—

order that the documents in the administrative procedure that gave rise to the adoption of the contested decision be added to the case file, in the terms sought by the present application;

—

join the present proceedings to Case T-95/21 (Portuguese Republic v European Commission);

—

annul Article 1 and Articles 4 to 6 of European Commission Decision of 4 December 2020, C(2020)8550 final, ‘on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex2018/NN) implemented by Portugal in favour of the Madeira Free Zone (MFZ) — Regime III’;

—

order the European Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred by the applicant.

1.

First plea, alleging an error in law and/or failure to state reasons, on the ground that the measure at issue at issue was of general, and not selective, application and therefore did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The applicant claims, in particular, that the measure is not selective given that since it forms part of the general scheme of the Portuguese tax system.

2.

Second plea, alleging an error of law on the ground that Madeira Free Zone (MFZ) Regime III was implemented in accordance with the Commission’s decisions of 2007 and 2013, and with Articles 107 and 108 TFEU. The applicant claims that the requirement that profits be the result of activities actually and materially carried on in the Autonomous Region of Madeira is not to be interpreted as meaning that only additional costs associated with remoteness, incurred by undertakings registered in the MFZ, will be considered, that tax advantages can be applied only to those profits generated by transactions that are directly subject to those additional costs, or that activities carried on outside Madeira by undertakings licensed in the MFZ and engaged in international activities are to be excluded.

3.

Third plea, alleging an error in respect of the assumptions of fact in the Commission decision and/or a failure to state reasons, on the ground that the requirements of the tax scheme and the supervision thereof by the national and regional authorities were suitable for the purposes of monitoring MFZ Regime III. The applicant claims, in particular, that the statutory requirements of separate accounting for revenue generated in the MFZ and the enforcement of a broad set of tax obligations allow the effective and appropriate monitoring and supervision of MFZ Regime III by the national and regional authorities.

4.

Fourth plea, alleging an error of law in the Commission decision, on the ground that the concept of ‘job’ applicable to MFZ Regime III arises from national legislation, since the method for [defining] jobs as ‘FTE’ (Full Time Equivalent) and ‘AWU’ (Annual Working Units) is not applicable. The applicant claims that, for the purposes of assessing the requirement under MFZ Regime III that jobs be created or maintained, the contested decision errs in law by applying the method for defining jobs as ‘FTE’ and ‘AWU’, since the concept of ‘job’ applicable to the MFZ regime is the one arising from national labour law.

5.

Fifth plea, alleging an error in respect of the assumptions of fact in the decision and/or a failure to state reasons, on the ground that the checks carried out in relation to the requirement that jobs be created/maintained were appropriate and effective. The applicant claims that the national authorities provided the European Commission with information allowing it to assess the checks made in relation to the requirement that jobs be created/maintained in the MFZ, with the result that the decision erred in respect of the assumptions of fact and/or is vitiated by a failure to state reasons.

6.

Sixth plea, alleging infringement of general principles of European Union law. The applicant claims, in particular, that the decision infringes the general principles of European Union law of proportionality, legal certainty, legitimate expectations, and sound administration.