Summary
Full Decision
ARBITRAL DECISION
The arbitrators Advisor Jorge Manuel Lopes de Sousa (arbitrator-president), Dr. A. Sérgio de Matos and Dr. José Nunes Barata (arbitrators-members), appointed by the Deontological Council of the Centre for Administrative Arbitration to form the Arbitral Tribunal, constituted on 21-03-2017, agree as follows:
- Report
a) A…, S.A., hereinafter abbreviated as "A…", NIPC No.…, with registered office at Rua …, No.…, … and …, …-… …;
b) B…, S.A., hereinafter abbreviated as "B…", NIPC No.…, with registered office at … No.…, … and …, …-… …;
c) C…, Lda., hereinafter abbreviated as "C…", NIPC No.…, with registered office at …, parish of …, …-… …;
d) D…, S.A., hereinafter abbreviated as "D…", NIPC No.…, with registered office at …, No.…, … and …, …-… …;
e) E…, S.A., hereinafter abbreviated as "E…", NIPC No.…, with registered office at …, No…, … and …, …-… …;
f) F…, Ltd., hereinafter abbreviated as "F…", NIPC No.…, with registered office at …, P.O. Box …, … and …, …-… …;
g) G…, S.A., hereinafter abbreviated as "G…", NIPC No.…, with registered office at Rua …, No.…, … and …, …-… …; and
h) H…, Lda., hereinafter abbreviated as "H…", NIPC No.…, with registered office at …, …, …-… …,
hereinafter jointly referred to as "Requesters", came, pursuant to the provisions of articles 2nd, no. 1, letter a), and 10th of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January (Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters - RJAT), to present a request for arbitral determination, with a view to declaring the illegality of the assessments of Municipal Property Tax (IMI) issued by the Tax and Customs Authority (AT) and detailed below, by reference to the fiscal years 2012 to 2015, as well as the rejection of the requests for revision of the tax acts and the administrative complaints submitted by the Requesters:
The defendant is the TAX AND CUSTOMS AUTHORITY.
The request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted by the President of the CAAD and automatically notified to the Tax and Customs Authority on 20-01-2017.
Pursuant to the provisions of letter a) of no. 2 of article 6th and letter b) of no. 1 of article 11th of the RJAT, as amended by article 228th of Law No. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the Deontological Council appointed as arbitrators of the collective arbitral tribunal the undersigned, who communicated acceptance of the appointment within the applicable timeframe.
On 06-03-2017 the parties were duly notified of this appointment, having not expressed any intention to reject the appointment of the arbitrators, in accordance with the combined provisions of article 11th no. 1 letters a) and b) of the RJAT and articles 6th and 7th of the Deontological Code.
Thus, in compliance with the provision in letter c) of no. 1 of article 11th of the RJAT, as amended by article 228th of Law No. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the collective arbitral tribunal was constituted on 21-03-2017.
The Tax and Customs Authority submitted its response, raising the following issues:
– the necessity of ancillary intervention by the Public Prosecutor;
– the necessity of principal intervention of the 13 Municipalities that form part of the cultural landscape of the "Alto Douro Vinhateiro";
– raising the issue that the majority of the assessments include urban properties not located in the cultural landscape of the Alto Douro Vinhateiro;
– exception of incompetence ratione materiae (official revision);
– exception of incompetence ratione materiae (official revision tacitly dismissed);
– lack of the necessary conditions for requests for Official Revision of Tacitly Dismissed Tax Acts.
Furthermore, the Tax and Customs Administration argued that the request for arbitral determination should be dismissed as unfounded.
By order of 22-05-2017, the requests for notification and provoked intervention of the Public Prosecutor and of the municipalities indicated by the Tax and Customs Authority were dismissed and the holding of a hearing was dispensed with, with continuation of the proceedings by means of written statements.
The Parties submitted written statements.
