Summary
Full Decision
ARBITRAL DECISION
I. REPORT
A…, S.A., legal entity no.…, with registered office at…, no.…, ..., …-… in Lisbon, filed, in cumulation of requests, on 03/10/2016, a request for constitution of a singular arbitral tribunal (hereinafter designated as initial request or abbreviated as I.R.) pursuant to the provisions of articles 2.º, no. 1, subparagraph a), 5.º, no. 2, subparagraph a), 10.º, no. 1, subparagraph a) and no. 2 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January (Legal Regime of Arbitration in Tax Matters, hereinafter designated only as LRAT), in conjunction with subparagraph a) of article 99.º of the TCP, wherein the Tax and Customs Authority is named as Respondent (hereinafter designated only as Respondent).
The Claimant requests the declaration of illegality and annulment of the following Stamp Tax assessment acts, with reference to the year 2015, by application of item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Tax (hereinafter, GTST), which fell upon the urban property registered in the urban property matrix under article … of the Parish of …, in the total amount of € 10,572.90:
| Identification of apartment, division/part with independent use | Identification of Document/Assessment Act | Amount of Stamp Tax collected assessed for the year 2015 |
|---|---|---|
| U –…– RC Dto | 2016 … | € 520.10 |
| U –…– RC Esq | 2016 … | € 640.80 |
| U –…– 1º Dto | 2016 … | € 891.50 |
| U –…– 1º Esq | 2016 … | € 812.60 |
| U –…– 2.º Dto | 2016 … | € 891.50 |
| U –…– 2.º Esq | 2016 … | € 812.60 |
| U –…– 3.º Dto | 2016 … | € 891.50 |
| U –…– 3.º Esq | 2016 … | € 812.60 |
| U –…– 4.º Dto | 2016 … | € 891.50 |
| U –…– 4.º Esq | 2016 … | € 812.60 |
| U –…– 5.º Dto | 2016 … | € 891.50 |
| U –…– 5.º Esq | 2016 … | €812.60 |
| U –…–6.º Dto | 2016 … | €891.50 |
The Claimant further requests the declaration of illegality and annulment of the decisions dismissing two administrative appeals presented against the aforementioned Stamp Tax assessment acts.
The request for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal was accepted by the Most Excellent President of CAAD on 17/10/2016 and automatically notified to the Tax and Customs Authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph a) of no. 2 of article 6.º and subparagraph b) of no. 1 of article 11.º of the LRAT, the Deontological Council appointed as arbitrator of the singular arbitral tribunal the present signatory, who communicated acceptance of the appointment within the applicable deadline.
On 30/11/2016, the Parties were duly notified of this appointment and did not manifest any intention to refuse the appointment of the arbitrator, pursuant to the combined provisions of article 11.º no. 1, subparagraphs a) and b) of the LRAT and articles 6.º and 7.º of the Deontological Code.
In accordance with the provisions of subparagraph c) of no. 1 of article 11.º of the LRAT, the singular arbitral tribunal was constituted on 19/12/2016.
By order of 23/12/2016, the Director-General of the Tax and Customs Authority was ordered to be notified to attach the administrative file, submit a reply and request production of additional evidence.
The Respondent submitted a reply on 02/02/2017, requested that the hearing referred to in article 18.º, no. 1 of the LRAT not be held on the grounds that the factual matter is supported in the Administrative File and is not relevant for the proper decision of the case, waived the hearing of the witnesses listed by the Claimant, waived final arguments, and attached the Administrative File.
By order of 15/02/2017, the Claimant was notified to clarify which factual matters it intended to examine through the witness listed in the I.R.
On 01/03/2017, the Claimant informed that the witness listed would be useful for proving the facts set out in articles 17, 25 and 27 of the I.R. and requested that procedural documents proving notification for payment of the third installment of the Stamp Tax assessment acts and the respective payment be attached to the file.
By order of 06/03/2017, the parties were notified of the waiver of witness evidence and the waiver of the hearing referred to in article 18.º, no. 1 of the LRAT, as no exceptions had been invoked and the production of witness evidence was unnecessary. They were also notified for successive arguments.
The Claimant submitted arguments on 28/03/2017 and the Respondent on 19/04/2017.
