Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62025CN0661

Case C-661/25, Meritpanorama and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa – CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 8 October 2025 – Meritpanorama, Unipessoal, Lda., Fragrantstrategy, Unipessoal, Lda., Notablefrequency, Unipessoal, Lda. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

OJ C, C/2026/925, 23.2.2026, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/925/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/925/oj

European flag

Official Journal
of the European Union

EN

C series


C/2026/925

23.2.2026

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa – CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 8 October 2025 – Meritpanorama, Unipessoal, Lda., Fragrantstrategy, Unipessoal, Lda., Notablefrequency, Unipessoal, Lda. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-661/25, Meritpanorama and Others)

(C/2026/925)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa – CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Meritpanorama, Unipessoal, Lda., Fragrantstrategy, Unipessoal, Lda., and Notablefrequency, Unipessoal, Lda.

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Questions referred

1.

Does legislation such as that in Portugal, which provides for the application of an increased rate on the acquisition and ownership of immovable property by taxable persons directly or indirectly controlled by an entity that is resident for tax purposes in a country, territory or region that is subject to a more favourable tax regime and which is included in a list approved by Order of the Minister of Finance, constitute a restriction on the free movement of capital covered by Article 63 TFEU?

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does the fight against tax evasion and avoidance constitute an overriding reason in the public interest capable of justifying that restriction?

3.

If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, can such a restriction be regarded as going beyond what is necessary if:

(a)

the taxpayer is not accorded the right to preclude the application of the increased tax rate, in relation to IMT and IMI, by proving or demonstrating that the scheme for acquiring and owning immovable property in Portugal, even if that involves entities located in low-tax jurisdictions, is not the result of artificial arrangements and is legitimate because it is based on valid commercial and economic reasons?

(b)

Does the answer to the question raised in the previous paragraph depend on whether or not there is a convention for the exchange of tax information between Portugal and the third territory with a low level of taxation that allows information to be gathered on the nature of the activities of that entity established in that territory, with a view to applying national tax laws on taxes such as the IMT and IMI under consideration in the present case?

4.

Is there a restriction on the free movement of capital as defined in Article 63 of the TFEU, caused by the provisions of Portuguese legislation on property taxation contained in Article 17(4)(b) of the IMT (1) Code and Article 112(4)(b) of the IMI Code, which establish increased fixed tax rates of 10 % and 7.5 % respectively (as opposed to the usual rates ranging from 5 % to 6.5 % and from 0.3 % to 0.8 %) – the first on the acquisition for value, and the second on the ownership, of immovable property – in circumstances where the taxpayer (which is the owner of the property located in Portugal) is owned, directly or indirectly, by an entity with a tax residence in a country, territory or region subject to a more favourable tax regime? Specifically, the applicants are established in Portugal and are indirectly owned by an entity or entities with a tax domicile in the Cayman Islands which are included in the list approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance.

5.

If the restriction is justified and does not go beyond what is necessary, is it permissible for there to be a difference in treatment between entities that acquire and own immovable property and are resident in a country, territory or region that is subject to a more favourable tax regime and which is included in a list approved by Order of the Minister for Finance, with which there are mechanisms for mutual administrative assistance and exchange of information in tax matters, and entities that acquire and own immovable property and are resident in Portugal or in other countries that are not on that list, with the former being subject to a higher tax rate solely on the basis of their territory of residence?


(1)   Diário da República No 262/2003, Series I-A, 12 November 2003, pp. 7568–7647.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/925/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)


Top