The arbitral tribunal was regularly constituted, in accordance with the provisions of articles 2nd, no. 1, letter a), and 10th, no. 1, of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January.
The parties are duly represented, possess legal personality and capacity, are legitimate and are represented (articles 4th and 10th, no. 2, of the same diploma and article 1st of Ordinance No. 112-A/2011, of 22 March).
The proceedings do not suffer from any nullities.
Exceptions of material incompetence are raised, which must be examined as a matter of priority, in accordance with article 13th of the Code of Procedure in Administrative Courts, subsidiarily applicable by virtue of the provision in letter c), of no. 1 of article 29th of the RJAT.
- Issues of Incompetence
2.1. Issue of partial incompetence of the Arbitral Tribunal ratione materiae (Official Revision per se)
The Tax and Customs Administration argues as follows, in summary:
– excepting the assessments relating to the 2015 period which were subject to Administrative Complaint, the other assessments relating to the periods 2012 to 2014 were not preceded by administrative challenge "(…) in accordance with articles 131st to 133rd of the Tax Procedure and Process Code";
– as such, all assessments subject to a request for Official Revision cannot be examined by the Collective Arbitral Tribunal;
– in fact, article 2nd, letter a) of Ordinance 112-A/2011, of 22 March, excludes, literally, from the scope of the defendant's binding to arbitral jurisdiction, "(…) claims relating to the declaration of illegality of self-assessment, withholding tax and advance payment acts that have not been preceded by resort to the administrative procedure in accordance with articles 131st to 133rd of the Tax Procedure and Process Code", without mentioning the mechanism of Official Revision provided for in article 78th of the General Tax Law ("LGT").
There is manifest error on the part of the Tax and Customs Administration in raising this exception of incompetence.
In fact, article 2nd, letter a) of Ordinance 112-A/2011, of 22 March, excludes from the scope of the defendant's binding to arbitral jurisdiction, "(…) claims relating to the declaration of illegality of self-assessment, withholding tax and advance payment acts that have not been preceded by resort to the administrative procedure in accordance with articles 131st to 133rd of the Tax Procedure and Process Code".
In the present case, what is at issue are assessment acts and not self-assessment, withholding tax or advance payment acts.
For this reason, the aforementioned letter a) of article 2nd of Ordinance 112-A/2011, of 22 March, has no application in the present case.
The legality of IMI assessment acts may be examined by arbitral tribunals, by virtue of the provision in article 2nd, no. 1, letter a), of the RJAT, regardless of whether they have or have not been subject to administrative complaint or request for official revision or hierarchical appeal, as there is no limitation, neither in the RJAT nor in Ordinance No. 112-A/2011, of 22 March.
Therefore, this exception is unfounded.
2.2. Issue of partial incompetence of the Arbitral Tribunal ratione materiae (Official Revision tacitly dismissed)
The Tax and Customs Administration argues, in summary, that the arbitral tribunals operating at the CAAD are not competent "for the examination of IMI assessments, inherent to requests for Official Revision of Tacitly Dismissed Tax Acts".
It is not easy to discern the legal basis for this invocation of incompetence.
The acts that may be subject to a request for arbitral determination are indicated in article 2nd of the RJAT and reference is made therein to the examination of the legality of assessment acts, without any restriction, in particular, not excluding competence when the assessment acts are or are not preceded by official revision or when this is or is not expressly examined.
On the other hand, article 2nd of Ordinance No. 112-A/2011, of 22 March, which defined the terms of the Tax Administration's binding to arbitral jurisdiction, establishes that it is bound "to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunals operating at the CAAD that have as their object the examination of claims relating to taxes whose administration is entrusted to them referred to in no. 1 of article 2nd of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January", with the exceptions indicated there, among which is not included the examination of the legality of IMI assessment acts.
The RJAT does not exclude the examination of the legality of assessment acts when they are subject to second-level acts, as inferred from its article 10th, no. 1, which expressly refers to second-level acts, in line with the legislative authorization on which the RJAT was based when issued by the Government, which makes express reference to "requests for revision of tax acts" [article 124th, no. 4, letter a), of Law No. 3-B/2010, of 28 April].
