 4, No. 4, of the cited Regulation.

Let notification be made.

Lisbon, 19 January 2015.

The Arbitrator

(Miguel Patrício)

Text prepared by computer, in accordance with No. 5 of Article 131 of the CPC, applicable by referral from subsection e) of No. 1 of Article 29 of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20/01.

The drafting of this decision follows the old spelling.