The following are, in summary, the arguments of the Claimant:
The Stamp Tax assessment acts are affected by a defect of violation of law, due to error concerning the factual and legal premises, to the extent that the legal prerequisites for the incidence of Stamp Tax provided for in item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Tax are not verified.
The Claimant understands that in the case of urban property in vertical ownership, the subjection to Stamp Tax should be determined by the TPV of each floor capable of independent use and not by the total TPV of the property. In that measure, as the TPV of none of the floors of the said property exceeds € 1,000,000.00, there would be no subjection to Stamp Tax.
To support its position, it invokes numerous decisions from arbitral jurisprudence of the Administrative Arbitration Center, of which those handed down in cases no. 50-2013-T, of 29/10/2013 and 132/2013-T, of 16/12/2013, as well as the judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court, handed down in cases no. 047/15, on 09/09/2015 and no. 01354/15 of 02/03/2016.
It concludes by petitioning for the annulment of the Stamp Tax assessment acts and the acts dismissing the administrative appeals that upheld them, the reimbursement of the amounts improperly paid and the condemnation of the Respondent to pay compensatory interest in accordance with the provisions of article 43.º of the General Tax Law.
In summary, the Respondent invokes, regarding the grounds on which the Claimant bases the arbitral request for annulment of the acts, that the contested assessments were issued in accordance with the information contained in the property certificate of the property and result from the direct application of the legal norm. The Respondent further maintains that, the assessment being correct, compensatory interest is not due.
Specifically regarding the violation of the principle of tax equality, it invokes various judgments of the Constitutional Court which did not consider unconstitutional the norm of items 28 and 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Tax and also the arbitral decision dated 05/05/2015, handed down in case no. 668/2015-T.
It concludes by defending the unfoundedness of the request for arbitral pronouncement, on the grounds that for purposes of the incidence of Stamp Tax it is the total patrimonial value of the property and not the patrimonial value of each of the parts that compose it, even though they are capable of independent use, that should be considered.
II. SANATION
The request for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal was timely filed (cf. article 10.º, no. 1, subparagraph a) of the LRAT).
The Arbitral Tribunal was regularly constituted and is competent (cf. article 2.º, no. 1, subparagraph a) of the LRAT combined with article 10.º, no. 1, subparagraph a) of the same legal instrument).
The parties have legal personality and capacity, are legitimate and the cumulation of requests is admissible (cf. articles 3.º, no. 1, 4.º and 10.º, no. 2 of the LRAT and article 1.º of Ordinance no. 112-A/2011, of 22 March).
The value of the case is fixed at 10,572.90 as indicated by the Claimant, in accordance with the provisions of articles 3.º, no. 2 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings (RCTAP), 97.º-A, no. 1, subparagraph a) of the TCP and 306.º, no. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
It is necessary to assess the merits of the requests.
III. GROUNDS
A. Proven Facts
There is no factual matter alleged as controversial, with the following essential facts being proven in particular:
- The Claimant is the owner of a building which is registered under article no. … of the urban property matrix of the parish of …, municipality of Lisbon (cf. doc. no. 28 of the I.R.);
- The building is divided into 13 apartments (i.e. divisions/parts with independent use and with residential allocation) (cf. doc. no. 28 of the I.R.);
- The assessment acts whose legality the Claimant contests concern all 13 apartments registered in the property matrix (cf. docs. nos. 2 to 27 of the I.R. and doc. no. 1 of the request filed on 01/03/2017);
- Each of the aforementioned divisions/parts with independent use was subject to autonomous assessment by the Tax Authority, which fixed the respective tax patrimonial value (cf., doc. no. 28 of the I.R.);
- None of the aforementioned divisions with independent use has a tax patrimonial value exceeding 1 million euros (cf. docs. nos. 2 to 28 of the I.R. and doc. no. 1 of the request filed on 01/03/2017);
- According to the assessment acts which are the subject of the present arbitral request, the aforementioned divisions with independent use correspond to the following Stamp Tax amounts:
| Identification of apartment, division/part with independent use | Tax Patrimonial Value of each apartment | Amount of Stamp Tax collected assessed for the year 2015 |
|---|---|---|