Thus, in light of the RJAT, provided that the object of the request is the examination of the legality of assessment acts, not excepted by article 2nd of Ordinance No. 112-A/2011, one is within the scope of the competence of the arbitral tribunals operating at the CAAD, regardless of whether those acts are or are not subject to administrative challenge, which can only be relevant for other purposes, not for that of competence.
On the other hand, in the specific case of IMI assessments, in addition to the possibility of submitting a request for official revision under the general terms provided for in article 78th of the LGT, special situations are expressly provided for as seen in no. 1 of article 115th of the CIMI, which establishes the following:
Article 115th
Official Revision of Assessment and Annulment
1 - Without prejudice to the provisions of article 78th of the General Tax Law, assessments are officially revised:
a) When, due to delay in the updating of the cadastres, the tax has been assessed at a value different from that legally due or in the name of another party other than the taxpayer, provided that, in the latter case, it has not yet been paid;
b) As a result of new valuation;
c) When there has been an error that has resulted in the collection of an amount different from that legally due;
d) When, where applicable, an exemption has not been considered, granted or recognized.
As inferred from the initial expression "without prejudice to the provisions of article 78th of the General Tax Law", the situations expressly provided for in this article are cumulative with the general regime for revision of the tax act and do not depend on the general requirements provided for therein, as the legislative intent is to expand and not restrict the possibilities of revision.
This is a solution that is understood and justified by the fact that periodic IMI assessments are not preceded by an assessment procedure with taxpayer intervention, being issued officially by the services based on the information available to them, which has as a corollary that, when an exemption that should have been considered, granted or recognized has not been, the error is, as a rule, attributable to the services, when there is no omission by the taxpayer of any obligation.
And among these special situations of official revision of the tax act is included the one at issue in this case, in which the Requesters argue that there is reason for an exemption that was not considered in the assessments being challenged.
For this reason, when the Requesters allege that the assessments are illegal by violation of letter n) of no. 1 of article 44th of the EBF, which provides for an exemption of IMI, the Requesters are alleging one of the grounds for official revision of tax acts of this type.
In any case, if grounds for official revision were not alleged, the issue of timeliness of the request for arbitral determination could be raised, as one would be faced with direct challenge of the assessment acts, but not an issue of competence, which is determined solely by the request, by article 2nd of the RJAT and by article 2nd of Ordinance No. 112-A/2011: if the declaration of illegality of assessment acts is requested that are not excluded from the competence of the arbitral tribunals operating at the CAAD, this Tribunal is materially competent to examine the requests, regardless of whether there was or was not a request for official revision and whether or not an express decision was rendered.
In these terms, the exception of incompetence arising from the occurrence of tacit dismissal of requests for official revision is unfounded.
2.3. Lack of the necessary conditions for requests for official revision of tax acts tacitly dismissed
The Tax and Customs Administration states that all requests for Official Revision tacitly dismissed were made by the Requesters after the administrative complaint period had elapsed, arguing that "such requests could only be made by invoking error attributable to the services", invoking the regime of article 78th of the LGT.
However, as stated in the preceding section, in the specific case of IMI assessments it is article 115th, no. 1, of the CIMI that defines the terms in which official revision is admissible, broader than those provided for in article 78th of the LGT.
In the present case, the Requesters invoke one of these specially provided grounds for official revision which is the existence of an exemption that was not considered in the assessments.
The lack of proof of classification of the properties of which the Requesters are owners, whether in the course of administrative procedure or now in arbitral proceedings, which the Tax and Customs Administration invokes, if proven will be grounds for dismissal of the Requesters' claims, but does not constitute an obstacle to the examination of the merits of the case.
Also here, it is irrelevant whether the requests for official revision were or were not tacitly dismissed, as, in either case, one is faced with a ground for official revision that was invoked and is admissible.
