Case T-588/22: Action brought on 22 September 2022 — Renco Valore v Commission
Date: 2022-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Madeira, Portugal, State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, job preservation, principle of legal certainty, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2022424EN.01004801.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/48






Action brought on 22 September 2022 — Renco Valore v Commission
(Case T-588/22)
(2022/C 424/61)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Renco Valore SpA (Pesaro, Italy) (represented by: A. Gaspar Schwalbach, C. Pinto Xavier and M. Cotrim, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Articles 1, 4 and 5 of the European Commission’s Decision of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal in favour of the Madeira Free Zone (MFZ) — Regime III;










—


order the European Commission to bear all the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an error of law, in so far as the criterion relating to ‘activities effectively and materially performed in Madeira’ has been interpreted and applied correctly in the implementation of MFZ Regime III. The applicant claims that the Commission erred in its interpretation of the criterion ‘profits resulting from activities effectively and materially performed in Madeira’. The profits of companies registered in the MFZ which may be eligible for a tax benefit are not limited to those resulting from activities that are subject to additional costs associated with remoteness, that is to say activities performed solely in the geographic territory of the Autonomous Region of Madeira. In view of the aims and context of MFZ Regime III, the correct interpretation of that criterion allows those activities associated with ZFM licensed companies, which had their decision-making centre there, to be regarded as activities effectively and materially performed in Madeira, irrespective of whether they are engaged in international activities.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an error of law, in so far as the criterion relating to ‘job … maintenance’ has been interpreted and applied correctly in the implementation of MFZ Regime III. The applicant claims that the Commission erred in its interpretation of the criterion ‘job … maintenance’. Given that there is no concept of ‘job’ in the European Union and that such a concept has not been clarified for the purposes of the application of Regime III, or in the 2007 and 2013 Decisions, or in the 2007 Guidelines, the concept of a job under national employment legislation should be accepted. The methodology for defining jobs as ‘FTE’ (full-time equivalent) or ‘ALU’ (annual labour unit) does not apply to MFZ Regime III.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principles of European Union law of legal certainty and legitimate expectations. The applicant claims that the European Commission’s Decision of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal in favour of the Madeira Free Zone (MFZ) — Regime III infringes the general principles of European Union law of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, so that the Commission cannot require the Portuguese national authorities to recover the aid at issue from the beneficiaries, and specifically from the applicant.