Order;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:862
Date: 2025-10-31
Language of the case: Portuguese
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Portugal

Translation C-24/25 – 1 
Case C-24/25 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
16 January 2025 
Referring court: 
Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Funchal (Portugal) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
28 October 2024 
Applicant: 
Mission – Trading, Gestão e Serviços, Unipessoal, Lda. (Zona 
Franca da Madeira) 
Defendant: 
Autoridade Tributária e Assuntos Fiscais da Região Autónoma da 
Madeira 
  
Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Funchal 
(Administrative and Tax Court, Funchal, Portugal) 
[…] 
*** 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING TO THE COURT OF 
JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 
* 
I. THE REFERRING COURT AND DETAILS OF THE PARTIES 
The Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Funchal (the referring court) is hearing 
proceedings […] opposing the enforced recovery of taxes, to which the parties 
are: 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 28. 10. 2024 – CASE C-24/25 
 
2  
MISSION – TRADING, GESTÃO E SERVIÇOS, UNIPESSOAL, LDA. 
(Zona Franca da Madeira) […] 
and 
AUTORIDADE TRIBUTÁRIA E ASSUNTOS FISCAIS DA REGIÃO 
AUTÓNOMA DA MADEIRA (TAX AUTHORITY OF THE AUTONOMOUS 
REGION OF MADEIRA; ‘AT-RAM’) […] 
* 
II. SUBJECT MATTER OF THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS AND 
RELEVANT FACTS 
1. Following Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on 
aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona 
Franca de Madeira (ZFM) – Regime III (‘Decision 2022/1414’), the AT-RAM 
initiated tax enforcement proceedings […] against the company Mission – 
Trading, Gestão e Serviços, Unipessoal, Lda., in order to recover State aid which 
had been (unlawfully) granted to that company in respect of corporation tax for 
the financial year 2015 in the amount, to be enforced, of EUR 84 772.96. 
2. The company Mission – Trading, Gestão e Serviços, Unipessoal, Lda., filed 
an opposition to the tax enforcement before the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal 
do Funchal, essentially seeking to discontinue the tax enforcement proceedings 
[…], on the ground, inter alia, that the debts could not be recovered from it in 
those proceedings because it had not been notified of the assessment of that 
corporation tax within the limitation period laid down for that purpose under 
national law (Article 45 of the Lei Geral Tributária (General Tax Law)). 
3. The AT-RAM lodged a response seeking the dismissal of the opposition 
lodged by the opposing party, arguing to that effect, in particular as regards the 
plea raised by the opposing party relating to the failure to give notice of the tax 
assessment within the limitation period, that an interpretation according to which 
the rules of national law laying down the limitation period for the right of 
assessment are to apply to debts relating to the recovery of State aid as imposed 
by Decision 2022/1414, would be unconstitutional in that it infringes Article 8(4) 
of the Constituição da República Portuguesa (Constitution of the Portuguese 
Republic), which enshrines the principle of the primacy of EU law over national 
law, in so far as that interpretation would be contrary to the principles that 
proceedings are to be conducted expeditiously and efficiently. 
* 
MISSION – TRADING, GESTÃO E SERVIÇOS 
 