This exception is therefore unfounded.
- Factual Matter
3.1. Established Facts
Based on the elements contained in the file and documents attached with the request for arbitral determination, the following facts are considered established:
The Requesters are companies under Portuguese law engaged in the production and trade of Port wine;
By reference to the taxation period of 2012 to 2015, the Requesters are owners of the properties identified in Documents Nos. 22 and 23 attached with the request for arbitral determination, the contents of which are reproduced;
In 2001, the Alto Douro Vinhateiro was included in the UNESCO World Heritage indicative list in the category of Cultural Landscape, encompassing the municipalities of Mesão Frio, Peso da Régua, Santa Marta de Penaguião, Vila Real, Alijó, Sabrosa, Carrazeda de Ansiães, Torre de Moncorvo, Lamego, Armamar, Tabuaço, São João da Pesqueira and Vila Nova de Foz Coa;
In the Official Journal, Series II, of 30-07-2010, Notice No. 15170/2010, dated 22-07-2010, a copy of which is contained in document No. 25 attached with the request for arbitral determination, the contents of which are reproduced, was published, which states, among other things, the following:
1 – Pursuant to the provisions of no. 3 of article 72nd of Decree-Law No. 309/2009, of 23 October, it is hereby made public that, in 2001, the Alto Douro Vinhateiro was included in the UNESCO World Heritage indicative list in the category of Cultural Landscape, encompassing the municipalities of Mesão Frio, Peso da Régua, Santa Marta de Penaguião, Vila Real, Alijó, Sabrosa, Carrazeda de Ansiães, Torre de Moncorvo, Lamego, Armamar, Tabuaço, São João da Pesqueira and Vila Nova de Foz Coa.
2 – The location plan, including its special protection zone, is published in Annex I, and the location map is published in Annex II.
With regard to the fiscal years 2012 to 2015, the Tax and Customs Authority issued IMI assessments on the properties of which the Requesters were owners on 31 December of each of those years (documents Nos. 1 to 8 attached with the request for arbitral determination, the contents of which are reproduced);
The Requesters paid the assessed amounts, and the following amounts from each of the assessments were claimed:
a) The Requesters submitted administrative complaints and requests for official revision of the tax act, which were subject to dismissal, either by express decisions or by the legal decision period having elapsed;
b) The properties in relation to which the Requesters intend to have IMI exemption applied are located in the municipalities of Alijó, Sabrosa, Tabuaço, Vila Nova de Foz Coa, Peso da Régua, Lamego, Carrazeda de Ansiães, S. João da Pesqueira, Torre de Moncorvo;
c) On 13-01-2015, the Requesters submitted the request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal that gave rise to the present proceedings.
3.2. Unproven Facts
It was not proven that the Institute for Management of Architectural and Archaeological Heritage, I.P. or the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage that succeeded to its competencies as of 01-06-2012, in accordance with article 13th of Decree-Law No. 115/2012, of 25 February, communicated to the Tax and Customs Authority any classification of the properties in question.
3.3. Reasoning for the determination of the factual matter
The established facts are based on the documents attached by the Requester with the request for arbitral determination and on the administrative file.
With regard to the location of the properties for which they seek the application of the exemption, the Requesters presented documents Nos. 22nd, 23rd and 24th attached with the request for arbitral determination.
In document No. 22 the Requesters include lists in which they indicate the properties that they understand to be "located in the Alto Douro Vinhateiro", but in those lists only the parishes and municipalities and the cadastral articles are indicated. The Tax and Customs Authority does not accept that this document constitutes proof that the properties referred to in those lists are located in the implementation zone indicated in Notice No. 15170/2010, Official Journal, Series II, of 30-07-2010, as it is an internal document.
Document No. 23 consists of "screenshots" from the Tax Authority's computer system and cadastral records that, as far as location is concerned, only demonstrate the parishes and municipalities in which the properties are located.
