I. EDITORIAL – REGULATION OF THE EXTRAORDINARY UPDATE OF PENSIONS PROVIDED FOR IN THE STATE BUDGET LAW
In terms of legislation, the month of July was characterised by the publication of the Regulatory Decree no. 2/2022, of 7 July, which has regulated the extraordinary update of pensions provided for in the State Budget Law for 2022.
On the legislative front, the following should also be highlighted:
- Decree-Law no. 44/2022, of July 8, which exempts taxpayers who adhere to dematerialised notification channels from appointing a tax representative and from the obligation to adhere to the electronic mailbox;
- Ordinance no. 183/2022, of July 15, which establishes an extraordinary reinforcement of the social security financial contribution in 2022, provided for in Article 16(1) of Ordinance no. 196-A/2015, of July 1, in its current wording;
- Decree-Law no. 46/2022, of July 12, which enables holders of driving licences issued by Member States of the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development to drive motor vehicles.
In the scope of case law, it is worth mentioning the Judgement of the Constitutional Court, no. 89/2020, of July 14, Case no. 505/2022, which has decided “to consider unconstitutional, for violation of articles 268 (4), and 18 (2), of the Constitution, the combined interpretation of article 117 (1) of the Code of Tax Procedure and Proceedings (approved by Decree-Law no. 433/99, of October 26) and of articles 86 (5) and 91 (6) of the General Tax Law (approved by Decree-Law no. 398/98, of December 27, in the wording given to those provisions by Law no. 100/99, of July 26) to the effect that tax acts in relation to which a review of the taxable matter was requested cannot be challenged, based on an error in the determination of the taxable matter or in the assumptions for the application of indirect methods, but which were deemed to have been withdrawn due to the non-appearance of the expert appointed by the taxpayer, without the taxpayer having been previously notified of this absence.”.
In the same context, we would also highlight the Judgment of the Southern Central Administrative Court, of July 14, Case no. 182/16.0BEFUN, which decided that “I-The recourse to indirect methods represents an “ultima ratio fisci”, in that it should only be used when it represents the only solution for arriving at the determination of the effective tax base. II-From the combined interpretation of Articles 86(3) of the LGT and 54 of the CPPT, it follows that, as a rule, only the final act of the tax proceedings can be challenged, as only that act effectively and immediately damages the legal sphere of the taxpayer, given that in tax litigation the criterion for the challengeability of acts is that of their objective, immediate, actual and not merely potential damage. III-The assessment is the final act of the procedure, from which alone can be directly challenged, and not the interlocutory act sanctioning the rejection of the Claimant’s claim and the maintenance of corrections by presumptive methods. IV- The ratio of the regulation of the suspensive effect of the assessment contained in article 91 (2) of the LGT is merely to prohibit the issue of an assessment without exhausting the possibility of altering the taxable amount by administrative means. V-If the Appellant placed her trust in the possibility of directly challenging the rejection, and if the information in which she placed her trust, and on which she should in fact be able to rely, was not suitable, accurate and correct, then the fact is not imputable to her, and her rights of defence cannot therefore be curtailed, under penalty of violating the principle of trust, and therefore the provisions of Article 37(4) of the CPPT must be invoked.”.
Finally, in Miscellaneous, we highlight the approval of: (i) the decree-law reforming and simplifying of licensing in environmental matters; (ii) the decree-law amending the Public Procurement Code and Law no. 30/2021, of May 21, which approves special public procurement measures; and (iii) the draft law, to be submitted to the Assembly of Republic, which extends the scope of application of the special expropriation regime, provided for in the Economic and Social Stabilisation Programme (PEES), to projects included in the Recovery and Resilience Plan (PRR), until 30 June 2026.
III. CASE-LAW
III.1. Court of Justice of the European Union
Judgment of the Court of Justice, of July 7, Case no. C-194/21: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Value added tax (VAT). Directive 2006/112/EC. Articles 184 and 185. Regularisation of deductions. Taxable person who did not exercise his right to deduct before the time limit had expired. Impossibility of making this deduction in the context of adjustment.
Summary:
“Article 184 and 185 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that: they do not preclude a taxable person who has not exercised, before expiry of the limitation period laid down in national law, his right to deduct value added tax (VAT) in respect of the acquisition of goods or services from being refused the possibility of subsequently making that deduction, on the occasion of the first use of those goods or services for the purposes of taxed transactions, by way of an adjustment, even though it has not been established that there has been abuse of rights, fraud or a loss of tax revenue.”.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PT/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62021CJ0194
Judgment of the Court of Justice, of July 7, Joined Cases nos. C-257/21 and C-258/21C: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Social policy. Article 153 TFEU. Protection of workers. Directive 2003/88/EC. Organisation of working time. Night work. Collective agreement providing for a lower rate of pay for night work performed on a regular basis than that fixed for occasional night work. Equal treatment. Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Application of Union law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Summary:
“A provision in a collective agreement which provides for an increase in remuneration for night work performed on an occasional basis in excess of that fixed for night work performed on a regular basis does not apply Directive 2003/88 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.”