| U –…– RC Dto | € 52,010.00 | € 520.10 |
| U –…– RC Esq | € 64,080.00 | € 640.80 |
| U –…– 1º Dto | €89,150.00 | € 891.50 |
| U –…– 1º Esq | € 81,260.00 | € 812.60 |
| U –…– 2.º Dto | € 89,150.00 | € 891.50 |
| U –…– 2.º Esq | € 81,260.00 | € 812.60 |
| U –…– 3.º Dto | € 89,150.00 | € 891.50 |
| U –…– 3.º Esq | € 81,260.00 | € 812.60 |
| U –…– 4.º Dto | € 89,150.00 | € 891.50 |
| U –…– 4.º Esq | € 81,260.00 | € 812.60 |
| U –…– 5.º Dto | € 89,150.00 | € 891.50 |
| U –…– 5.º Esq | € 81,260.00 | € 812.60 |
| U –…–6.º Dto | € 89,150.00 | € 891.50 |
- The Claimant proceeded to payment of the first and second installments of the Stamp Tax assessed on 29/04/2016 and 30/07/2016, respectively (cf. doc. no. 29 of the I.R.);
- The Claimant proceeded to payment of the third installments of the Stamp Tax assessed on 29/11/2016 (cf. doc. no. 1 of the request of 01/03/2017);
- On 16/06/2016, the Claimant filed an administrative appeal against the Stamp Tax assessments (at this stage only the first installments had been received) (cf. doc. no. 30 of the I.R.);
- On 04/08/2016, following notification for payment of the second installments of the Stamp Tax assessments, the Claimant filed a new administrative appeal (cf. doc. no. 31 of the I.R.);
- The Claimant was notified of the draft dismissal of the administrative appeals filed and, within the applicable deadline, exercised its right to be heard (cf. docs. nos. 32 and 33 of the I.R.);
- On 06/07/2016 and on 13/09/2016, the Claimant was notified of the final dismissals of the aforementioned appeals (cf. doc. no. 1 of the I.R.).
B. Essential Facts Not Proven
There are no facts, alleged or known of its own motion, relevant to the decision and not proven.
C. Motivation
For the conviction of the Arbitral Tribunal regarding the proven facts, the documentary elements to which reference is made above in the various points were relevant and, in general, all other documents attached to the file, all analyzed in a critical manner and in conjunction with the pleadings in which the absence of controversy regarding the facts alleged by the Claimants is apparent.
D. Law
Questions to be decided.
In summary, and if we understand correctly, the following is the question to be considered and decided.
With reference to properties not constituted in a horizontal ownership regime, composed of various floors with independent use, some of which with residential allocation, is the TPV relevant as a criterion for the incidence of the tax the one corresponding to the sum of the tax patrimonial value attributed to the different floors or, rather, the TPV attributed to each one of the residential parts or floors?
There are already numerous arbitral decisions on this question, so in deference to the principle of procedural economy, the Tribunal refers to the decisions handed down in cases no. 272/2013-T, 26/2014-T, 30/2014-T, 206/2014-T, 249/2015-T, 151/2015-T, 558/2014-T and 496/2015-T with which it agrees and whose arguments it accepts, but transcribes only the decision handed down on 31/01/2017 in case no. 546/2016-T, for the grounds of which it refers in full, both because this decision contains a summary of the said arbitral decisions, and because it is a decision handed down in an arbitral proceeding on a question entirely identical to that in the present file, and finally, because it cites the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, approved unanimously, on 24/05/2016, in case no. 01344/15, whose legal grounds this Tribunal accepts and to which it refers:
«It should be borne in mind that each floor or part of property susceptible to independent use is considered separately in the property registration of the total property, which also discriminates the tax patrimonial value of those (no. 2 of art. 12.º of CIMI), and the Real Estate Tax is assessed individually in relation to each floor or part of property susceptible to independent use (art. 119.º, no. 1 of CIMI), as also happened in the case at issue.
And, if this is so in Real Estate Tax, so it should also be in Stamp Tax, especially since, as the Respondent correctly notes, the Stamp Tax Code refers to the Real Estate Tax Code.
As warned in the decision taken in case 206/2014-T: "Given that the Stamp Tax Code refers to the Real Estate Tax Code, it must be concluded that registration in the property matrix of immovable property in vertical ownership, constituted by different parts, floors or divisions with independent use, follows the same registration rules as horizontal ownership". Since Real Estate Tax and Stamp Tax "are assessed individually in relation to each of the parts", also "the legal criterion for defining the incidence of the new tax must be the same". Consequently, there will be incidence of item 28.1 of the GTST (only) if any of these parts, floors or divisions with independent use presents a TPV, at least equal to the amount provided for in the rule of incidence.