Document No. 24 is a map extracted from the website of the Port Wine Institute, referenced as indicating the limits of the Demarcated Douro Region, which does not indicate where the Requesters' properties are located.
Thus, it is not proven that the properties in question are located in the implementation zone of the Alto Douro Vinhateiro, but only that they are located in the parishes and municipalities indicated by the Requesters.
As to the communication of the classification of the properties as national monuments or their individual classification as properties of public interest, no proof was provided and the Requesters themselves limit themselves to arguing that "it is shown to be unnecessary, because we are dealing with an exemption that operates automatically" (article 158th of the statements).
- Matters of Law
The Requesters intend that the IMI exemption provided for in letter n) of article 44th of the EBF be applied, relating to "properties classified as national monuments and properties individually classified as of public interest, of municipal value or cultural heritage, in accordance with applicable legislation".
The properties in question have not been individually classified, so the application of the exemption can only result from the first part of that provision which refers to "properties classified as national monuments".
The Tax and Customs Administration argues that this reference refers to properties that were classified as national monuments under the legislation in force before Law No. 107/2001, of 8 September, since this Law provides for the category of national monument, but not classification as a national monument, in nos. 1 and 2 of article 15th.
However, no. 5 of article 44th, as amended by Law 3-B/2010, of 28 April, makes reference to "communication of classification as national monuments", manifestly referring to communications that may occur after its entry into force, whereby this expression should be interpreted as referring to real property to which the designation of "national monument" is attributed. In fact, this communication was not provided for, in these terms, in the previous wording, so it would not be understood that reference was being made to communications relating to monuments classified before the entry into force of Law No. 107/2001, more than nine years earlier. In this context, if legislatively it was intended to refer only to monuments classified before Law No. 107/2001, it would surely make express reference. In its absence, being to be presumed that the legislator knew how to express its intent in adequate terms (article 9th, no. 3, of the Civil Code), it must be concluded that the first part of the exemption referred to encompasses properties classified as national monuments that were not subject to individual classification.
Indeed, in the same vein, article 53rd, no. 1, of Law No. 107/2001 refers to "the act that decrees the classification of monuments", whereby it is unequivocal that, under this diploma, there is "classification of monuments".
For this reason, the initial part should be interpreted as referring to "properties classified as national monuments" under said Law No. 107/2001, inclusively.
And, as "national monuments" should be considered all "real property classified as of national interest, whether they are monuments, ensembles or sites", as article 15th, no. 3, of Law No. 107/2001 and article 3rd of Decree-Law No. 309/2009, of 23 October, expressly attribute to them that designation. That is, they are "properties classified as national monuments" for purposes of the initial part properties to which that designation is attributed.
Being the "properties individually classified as of public interest or of municipal interest" expressly referenced in that letter n) of no. 1 of article 44th of the EBF, the useful scope of the initial reference to "properties classified as national monuments" will consist in extending the exemption to properties that are subject to non-individual classification, in particular those integrated in "monuments, ensembles or sites", referred to in no. 3 of article 15th of Law No. 107/2001, which attribute to them, precisely, the designation of "national monument", which is used in letter n) of no. 1 of article 44th of the EBF.
"Real property included in the UNESCO World Heritage list are integrated, for all purposes and in their respective category, in the list of property classified as of national interest", by virtue of the provision in no. 7 of article 15th of Law No. 107/2001.
Thus, from the entry into force of this Law, the inclusion of real property in the UNESCO World Heritage list has as a consequence its classification as of national interest, henceforth for all purposes integrating the list of property classified as of national interest, which amounts to henceforth being considered real property classified as of public interest, without need for any other classification act, and having the designation of "national monuments".