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PT/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62021CJ0257
Judgment of the Court of Justice, of July 14, Case no. C-572/21: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Jurisdiction. recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility. Parental responsibility. Regulation (EC) no. 2201/2003. Article 8(1) and Article 61(a). General jurisdiction. Principle of perpetuatio fori. Transfer, in the course of the proceedings, of a child’s habitual residence from a Member State of the European Union to a non-member State which is a party to the 1996 Hague Convention.
Summary:
“Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, read in conjunction with Article 61(a) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State seised of a dispute concerning parental responsibility does not retain jurisdiction to hear that dispute under Article 8(1) where the residence of the child concerned has been lawfully transferred, in the course of the proceedings, to the territory of a non-Member State which is a party to the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, adopted in The Hague on 19 October 1996.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PT/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62021CJ0572
III.2. General Court of the European Union
III.3. Constitutional Court
Judgement of the Constitutional Court, no. 48/21, of July 13, Case no. 484/2022.
Summary:
“For the reasons stated, the Constitutional Court:
a) Declares the unconstitutionality, with mandatory general force, of the rule contained in Article 8(3) of Law n 17/2014, of April 10, as amended by Law no. 1/2021, of January 11, for violation of the provisions of Articles 84(2) and 225(3), both of the Constitution;
b) Declares the unconstitutionality, with mandatory general force, of the rules contained in Article 31-A of Law n 17/201, of April 10, as amended by Law no. 1/2021, of January 11, for violation of the provisions of Articles 84(2), 165(1)(v) and 227(1)(a), all of the Constitution;
c) Does not declare the unconstitutionality of the final segment of Article 8(1) of Law n 17/2014, of April 10, as amended by Law no. 1/2021, of January 11, as there is no inescapable link between the rules declared unconstitutional and that segment.”
http://www.tribunalconstitucional.pt/tc/acordaos/20220484.html
Judgement of the Constitutional Court, no. 89/2020, of July 14, Case no. 505/2022.
Summary:
“In view of the above, it is decided to consider unconstitutional, for violation of articles 268 (4), and 18 (2), of the Constitution, the combined interpretation of article 117 (1) of the Code of Tax Procedure and Proceedings (approved by Decree-Law no. 433/99, of October 26) and of articles 86 (5) and 91(6) of the General Tax Law (approved by Decree-Law no. 398/98, of December 27, in the wording given to those provisions by Law no. 100/99, of July 26, to the effect that tax acts in relation to which a review of the taxable matter was requested cannot be challenged, based on an error in the determination of the taxable matter or in the assumptions for the application of indirect methods, but which were deemed to have been withdrawn due to the non-appearance of the expert appointed by the taxpayer, without the taxpayer having been previously notified of this absence.
http://www.tribunalconstitucional.pt/tc/acordaos/20220505.html
Judgement of the Constitutional Court, no. 1063-A/2020, of 14 July, Case no. 507/2022.
Summary:
“For the foregoing, it is decided:
a) Not to consider unconstitutional the rules contained in articles 153 (1), of the Civil Code, and 893 (1), of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the segment in which they refer to the publicity to be given to the commencement and course of the proceedings; and, consequently
b) Uphold the appeal and order the reform of the appealed decision in accordance with the present negative judgment of unconstitutionality.
No costs, as they are not legally due”.
http://www.tribunalconstitucional.pt/tc/acordaos/20220507.html
II. LEGISLATION
Decree-Law no. 43/2022, of July 1: Changes the rules governing the operation of Banco Português de Fomento, S. A.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/12600/0000500006.pdf
Ordinance no. 167-D/2022, of July 1: Revision and setting of the rates of tax on oil and energy products.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/12601/0000200002.pdf
Ordinance no. 169/2022, of July 5: Determines the extension of Ordinance no. 151-B/2022, of May 23, which establishes an exceptional and temporary co-payment scheme for rapid antigen tests (TRAg) for professional use.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/12700/0001100011.pdf
Resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 55/2022, of July 5: Increases the maximum amount of charges foreseen with the extraordinary and exceptional support to the sector of freight transport for hire or reward.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/12800/0000500005.pdf
Ordinance no. 170/2022, of July 5: Extends the deadline set forth in article 1 of Ordinance no. 142/2022, of May 9.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/12800/0000800008.pdf
Ordinance no. 175/2022, of July 6: Third amendment to Ordinance no. 178/2007, of February 9, which regulates the exercise of competences or attributions of the different entities that participate in the implementation of health interventions of the National Animal Health Programme, as well as the State support modality for actions carried out by livestock producer organisations (OPP) and also payment by livestock farmers for actions carried out by official services.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/12900/0000800009.pdf
Decree-Law no. 43-A/2022, of July 6: Approves a temporary mechanism for extraordinary professional diesel and provides for the specific treasury operation required to pay the exceptional crisis support to farmers.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/12901/0000200004.pdf
Ordinance no. 174/2022, of July 6: Regulates the competencies and the organisational and operational model of the Technical Commission for Vaccination (CTV).