As well explained in the decision handed down by the Arbitral Tribunal in case 349/2015-T, "Thus, property shall be the independent area, considered separately and autonomously in the matrix, and shall be subject to Stamp Tax if two requirements are met: being intended for residential purposes and having a TPV equal to or greater than one million euros, criterion for assessing luxury residential immovable property. Otherwise, a reality not contemplated by the legislator would be created: that of a, so to speak, "residential property", possibly inserted within a larger property, possibly with various purposes, in which the TPV of that, spurious to the matricial records, would consist of the fiction of a TPV given by the addition of the autonomous TPV of each independent division (independent and with residential purpose) considered in the matricial registration. That is, where the legislator considered two realities, the interpreter would now, without support in the legislative text, have to create a third reality, hybrid, halfway between the urban property and its independent divisions to which the legislator of the Real Estate Tax, and of Stamp Tax by referral to the Real Estate Tax Code, saw fit to give tax relevance.
Also in the decision handed down in case 272/2013-T (CAAD) it is stated that "considering that registration in the property matrix of immovable property in vertical ownership, constituted by different parts, floors or divisions with independent use, pursuant to the Real Estate Tax Code, follows the same registration rules as immovable property constituted in horizontal ownership, and their respective Real Estate Tax, as well as the new Stamp Tax, are assessed individually in relation to each of the parts, it is beyond doubt that the legal criterion for defining the incidence of the new tax must be the same". Indeed, it is said, the position of the Tax Authority "finds no legal support and is contrary to the criterion applicable under the Real Estate Tax Code and, by referral, under Stamp Tax", reason for which "the adoption of the criterion advocated by the Tax Authority violates the principles of legality and tax equality, as well as the principle of prevalence of material truth over formal legal reality".
And in the same sense it is stated in the arbitral decision of case 30/2014-T to find in the doctrine of the Tax Authority a "non-conformity with the literal element of the final part of the rule of incidence (item 28 of the GTST) which states that the tax applies to 'the tax patrimonial value used for purposes of Real Estate Tax' and therefore, should not apply to the sum of tax patrimonial values of properties, parts of properties or floors, having no legal support the operation of adding tax patrimonial values of floors or parts of property susceptible to independent use, of residential allocation, separated from the TPV of the remainder with different purposes, in order to reach the eligible taxation threshold of 1,000,000.00 euros or more".
As also stated in that arbitral decision, what occurs with respect to urban properties with residential allocation, in vertical ownership, with floors or divisions susceptible to independent use, is that the Tax Authority proceeds, in the operations of assessing Stamp Tax, to the adaptation of the rules of the Real Estate Tax Code (adding the tax patrimonial values of a single property, without considering those corresponding to parts of the property with non-residential purpose, thus giving rise to a new and hybrid TPV). Indeed, this "adaptation" corresponds to "adding the TPV of each floor or independent division allocated to residential purposes (separated from the TPV of the floors or divisions intended for other purposes), creating a new legal reality, without legal support, which is a global TPV of urban properties in vertical ownership, with residential allocation", which violates "the literal element of the rule of incidence".
Thus, "in urban properties with residential allocation, in vertical ownership, with floors or divisions susceptible to independent use", the tax patrimonial value "which results exclusively from no. 3 of article 12º of the Real Estate Tax Code" should be considered. "Both for Real Estate Tax and for this Stamp Tax".
Specifically, as concluded in the decision handed down in case 26/2014-T of CAAD, "for purposes of application of item 28 of the GTST to properties in vertical ownership, the same rules of the Real Estate Tax Code that apply to properties in horizontal ownership are applied, and in the same sense the TPV for purposes of application of item 28 is the individual TPV of each independent residential fraction, and that in the present case none of the fractions exceeds the criterion of incidence of 1,000,000.00€", the same occurring in the case of the present file.
Proceeding from the same position, the arbitral decision handed down in case 349/2015-T concludes that "as clearly emerges from the cited decisions, that the literal interpretation of the new item of the GTST cannot but be different from that sustained by the Tax Authority, indeed, the opposite, given the clear and indisputable referral made with respect to the new item of the GTST to the rules of the Real Estate Tax Code, and the interpreter of the norm cannot 'create' a new concept of property in order to obtain a hybrid TPV, not recognized in the matrix and without any support in the text of the law."