In this context, the opening of a classification procedure that entails the inclusion of a real property in the UNESCO World Heritage indicative list, in accordance with no. 1 of article 72nd of Decree-Law No. 309/2009, of 23 October, does not aim to examine whether the conditions for classification are met, nor the rendition of a final decision by the Government, in accordance with article 30th, no. 1, of the same diploma (as the classification is already made "for all purposes" by virtue of no. 7 of article 15th of Law No. 107/2001), but only to identify which real property was included in that list, in particular through a location map, and to establish the respective special protection zone.
It is in this context that, with regard to real property inscribed in the UNESCO World Heritage list at the time of entry into force of Decree-Law No. 309/2009, it is provided for in no. 3 of its article 72nd, only the publication in the form of notice in the Official Journal of the location and implementation plan of real property inscribed in the UNESCO World Heritage list, including the respective protection zone and not a Government decision in the form of a decree, as provided for in its article 30th, no. 1, for final decisions in classification proceedings of real property as of national interest.
Thus, with regard to real property inscribed in the UNESCO World Heritage list before the entry into force of Decree-Law No. 309/2009, there is no classification act to be undertaken, and they integrate themselves "for all purposes and in their respective category, in the list of property classified as of national interest", by virtue of no. 7 of article 15th of Law No. 107/2001.
For this reason, in relation to these properties inscribed in the UNESCO World Heritage list, there is no place for the "communication of classification as national monuments (…) to be effected by the Institute for Management of Architectural and Archaeological Heritage, I.P." [1] which is referred to in no. 5 of article 44th of the EBF, as there is no classification to communicate.
Thus, in these cases, the exemption operates automatically, following the publication of the notice provided for in article 72nd, no. 3, of Decree-Law No. 309/2009.
However, the exemption in question encompasses only "properties classified as national monuments", those which have the designation of "national monument", whether monuments, ensembles or sites, in the terms in which such categories are defined in international law (articles 2nd, no. 1, and 3rd, no. 2, of Decree-Law No. 309/2009).[2]
With regard to sites, which is the category in which the Alto Douro Vinhateiro falls under international definitions, the IMI exemption encompasses the properties (whose fiscal concept is provided by article 2nd of the CIMI) situated in the classified area, but not those situated in the special protection zone, as this zone is not classified as a national monument (without prejudice, naturally, to some of the properties situated in the protection zone being individually and autonomously classified).
In the present case, it is known that the properties are situated in the municipalities of Peso da Régua, Alijó, Sabrosa, Carrazeda de Ansiães, Torre de Moncorvo, Lamego, Tabuaço, São João da Pesqueira and Vila Nova de Foz Coa, indicated in Notice No. 15170/2010, published in the Official Journal, Series II, of 30-07-2010, as encompassed in the Alto Douro Vinhateiro included in the UNESCO World Heritage indicative list.
According to what is inferred from the legend of the map published in Annex I of the aforementioned Notice, in which distinguish the "ALTO DOURO VINHATEIRO Boundary" and "SPECIAL PROTECTION ZONE ALTO DOURO VINHATEIRO", the totality of the municipalities will be included in the set formed by the implementation area of the Alto Douro Vinhateiro and its respective Special Protection Zone.
But, it is not possible to conclude from the documents presented by the Requesters or from others attached to the file whether the properties are situated in the implementation zone or in the protection zone.
With regard to tax benefits there are special provisions that result in the burden of proof of their prerequisites falling on the taxpayer.
Immediately, article 74th, no. 1, of the LGT establishes that "the burden of proof of the facts constitutive of the rights of the tax administration or of taxpayers falls on whoever invokes them", whereby, as the taxpayer is the one who invokes having the right to enjoy a tax benefit, it will be on the taxpayer that the burden of proving that the respective prerequisites are met falls.
On the other hand, article 14th, no. 2, of the LGT establishes that "the holders of tax benefits of any nature are always obliged to reveal or authorize the revelation to the tax administration of the prerequisites for their granting, or to comply with other obligations provided for by law or in the instrument recognizing the benefit, in particular those relating to income, expenditure or property taxes, or to rules of the social security system, under penalty of such benefits becoming void". From this provision it is inferred that the burden of proof of the prerequisites of tax benefits falls on taxpayers and is concretized through the revelation of these prerequisites or authorization for them to be revealed to the Tax Administration.