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/12900/0000500007.pdf
Regulatory Decree no. 2/2022, of July 7: Regulates the extraordinary update of pensions foreseen in the State Budget Law for 2022.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/13000/0000200005.pdf
Ordinance no. 176/2022, of July 7: Proceeds with the fourth amendment to Ordinance no. 207/2017, of July 11, defining the prices of the additional internal production included in the mental health table.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/13000/0000900010.pdf
Ordinance no. 177/2022, of July 7: Tenth amendment to Ordinance no. 152/2016, of May 25, that establishes the application regime of action no. 10.2, “Implementation of strategies”, integrated in measure no. 10, “LEADER”, of area no. 4, “Local development”, of the Rural Development Programme of the Continent, abbreviated as PDR 2020.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/13000/0001100012.pdf
Decree-Law no. 44/2022, of July 8: Waives the appointment of a tax representative and the obligation to adhere to the electronic mailbox for taxpayers who adhere to dematerialised notification channels.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/13100/0000500006.pdf
Decree-Law no. 45/2022, of July 8: Amends the Legal Regime of Territorial Management Instruments, extending the deadline for including soil classification and qualification rules in municipal and inter-municipal plans.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/13100/0000700010.pdf
Decree-Law no. 46/2022, of July 12: Enables holders of driving licenses issued by Member States of the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development to drive motor vehicles.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/13300/0000300005.pdf
Resolution of the Assembly of the Republic no. 36/2022, of July 14: Recommends that the Government, within the European Council, take initiatives so that the European Union stops financing Russia’s war effort.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/13500/0000200002.pdf
Decree no. 2/2022, of July 14: Approves the Agreement between the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Morocco on the Employment and Stay of Moroccan Workers in the Portuguese Republic, made in Lisbon and Rabat on 12 January 2022.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/13500/0000300022.pdf
Ordinance no. 180/2022, of July 14: Establishes the application scheme for the exceptional and temporary measure provided for in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/467, of the Commission, of March 23, applicable to the mainland.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/13500/0002300029.pdf
Ordinance no. 181/2022, of July 15: Amends and consolidates the Regulations on the Management of the Portuguese Fund to Support Investment in Mozambique (FPAIM).
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/13600/0000700011.pdf
Ordinance no. 183/2022, of July 15: Establishes an extraordinary reinforcement of the social security financial contribution in 2022, provided for in article 16 (1) of Ordinance no. 196-A/2015, of July 1, in its current wording.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/13600/0002100022.pdf
Resolution of the Assembly of the Republic no. 37/2022, of July 18: Recommends to the Government the urgent regulation of Decree-Law no. 14/2021, of February 12, which “Amends the legal regime for the entry, stay, exit and expulsion of foreigners from national territory”, allowing the operationalisation of the platform and online submission of Gold Visa applications for real estate purposes.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/13700/0000200002.pdf
Decree-Law no. 49/2022, of July 19: Amends the operating rules of the Integrated Management System for Rural Fires, determining the adaptation of the priority areas of prevention and safety until 31 March 2023.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/13800/0000300006.pdf
Decree-Law no. 50/2022, of July 19: Clarifies the terms under which public managers may opt for the average remuneration of the last three years.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/13800/0000700008.pdf
Notice no. 76/2022, of July 19: The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary, has informed that on 8 July 2021, the Kingdom of Bahrain partially withdrew the reservation made at the time of accession to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, adopted in Vienna on 18 April 1961.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/13800/0000900009.pdf
Resolution of the Assembly of the Republic no. 40/2022, of July 20: Recommends to the Government the transposition of Directives (EU) 2019/789 and (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/13900/0000300003.pdf
Resolution of the Assembly of the Republic no. 39/2022, of July 20: Recommends to the Government that it accompany Ukraine’s application for membership of the European Union, favouring the attribution of formal candidate status to this country.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/13900/0000200002.pdf
Decree-Law no. 50-A/2022, of July 25: Establishes the remuneration regime for supplementary work performed by doctors in emergency services.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/14201/0000200005.pdf
Rectification Statement no. 19/2022, of July 26: Rectification to Law no. 12/2022, of June 27, “State Budget for 2022”.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/14300/0000300004.pdf
Decree-Law no. 51/2022, of July 26: Approves measures for the remunerative valorisation of workers in public functions.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/14300/0000500007.pdf
Resolution of the Assembly of the Republic no. 47/2022, of July 29: General State Account of 2020.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/14600/0001300013.pdf
Ordinance no. 199/2022, of July 29: Amends Ordinance no. 324/2021, of December 29, which establishes the conditions of installation, organisation and functioning that the Insertion Community must obey.