And it did so by also invoking the criterion of the economic substance of the tax facts: "the expression 'each urban property' used in no. 7 of article 23º, for reasons of identity, encompasses not only urban properties in horizontal ownership, but also floors, divisions or parts of urban properties in vertical ownership, provided they are allocated to residential purposes, always starting, in any of the cases, from a single taxable basis for all legal purposes: the tax patrimonial value used for purposes of Real Estate Tax (...). The economic reality of the holding of independent parts, e.g. susceptible to independent use or for autonomous rental, such as autonomous fractions in the case of horizontal ownership, and therefore susceptible to allow use or obtaining income in a similar manner and thus externalizing, for that reason, equal tax capacity (as would be externalized by the sum of the TPV of several autonomous fractions of the same property in horizontal ownership or of several properties which together exceeded the value of one million euros, without such having been considered by the legislator as an externalization of tax capacity relevant for purposes of Stamp Tax)."
Furthermore, as stated in the Judgment handed down in case 26/2014-T of CAAD, no censure of the legislator regarding vertical ownership is discerned. Indeed, "it will be said, not without reasonableness, that the legislator, for purposes of taxation under Real Estate Tax, chose to confer autonomy and independence to each of the parts or each of the floors of a single property, provided that they show independent use, to the point of providing for individual registration in the matrix of each of these independent parts and imposing on taxation under Real Estate Tax also an autonomous collection. Despite the legal existence of a single property, it is the legislator itself who not only recommends but imposes autonomous consideration of each of the independent parts, for purposes of taxation of the property".
Indeed, as decided in cases 26/2014-T and 272/2014-T and 349/2015-T, "the legislator is indifferent to one or the other form of structuring the ownership of urban properties in the Real Estate Tax Code, it would not be understood why it would now wish to favor one to the detriment of the other, namely by considering one form of structuring more advanced than the other". "The current legal regime does not impose the obligation to constitute horizontal ownership", reason for which "the discrimination operated by the Tax Authority translates into an arbitrary and illegal discrimination", since "the Tax Authority cannot distinguish where the legislator itself saw fit not to do so, under penalty of violating the coherence of the tax system, as well as the principle of tax legality provided for in article 103º, no. 2 of the Portuguese Constitution, and also the principles of justice, equality and proportionality of taxation."
And the fact is that nothing induces the interpreter to the conclusion that the concrete legislator of the new item of the GTST, contrary to the legislator of the Real Estate Tax, which indeed remains unchanged, intended to discriminate vertical ownership in favor of horizontal ownership. As well recalled in the Judgment handed down in case 26/2014-T of CAAD, also referred to in the already cited decision of case 349/2015-T, "when presenting and discussing, in Parliament, bill no. 96/XII (2.ª), the Secretary of State for Tax Affairs explicitly stated: 'The Government proposes the creation of a special tax on high-value residential urban properties. It is the first time in Portugal that a special taxation is created on high-value properties intended for residential use. This tax will be 0.5% to 0.8% in 2012 and 1% in 2013, and will apply to houses valued at or above 1 million euros' (cf. Parliamentary Records, Series I, no. 9/XII-2, of 11 October, p. 32). Now, as highlighted in that Judgment, "the Secretary of State for Tax Affairs presents this bill referring without hesitation to the expression 'houses'… valued at or above 1 million euros", so "it emerges with crystal clarity that item 28.1 of the GTST cannot be interpreted to the effect that each of the floors, divisions or parts susceptible to independent use are included therein when only from their sum results a TPV exceeding what item 28.1 itself provides".
It being, therefore, clear, as stated in the said decision 272/2014-T, that for the legislator only that value of one million euros, provided it is allocated "to a dwelling (house, autonomous fraction or floor with independent use) expresses a tax capacity above average and, as such, liable to determine a special contribution to ensure fair distribution of the tax burden".
And if this is so, we must then attend to the concept of "house" as a physical reality that makes possible a residential purpose, a unit susceptible to independent use, including its rental, since it is in this economic reality that we will find the externalization of the tax capacity associated with "luxury dwellings" which the legislator considered relevant. Moreover, if this were not so, the legislator would proceed to a discrimination that would not be justified, since as we have seen, the system does not contain a censure of vertical ownership when compared with horizontal ownership. Moreover, this distinction would clash with the necessary equity between identical externalizations of the same tax capacity.