Thus, by virtue of the rule of burden of proof, doubt about the location of the properties in the area defined in the "implementation plan" published as Annex to Notice No. 15170/2010, must be evaluated procedurally against the Requesters, which amounts to lack of proof of an essential prerequisite for the success of their claims.
In this context, the request for arbitral determination must be dismissed as unfounded, as to the requests for annulment of the assessments and express decisions and tacit dismissals of the administrative complaints and requests for official revision (which the Requesters call "revocation"), as it was not demonstrated that the properties in relation to which the Requesters intend to have IMI exemption applied are classified as "national monuments", in particular that they are located in the area of the Alto Douro Vinhateiro, and, consequently, it was not demonstrated that the assessments and decisions and tacit dismissals suffer from illegality.
Being thus, examination of the remaining issues that are raised in the present case becomes unnecessary (article 130th of the CPC), as it would be futile for the decision of the present proceedings.
- Request for Reimbursement and Compensatory Interest
As the requests for annulment of the assessments are dismissed, the requests for reimbursement of amounts paid and compensatory interest are also dismissed, which presuppose unduly paid taxes (article 43rd, no. 1, of the LGT).
- Decision
In these terms, the Arbitral Tribunal agrees to:
· Dismiss the exceptions raised by the Tax and Customs Authority;
· Dismiss the request for arbitral determination, as to the requests for annulment of the assessments and express decisions and tacit dismissals of the administrative complaints and requests for official revision (which the Requesters call "revocation").
- Value of the Proceedings
In accordance with the provision in article 306th, no. 2, of the CPC and 97th-A, no. 1, letter a), of the CPPT and 3rd, no. 2, of the Regulations for Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings the value of the case is set at €74,092.17.
- Costs
Pursuant to article 22nd, no. 4, of the RJAT, the amount of costs is fixed at €2,448.00, in accordance with Table I appended to the Regulations for Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, to be borne by the Requester.
Lisbon, 05-07-2017
The Arbitrators
(Jorge Manuel Lopes de Sousa)
(A. Sérgio de Matos)
(José Nunes Barata)
[1] Currently, the competencies of the Institute for Management of Architectural and Archaeological Heritage, I.P., are exercised by the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage, in accordance with article 13th, letter a), of Decree-Law No. 115/2012, of 25 May.
[2] These definitions are contained, in particular, in the Convention for the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, approved for accession, by Decree-Law No. 49/79, of 6 June, which provides the following definitions in its article 1st:
Monuments. - Architectural, sculptural or monumental painting works, elements or structures of an archaeological character, inscriptions, caves and groups of elements with exceptional universal value from the point of view of history, art or science;
Ensembles. - Groups of buildings isolated or joined together which, by virtue of their architecture, unity or integration in the landscape, have exceptional universal value from the point of view of history, art or science;
Sites of Interest. - Works of man, or combined works of man and nature, and areas, including sites of archaeological interest, with exceptional universal value from the point of view of historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological interest.
The Convention for the Safeguarding of Architectural Heritage in Europe, approved for ratification by Resolution of the Assembly of the Republic No. 5/91, of 23 January, uses the following definitions:
-
Monuments: all buildings particularly noteworthy for their historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific, social or technical interest, including installations or decorative elements that form an integral part of such buildings;
-
Architectural ensembles: homogeneous groupings of urban or rural buildings, noteworthy for their historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific, social or technical interest, and sufficiently coherent to be subject to topographical delimitation;
-
Sites: combined works of man and nature, partially constructed and constituting spaces sufficiently characteristic and homogeneous to be subject to topographical delimitation, noteworthy for their historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific, social or technical interest.
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created