https://files.dre.pt/1s/2022/07/14600/0001400016.pdf
Resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 67-A/2022, of July 29: Extends the declaration of the situation of alert, in the context of the pandemic of the disease COVID-19.
III.4. Courts of Justice
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, of July 5, Case no. 602/15.0T8VNG-L.P1-B.S1: Court of Appeal. Review appeal. Inadmissibility. Complaint to the conference.
Summary:
“I – Appeals may not be lodged against the decisions of the Rapporteur but a complaint may be lodged with the Conference.
II – As the party appealed directly against the order of the Rapporteur, it follows that the review is inadmissible for lack of an appealable decision.
III – The appeal having been filed beyond the time limit within which the complaint could have been filed, it is not possible to convert it into a complaint for the conference.
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, of July 5, Case no. 91/12.1TYVNG-C.P1.S1: Graduation of credits. Promissory sale and purchase contract. Termination of the business. Insolvency administrator. Common credit. Right of retention. Commercial company. Tradition of the thing. Dwelling house. Managing partner. Consumer. Uniform judgment of case-law.
Summary:
“I- As there is no definitive breach of the promissory contract for the purchase and sale of a property prior to the declaration of insolvency, there is a “business in progress” to which the rules of the CIRE apply.
II- The insolvency administrator having chosen not to conclude the promised contract, recognising the credit for the breach of the promised contract, the promissory purchaser – a commercial company – which acceded to the traditio of the property and intended it for the dwelling of its managing partner, does not enjoy the right of retention, because it does not have the quality of consumer (as defined in AUJ no. 4/2014 and AUJ no. 4/2019).”
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, of July 6, Case no. 240/19.9T8FAR.E1.S1: Complaint to the conference. Double conformity. Review. Admissibility. More favourable decision.
Summary:
“I- According to the most relevant doctrine and constant jurisprudence of the SCJ, a situation where the Appeals Court issues a decision that, although not strictly coincident with the first instance decision, proves to be “more favourable” to the appealing party, can be considered as a situation of double conformity of decisions.
II- Whenever the appellant obtains a partial upholding of the appeal before the Appeals Court, that is, whenever the Appeals Court pronounces a decision that is more favourable – both in quantitative and qualitative terms – for that appellant than the decision at first instance, there are two conforming decisions, which prevent that party from lodging a review appeal with the SCJ”.
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, of July 7, Case no. 8552/18.2TSSTB.E1.S1: Promissory-contract of purchase and sale. Restitution of the deposit. Alteration of the contract. Nullity of judgment. Excess of judgment. Error of judgement. Extension of the scope of the appeal. Counterclaims.
Summary:
“I. Considering that a promissory contract is maintained, but determining the return of the deposit paid, is equivalent to changing the content of the contract, since a promissory contract without deposit would subsist, which would not correspond to what the parties concluded.
II. Furthermore, that solution would eliminate the penalty function of the deposit, whether that function be understood as ‘compulsory’ for the conclusion of the contract promised, or whether it be understood as an advance fixing of the compensation for non-performance”.
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, of July 12, Case no. 2180/18.0T8OAZ.P1.S2: Private limited company. Partner. Succession by death. Amortization of quota. Right to vote. Annulment of social deliberation. Burden of allegation. Burden of proof. Suppletive norm. Approval of accounts. Eventual intention. Notice of meeting. General meeting. Right to information. Social participation.
Summary:
“I – As a rule in limited companies, quotas are transmitted (mortis causa) to the successors of the partners under the terms of the common law of succession, the articles of association may establish that, if a partner dies, the respective shareholding “shall not be transmitted” to the successors of the deceased (art. 225 (1) of CSC).
II – When, based on a clause of the articles of association, the company intends to prevent the quota of the partner from remaining with his successors, it must start by deliberating “to amortise it, acquire it or have it acquired by a partner or third party”, since if this is not done, “in the 90 days subsequent to the knowledge of the death of the partner, the quota shall remain with his successors” (Art. 225 (2), 2nd part, of the CSC).