Now, the tax capacities externalized by the ownership of a property composed of a set of autonomous fractions in horizontal ownership or by a set of divisions of independent use in vertical ownership regime, cannot but be considered identical, if not, possibly, smaller in the case of the second hypothesis. That is, a property certainly does not have a greater market value for being organized as vertical ownership. It is worth the same (allowing equal benefit from its use or equal income via its rental, as mentioned above), or will even have a smaller value, since the alternatives for transferability may be even smaller. And we know that TPV aims to be an approximation, precisely, to the market value of properties and will therefore be the measure and limit of the relevant tax capacity for the new item of the GTST. (cf. the decision we have been citing, handed down in case 349/2015-T).
Thus, the interpretation advocated by the Tax Authority, finding no hermeneutic justification, as we have seen so far, would further lead to manifest inequality between owners of immovable property in horizontal and vertical ownership (and it has also been seen that no penalizing intention toward the latter is discerned, even if it were admitted that such were constitutionally permissible).
In that same sense, as well stated in the decision of case 272/2014-T of CAAD, the "existence of a property in vertical or horizontal ownership cannot be, by itself, an indicator of tax capacity. On the contrary, the law provides that some and others should receive the same tax treatment in obedience to the principles of justice, tax equality and material truth".
Concluding, "the material truth is what imposes itself as the determining criterion of tax capacity and not the mere formal legal reality of the property, since the constitution of horizontal ownership implies a mere legal alteration of the property not even requiring a new assessment", and this fact "does not appear consistent with the decision of the Tax Authority to tax the residential parts of a property in vertical ownership, based on the global TPV of the property and not on what is effectively attributed to each part." Thus, "the Tax Authority cannot distinguish where the legislator itself saw fit not to do so, under penalty of violating the coherence of the tax system, as well as the principle of tax legality … and also the principles of justice, tax equality and proportionality" (cf. the decision handed down in case 26/2014-T of CAAD).
Also the Supreme Administrative Court decided unanimously, in case 01344/15, on 24.05.2016 that "– As regards properties in vertical ownership, for purposes of incidence of Stamp Tax (Item 28.1 of the GTST, as amended by Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29 October), the subject matter is determined by the combination of two factors: residential allocation and the TPV entered in the matrix equal to or exceeding €1,000,000. II – In the case of a property constituted in vertical ownership, the incidence of Stamp Tax is to be determined, not by the TPV resulting from the sum of the TPV of all divisions or floors susceptible to independent use (individualized in the property article), but by the TPV attributed to each of these floors or divisions intended for residential use."»
There are therefore no doubts for this Tribunal as to the soundness of the interpretation that has been unanimously accepted by arbitral jurisprudence and, in particular, by the Supreme Administrative Court of the rule of incidence contained in article 28.1 of the GTST, as amended by Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, so that in the case at hand, being a property in vertical ownership and there being no floor or division intended for residential use whose TPV exceeds € 1,000,000.00, the contested tax acts were issued in violation of the provisions of the said rule of incidence and are illegal.
Having the Claimant proceeded to payment of the undue Stamp Tax, it has, in accordance with the provisions of articles 43.º, no. 1 and 100.º of the General Tax Law and article 24.º, no. 1, subparagraph b) and no. 5 of the LRAT, the right to payment of compensatory interest, calculated in accordance with the provisions of article 43.º of the General Tax Law, from the date of undue payment until full restitution.
In these terms and with the aforementioned grounds, it is decided:
To judge the arbitral pronouncement request as entirely founded and, consequently, to annul the Stamp Tax assessment acts, as well as the decisions dismissing the administrative appeals, on the grounds of a defect of violation of law.
To condemn the Respondent to reimburse the Claimant of the amounts improperly paid, plus compensatory interest.
Costs: The amount of costs is fixed at 918.00 (nine hundred and eighteen euros) under the provisions of article 22.º, no. 4 of the LRAT and Table I attached to the RCTAP, to be borne by the Respondent, in accordance with the provisions of articles 12.º, no. 2 of the LRAT and 4.º, no. 4 of the RCTAP and 527.º of the Civil Procedure Code.
Notify.
Lisbon, 12 June 2017
The Arbitrator,
Susana Soutelinho
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created