13.3.2023 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 94/19 |
Appeal brought on 30 November 2022 by the Portuguese Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 21 September 2022 in Case T-95/21 Portugal v Commission
(Case C-736/22 P)
(2023/C 94/21)
Language of the case: Portuguese
Parties
Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: P. Barros da Costa, L. Borrego and A. Soares de Freitas, acting as Agents, and M. Gorjão-Henriques and A. Saavedra, advogados)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
— |
set aside the judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2022 in Case T-95/21 Portugal v Commission, EU:T:2022:567, dismissing the action brought by the Portuguese Republic seeking annulment of Article 1 and Articles 4 to 6 of the European Commission’s Decision of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex2018/NN) implemented by Portugal in favour of the Madeira Free Zone (MFZ) — Regime III; (1) |
— |
order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety, including those incurred by the Portuguese Republic and those relating to the application for interim measures (T-95/21 R). |
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
1. |
Error of law in the application of Article 108(1) TFEU and Article 1(b)(ii), Article 21 and Article 23 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (2)
in that the aid at issue is existing aid and not new aid
|
2. |
Error of law consisting in the misinterpretation of the requirement relating to the origin of the profits to which corporation tax is applied, since the MFZ Regime has been applied in compliance with the Commission’s decisions of 2007 and 2013 and with Articles 107 and 108 TFEU
|
3. |
Error of law consisting in a failure to state reasons or an insufficient or contradictory statement of reasons — Lack of consistency between the OECD’s international legal requirements in tax matters and the interpretation given to the concept of ‘activities effectively and materially [performed] in the region’
|
4. |
Error of law in the interpretation of the criterion of ‘activities effectively and materially [performed] in the region’ on account of a failure to take into consideration the case-law of the Court of Justice on the centre of main interests, the spillover effect and fundamental freedoms
|
5. |
Errors of law consisting in the absence or insufficiency of the statement of reasons and/or distortion of evidence and/or substitution of the grounds of the decision — criterion relating to job creation/maintenance
|
6. |
In the alternative, error of law consisting in the misinterpretation of the criterion relating to job creation/maintenance and/or contradictory and/or insufficient statement of reasons
|
7. |
Error of law, in that the national authorities provided the Commission with ‘a method allowing the reality and permanence of the jobs declared to be checked’ for the purposes of Regime III
|
8. |
Error of law consisting in the reversal of the burden of proof
|
9. |
The judgment under appeal infringes the rights of the defence of the general principles of European Union law
|
(1) Commission Decision of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III.
(2) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).