III – During such 90 days – that is, during the time between the death of the partner and the taking or not taking by the company of any of the measures that are available to it – the rights and obligations pertaining to the quota shall, in accordance with and pursuant to the provisions of Article 227 of the CSC, be suspended.
IV – And if it is true that Article 227 (3) of the CSC allows that, during the suspension, the successors may exercise all the rights necessary to protect their legal position, the truth is that, in the exercise of the rights necessary to protect their legal position, the right to vote on the destination of the quota itself – amortisation, acquisition – is not included, i.e. the successors of the deceased partner do not have the right to vote on the amortisation resolution.
V – Thus, in a partnership with two partners (one of whom has passed away), the fact that the decision to amortise the share was taken with the sole vote of the other partner (the surviving partner) does not constitute a defect in the decision.
VI – As well as it does not generate a procedural defect (of art. 58 (c), of the CSC) for the resolution of amortisation of the share not having been preceded by the provision of the information requested by the successors of the deceased partner, since the satisfaction of such information “request” was not indispensable/relevant to provide the adequate preparation of the successors (having in view the fair defence of their participation rights in the general meeting), insofar as they could not even participate in the voting of the general meeting.
VII – As well as not generating a procedural defect (of art. 58 (c), of the CSC) for the quota amortisation resolution, the summoning of the respective general meeting does not mention the form of calculation of the value of the consideration for the amortisation of the quota, the respective value and form of payment to the holders of the quota being amortised.
In other words, the mention of the consideration for the compulsory amortisation is dispensable, since there are always supplementary precepts applicable (either of a contractual nature or, if these do not exist, supplementary legal precepts).
IX – Therefore, if the amortisation resolution itself does not necessarily have to contain the value of the consideration for the amortisation, there is no reason for the summons to the respective general meeting to have to contain, in the respective item of the agenda, the method for calculating the value of the consideration for the amortisation of the quota, the respective value and method of payment to the holders of the quota being amortised.
X – Amortization which, under the terms of art. 236 of the CSC, can only be made if the share capital is restated, a requirement that must be verified both at the time of amortization (art. 236 (1) of the CSC) and at the time of maturity of the obligation to pay the consideration (art. 236 (3) of the CSC). However, the law does not require the company to draw up a special balance sheet to determine the verification of this requirement. Therefore, it must be the partners and/or managers who will have to gather the accounting elements to certify (or not) it at the two precise moments to which the law determines.
XI – Therefore, the successor of the deceased partner who intends to put in crisis the verification of such requirement – which will constitute the violation of a mandatory rule, causing the nullity of the amortisation resolution under the terms of art. 56 (1)(d), of the CSC – will have (which he may do at any time, under the terms of art. 286 of the CC) the burden of alleging and proving such breach, that is, in terms of the amortisation resolution it is sufficient that the reference referred to in art. 236 (2), of the CSC be included.
XII – If the articles of association (of a company with only two partners) stipulate that, in case of death of any partner, the company may amortise the respective share by the average value resulting from the last three approved balance sheets, it is not the circumstance of not having approved balance sheets for 9 years that prevents the amortisation of the share of the deceased partner.
XIII – Once the amortisation of the deceased partner’s quota is voted, it will be only the surviving partner who will then, alone (as the only partner, given the retroactive effect of the amortisation set forth in article 227 (1) of the CSC), approve the accounts (thus being able to “shape” the value of the amortisation consideration), which is contrary to the spirit of the clause in the articles of association (on the amortisation consideration).This is contrary to the spirit of the statutory clause (on the compensation for the amortisation), in which the idea / possibility of the materialisation of the compensation being in the hands of the partner remaining in the company does not enter or fit, since a criterion is established that refers to something that is supposed, in a normal situation, to have been previously established and with the intervention of both partners.
XIV – Therefore, the criterion for calculation of the consideration for the amortisation stated in the Articles of Association cannot be applied, everything taking place as if the consideration for the amortisation were not regulated by the stipulations of the Articles of Association. Therefore, having deliberated that the consideration for the amortisation is that contained in the articles of association, such deliberation violates the legal precept of the law, which becomes applicable (article 235 (1)), being annullable under the terms of article 58 (a) of the CSC.
XV – According to article 58 (l)(b), of the CSC – and in the first type of abusive resolution foreseen therein – a resolution shall be abusive/cancellable when, without violating specific provisions of the law or of the company’s by-laws, it is objectively appropriate to satisfy the purpose of achieving special advantages to the detriment of the company or of shareholders and, furthermore, when it serves the shareholder’s purpose of obtaining such special advantages for himself or third parties, This second assumption means that it has at least to be proved that the partner, when voting, anticipated as possible the special advantage for himself or others and the prejudice of the company or other partners and did not trust that such result would not occur, that is, it has to be proven at least the eventual malice of the partner who voted such resolution.”.