3 
III. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF PORTUGUESE NATIONAL LAW 
AND EU LAW 
Article 204 of the Código de Procedimento e de Processo Tributário (Code of 
Taxation Procedure and Proceedings) (‘Grounds for opposition to enforced 
recovery’): 
‘1 An opposition to enforced recovery may only be based on the following 
grounds: 
(a) no tax, duty or contribution is due under the laws in force at the date of the 
facts to which the obligation relates or, as the case may be, there is no 
authorisation to recover such sum at the date of the assessment; 
(b) the person named does not have capacity to be sued because that person is 
not the actual debtor appearing on the [relevant] instrument of title or that 
debtor’s successor in title or, if that person does in fact appear on that instrument 
of title, because he or she was not, during the period to which the debt forming the 
subject of the enforced recovery relates, the owner of the assets which gave rise to 
that enforced recovery, or because that person’s name did not appear on the 
[relevant] instrument of title and he or she is not liable for payment of the debt; 
(c) there is a false representation in the enforcement instrument, where that may 
affect the conditions of enforcement; 
(d) the debt forming the subject of the enforced recovery is time barred; 
(e) there was a failure to give notice of the tax assessment within the limitation 
period; 
(f) the debt forming the subject of the enforced recovery has been paid or 
extinguished; 
(g) recovery has been duplicated; 
(h) the assessment of the debt forming the subject of the enforced recovery is 
unlawful, where the law does not provide a judicial means of challenging or 
appealing against the assessment; 
(i) there are any grounds other than those referred to in the preceding 
subparagraphs, supported by documentary evidence, provided that they do not 
involve a review of the legality of the assessment of the debt which is the subject of 
the enforced recovery and do not interfere with a matter falling within the 
exclusive competence of the entity which issued the instrument. 
2 Any opposition referred to in subparagraph (h) which is not solely based on 
a question of law shall be governed by the provisions relating to contentious 
proceedings.’ 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 28. 10. 2024 – CASE C-24/25 
 
4  
Article 45 of the General Tax Law (‘Limitation period for the right of 
assessment’): 
‘1 The right to assess taxes shall be time barred if the taxpayer is not validly 
notified of the assessment within a period of four years, unless otherwise provided 
for by law. 
2 In the event of a manifest error in the taxable person’s declaration, the 
limitation period referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be three years. 
3 In the case of a tax deduction or tax credit, the limitation period shall be the 
period for exercising that right. 
4 The limitation period shall begin to run, in the case of regular taxes, from 
the end of the year in which the chargeable event occurred and, in the case of 
single-obligation taxes, from the date on which the chargeable event occurred, 
with the exception of value added tax and income taxes where taxation is effected 
by a definitive retention at source, in which case that period shall run from the 
beginning of the calendar year following the year in which the tax became due or 
the chargeable event occurred, respectively. 
5 Where the right of assessment relates to facts in respect of which a criminal 
investigation has been opened, the period laid down in paragraph 1 shall be 
extended until the discontinuation of the proceedings or until the judgment 
becomes final, plus one year. 
6 For the purposes of calculating the period referred to in [paragraph 1], 
notifications by registered mail shall be deemed to have been validly effected on 
the third day following the date of dispatch of the registered mail or on the first 
working day thereafter, where that day is not a working day. 
7 The period laid down in paragraph 1 shall be twelve years where the right 
of assessment relates to tax matters connected with: 
(a) a country, territory or region subject to a significantly more favourable tax 
regime, appearing on a list approved by order of the Minister of Finance, which 
should have been declared to the tax authorities but was not, or 
(b) accounts for deposits or securities opened with financial institutions not 
resident in Member States of the European Union, or with branches, situated 
outside the European Union, of resident financial institutions, the existence and 
identification of which is not mentioned by the persons liable to personal income 
tax in the tax return for the year in which the chargeable events occurred.’ 
Article 16(3) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 
(‘Regulation 2015/1589’): 
MISSION – TRADING, GESTÃO E SERVIÇOS 
 