Judgment of the Porto Court of Appeal, of July 13, Case no. 3501/21.3T8MAI-A.P1: Exemption from payment of costs. Decision considering inapplicable. Objection.
Summary:
“In interpreting Article 644(2)(h) of the Code of Civil Procedure – an appeal may be lodged “against decisions which it would be absolutely useless to challenge by means of an appeal against the final decision” – situations in which the need to pay interim costs throughout the proceedings, in particular the court fee, are also covered.
Judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeal, of July 14, Case no. 1428/21.8T8LSB.L1-2: Termination of maintenance. Foreign sentence. Revision and confirmation.
Summary:
“I – Judgments handed down in foreign courts on private rights may, in our legal system, enjoy full applicability and produce the legal effects provided for in the legislation of the country of provenance ;
II – for this to occur, the decision handed down must comply with certain conditions or requirements, to be verified by the competent Portuguese court, within the scope of a specific action, called revision of a foreign judgment, provided as a special procedure in Articles 978 to 985 of the Code of Civil Procedure;
III – through this procedural mechanism, the review or prior control of the decision originating from a foreign court is effective, it being clear that without the effectiveness of such acts of review and confirmation, that decision is not operable, through its own jurisdictional effects, in the internal legal order;
IV – until the decision of revision and confirmation is rendered, the decision rendered by the foreign court is configured only as a legal act, with pending efficacy, until the required condition is met, that is, the decision of revision and confirmation rendered by the Portuguese court, within the scope of the mentioned special procedure;
V – the same review and confirmation decision, when reviewing the fulfilment of the requirements of paragraphs a) to f), of article 980, of the Civil Procedure Code, does not assess the merit of what was decided by the foreign court, but only operates a formal review, within the scope of the extrinsic regularity of the sentence, without making any assessment on the substance or merit of the cause;
VI – the need for such a revision regime is excepted with regard to what is established in treaties, conventions, European Union regulations and special laws, in which cases such a mechanism is dispensed with, operating an automatic recognition;
VII – concluding that there is no recognition (or, allegedly homologatory) sentence pronounced by a French court, having as object the consensual divorce sentence pronounced by the Brazilian court, and that only the transcription/endorsement of the divorce decision has occurred in the birth/marriage certificates of the ex-spouses, under the terms of art. 23 of the Agreement on Cooperation in Civil Matters between the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Government of the French Republic (which mutually waives the need for legalisation or any similar formality for public documents), it is not possible to conclude that there is a judgment handed down in a Member State (in this case, France) which must be recognised by the other Member States without any formalities, particularly within the framework of European Union regulations;
VIII – Brazil not being a member of the European Union, what is agreed upon in such Regulations is not applicable to the content of the divorce decree pronounced there, which, in order to produce effects in Portugal, would always have to be subject to previous revision and confirmation by the Portuguese courts”.
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, of July 5, Case no. 602/15.0T8VNG-L.P1-B.S1: Court of Appeal. Review appeal. Inadmissibility. Complaint to the conference.
Summary:
“I – Appeals may not be lodged against the decisions of the Rapporteur but a complaint may be lodged with the Conference.
II – As the party appealed directly against the order of the Rapporteur, it follows that the review is inadmissible for lack of an appealable decision.
III – The appeal having been filed beyond the time limit within which the complaint could have been filed, it is not possible to convert it into a complaint for the conference.
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, of July 5, Case no. 91/12.1TYVNG-C.P1.S1: Graduation of credits. Promissory sale and purchase contract. Termination of the business. Insolvency administrator. Common credit. Right of retention. Commercial company. Tradition of the thing. Dwelling house. Managing partner. Consumer. Uniform judgment of case-law.
Summary:
“I- As there is no definitive breach of the promissory contract for the purchase and sale of a property prior to the declaration of insolvency, there is a “business in progress” to which the rules of the CIRE apply.
II- The insolvency administrator having chosen not to conclude the promised contract, recognising the credit for the breach of the promised contract, the promissory purchaser – a commercial company – which acceded to the traditio of the property and intended it for the dwelling of its managing partner, does not enjoy the right of retention, because it does not have the quality of consumer (as defined in AUJ no. 4/2014 and AUJ no. 4/2019).”
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, of July 6, Case no. 240/19.9T8FAR.E1.S1: Complaint to the conference. Double conformity. Review. Admissibility. More favourable decision.
Summary:
“I- According to the most relevant doctrine and constant jurisprudence of the SCJ, a situation where the Appeals Court issues a decision that, although not strictly coincident with the first instance decision, proves to be “more favourable” to the appealing party, can be considered as a situation of double conformity of decisions.
II- Whenever the appellant obtains a partial upholding of the appeal before the Appeals Court, that is, whenever the Appeals Court pronounces a decision that is more favourable – both in quantitative and qualitative terms – for that appellant than the decision at first instance, there are two conforming decisions, which prevent that party from lodging a review appeal with the SCJ”.
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, of July 7, Case no. 8552/18.2TSSTB.E1.S1: Promissory-contract of purchase and sale. Restitution of the deposit. Alteration of the contract. Nullity of judgment. Excess of judgment. Error of judgement. Extension of the scope of the appeal. Counterclaims.
Summary:
“I. Considering that a promissory contract is maintained, but determining the return of the deposit paid, is equivalent to changing the content of the contract, since a promissory contract without deposit would subsist, which would not correspond to what the parties concluded.
- Furthermore, that solution would eliminate the penalty function of the deposit, whether that function be understood as ‘compulsory’ for the conclusion of the contract promised, or whether it be understood as an advance fixing of the compensation for non-performance”.
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, of July 12, Case no. 2180/18.0T8OAZ.P1.S2: Private limited company. Partner. Succession by death. Amortization of quota. Right to vote. Annulment of social deliberation. Burden of allegation. Burden of proof. Suppletive norm. Approval of accounts. Eventual intention. Notice of meeting. General meeting. Right to information. Social participation.
Summary:
“I – As a rule in limited companies, quotas are transmitted (mortis causa) to the successors of the partners under the terms of the common law of succession, the articles of association may establish that, if a partner dies, the respective shareholding “shall not be transmitted” to the successors of the deceased (art. 225 (1) of CSC).
II – When, based on a clause of the articles of association, the company intends to prevent the quota of the partner from remaining with his successors, it must start by deliberating “to amortise it, acquire it or have it acquired by a partner or third party”, since if this is not done, “in the 90 days subsequent to the knowledge of the death of the partner, the quota shall remain with his successors” (Art. 225 (2), 2nd part, of the CSC).
III – During such 90 days – that is, during the time between the death of the partner and the taking or not taking by the company of any of the measures that are available to it – the rights and obligations pertaining to the quota shall, in accordance with and pursuant to the provisions of Article 227 of the CSC, be suspended.
IV – And if it is true that Article 227 (3) of the CSC allows that, during the suspension, the successors may exercise all the rights necessary to protect their legal position, the truth is that, in the exercise of the rights necessary to protect their legal position, the right to vote on the destination of the quota itself – amortisation, acquisition – is not included, i.e. the successors of the deceased partner do not have the right to vote on the amortisation resolution.
V – Thus, in a partnership with two partners (one of whom has passed away), the fact that the decision to amortise the share was taken with the sole vote of the other partner (the surviving partner) does not constitute a defect in the decision.
VI – As well as it does not generate a procedural defect (of art. 58 (c), of the CSC) for the resolution of amortisation of the share not having been preceded by the provision of the information requested by the successors of the deceased partner, since the satisfaction of such information “request” was not indispensable/relevant to provide the adequate preparation of the successors (having in view the fair defence of their participation rights in the general meeting), insofar as they could not even participate in the voting of the general meeting.
VII – As well as not generating a procedural defect (of art. 58 (c), of the CSC) for the quota amortisation resolution, the summoning of the respective general meeting does not mention the form of calculation of the value of the consideration for the amortisation of the quota, the respective value and form of payment to the holders of the quota being amortised.
In other words, the mention of the consideration for the compulsory amortisation is dispensable, since there are always supplementary precepts applicable (either of a contractual nature or, if these do not exist, supplementary legal precepts).
IX – Therefore, if the amortisation resolution itself does not necessarily have to contain the value of the consideration for the amortisation, there is no reason for the summons to the respective general meeting to have to contain, in the respective item of the agenda, the method for calculating the value of the consideration for the amortisation of the quota, the respective value and method of payment to the holders of the quota being amortised.
X – Amortization which, under the terms of art. 236 of the CSC, can only be made if the share capital is restated, a requirement that must be verified both at the time of amortization (art. 236 (1) of the CSC) and at the time of maturity of the obligation to pay the consideration (art. 236 (3) of the CSC). However, the law does not require the company to draw up a special balance sheet to determine the verification of this requirement. Therefore, it must be the partners and/or managers who will have to gather the accounting elements to certify (or not) it at the two precise moments to which the law determines.