5 
‘Without prejudice to any order of the Court of Justice of the European Union 
pursuant to Article 278 TFEU, recovery shall be effected without delay and in 
accordance with the procedures under the national law of the Member State 
concerned, provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the 
Commission’s decision. To this effect and in the event of a procedure before 
national courts, the Member States concerned shall take all necessary steps which 
are available in their respective legal systems, including provisional measures, 
without prejudice to Union law.’ 
Article 5 of Decision 2022/1414: 
‘1. Recovery of the aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 shall 
be immediate and effective. 
2. Portugal shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within eight months 
following the date of notification of this Decision.’ 
* 
IV. REASONING IN THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 
In view of the issues to be examined and resolved in Case No 275/24.0BEFUN, in 
particular the conformity of Article 45 of the General Tax Law (which lays down 
the limitation period for the right of assessment) with Article 16(3) of Regulation 
2015/1589 and Article 5 of Decision 2022/1414, this court considers that, for the 
purposes of the final decision, it is necessary to make a request to the Court of 
Justice of the European Union [(CJEU)] for a preliminary ruling in accordance 
with point (b) of the [first paragraph] of Article 267 [(TFEU)]. 
Thus: 
– considering that national law does not provide for a specific set of rules on 
the limitation period for the right to the tax assessment specifically applicable in 
cases of recovery of (unlawful) State aid; 
– considering, moreover, that there is not even a rule of national law which 
precludes the application of the general limitation periods for the right to the tax 
assessment laid down in Article 45 of the General Tax Law where the recovery of 
(unlawful) State aid is at issue; 
– and considering, finally, that the CJEU has not yet ruled on the compatibility 
(or incompatibility) of the rules of national law relating to the limitation period for 
the right of assessment (Article 45 of the General Tax Law) with Article 16(3) of 
Regulation 2015/1589 and Article 5 of Decision 2022/1414, 
the referring court takes the view that, in order to give the correct ruling in the 
present case, it is necessary for the CJEU to rule on the proper interpretation of 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 28. 10. 2024 – CASE C-24/25 
 
6  
Article 16(3) of Regulation 2015/1589 and Article 5 of Decision 2022/1414, in 
relation to Article 45 of the General Tax Law. 
Having regard to the principle of the primacy of EU law, under which national 
courts are required to disapply national law which is incompatible with EU law, 
and also considering that the CJEU has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on 
the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies 
of the European Union (see point (b) of the [first paragraph] of Article 267 
[(TFEU)]) in order to ensure a uniform interpretation of EU law in all the Member 
States, this national court considers that an answer from the CJEU is necessary in 
order to give the correct ruling in the present case. 
The question which arises in the present case is essentially whether or not the 
requirement for the immediate and effective execution of Decision 2022/1414 (see 
Article 16(3) of Regulation 2015/1589 and Article 5 of Decision 2022/1414) 
requires the disapplication of the rules of national law, in particular the rules laid 
down in Article 45 of the General Tax Law concerning the limitation period for 
the right to the tax assessment. 
In other words, given this requirement for the immediate and effective execution 
of Decision 2022/1414, the question is whether the AT-RAM is still required to 
assess the taxes (in particular corporation tax) due in accordance with the 
execution of the Commission’s decision, which requires the immediate and 
effective recovery of aid granted to corporate taxpayers in the Madeira Free Zone 
irrespective of the expiry of the limitation period for the right of assessment laid 
down by national law; 
or whether, on the contrary, the AT-RAM is still required to assess those taxes 
within the limitation period laid down for that purpose by the rules of national 
law, irrespective of whether the assessment is based on Decision 2022/1414, 
which requires the immediate and effective recovery of aid granted to corporate 
taxpayers in the Madeira Free Zone (a decision which, it should be noted, was 
issued after the expiry of the aforementioned limitation period for the right of 
assessment). 
Lastly, the present request for a preliminary ruling is also based on the fact that, 
although they differ from one another, several sets proceedings are pending before 
the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Funchal in which the parties to those 
disputes raise this issue. 
* 
V. QUESTION REFERRED FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 
1. Must the expression ‘recovery […] shall be immediate and effective’ 
referred to in Article 5 of Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 
4 December 2020 and the expression ‘recovery shall be effected 
MISSION – TRADING, GESTÃO E SERVIÇOS 
 
7 
without delay and in accordance with the procedures under the national 
law of the Member State concerned, provided that they allow the 
immediate and effective execution of the Commission’s decision’ 
referred to in Article 16(3) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 
13 July 2015 be interpreted as precluding the application of rules of 
national law (in particular Article 45 of the Lei Geral Tributária 
(General Tax Law)) which lay down a limitation period for the right of 
assessment that extends beyond the expiry of the period provided for 
in those rules for that purpose? 
* 
[…] 
[National standard wording] 
* 
[…] 
[National standard wording] 
* 
[…] 
[National standard wording] 
* 
[…] 
[National standard wording] 
Funchal, 28 October 2024 
[…] 
[Signature]