XI – Therefore, the successor of the deceased partner who intends to put in crisis the verification of such requirement – which will constitute the violation of a mandatory rule, causing the nullity of the amortisation resolution under the terms of art. 56 (1)(d), of the CSC – will have (which he may do at any time, under the terms of art. 286 of the CC) the burden of alleging and proving such breach, that is, in terms of the amortisation resolution it is sufficient that the reference referred to in art. 236 (2), of the CSC be included.
XII – If the articles of association (of a company with only two partners) stipulate that, in case of death of any partner, the company may amortise the respective share by the average value resulting from the last three approved balance sheets, it is not the circumstance of not having approved balance sheets for 9 years that prevents the amortisation of the share of the deceased partner.
XIII – Once the amortisation of the deceased partner’s quota is voted, it will be only the surviving partner who will then, alone (as the only partner, given the retroactive effect of the amortisation set forth in article 227 (1) of the CSC), approve the accounts (thus being able to “shape” the value of the amortisation consideration), which is contrary to the spirit of the clause in the articles of association (on the amortisation consideration).This is contrary to the spirit of the statutory clause (on the compensation for the amortisation), in which the idea / possibility of the materialisation of the compensation being in the hands of the partner remaining in the company does not enter or fit, since a criterion is established that refers to something that is supposed, in a normal situation, to have been previously established and with the intervention of both partners.
XIV – Therefore, the criterion for calculation of the consideration for the amortisation stated in the Articles of Association cannot be applied, everything taking place as if the consideration for the amortisation were not regulated by the stipulations of the Articles of Association. Therefore, having deliberated that the consideration for the amortisation is that contained in the articles of association, such deliberation violates the legal precept of the law, which becomes applicable (article 235 (1)), being annullable under the terms of article 58 (a) of the CSC.
XV – According to article 58 (l)(b), of the CSC – and in the first type of abusive resolution foreseen therein – a resolution shall be abusive/cancellable when, without violating specific provisions of the law or of the company’s by-laws, it is objectively appropriate to satisfy the purpose of achieving special advantages to the detriment of the company or of shareholders and, furthermore, when it serves the shareholder’s purpose of obtaining such special advantages for himself or third parties, This second assumption means that it has at least to be proved that the partner, when voting, anticipated as possible the special advantage for himself or others and the prejudice of the company or other partners and did not trust that such result would not occur, that is, it has to be proven at least the eventual malice of the partner who voted such resolution.”.
Judgment of the Porto Court of Appeal, of July 13, Case no. 3501/21.3T8MAI-A.P1: Exemption from payment of costs. Decision considering inapplicable. Objection.
Summary:
“In interpreting Article 644(2)(h) of the Code of Civil Procedure – an appeal may be lodged “against decisions which it would be absolutely useless to challenge by means of an appeal against the final decision” – situations in which the need to pay interim costs throughout the proceedings, in particular the court fee, are also covered.
Judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeal, of July 14, Case no. 1428/21.8T8LSB.L1-2: Termination of maintenance. Foreign sentence. Revision and confirmation.
Summary:
“I – Judgments handed down in foreign courts on private rights may, in our legal system, enjoy full applicability and produce the legal effects provided for in the legislation of the country of provenance ;
II – for this to occur, the decision handed down must comply with certain conditions or requirements, to be verified by the competent Portuguese court, within the scope of a specific action, called revision of a foreign judgment, provided as a special procedure in Articles 978 to 985 of the Code of Civil Procedure;
III – through this procedural mechanism, the review or prior control of the decision originating from a foreign court is effective, it being clear that without the effectiveness of such acts of review and confirmation, that decision is not operable, through its own jurisdictional effects, in the internal legal order;
IV – until the decision of revision and confirmation is rendered, the decision rendered by the foreign court is configured only as a legal act, with pending efficacy, until the required condition is met, that is, the decision of revision and confirmation rendered by the Portuguese court, within the scope of the mentioned special procedure;
V – the same review and confirmation decision, when reviewing the fulfilment of the requirements of paragraphs a) to f), of article 980, of the Civil Procedure Code, does not assess the merit of what was decided by the foreign court, but only operates a formal review, within the scope of the extrinsic regularity of the sentence, without making any assessment on the substance or merit of the cause;
VI – the need for such a revision regime is excepted with regard to what is established in treaties, conventions, European Union regulations and special laws, in which cases such a mechanism is dispensed with, operating an automatic recognition;
VII – concluding that there is no recognition (or, allegedly homologatory) sentence pronounced by a French court, having as object the consensual divorce sentence pronounced by the Brazilian court, and that only the transcription/endorsement of the divorce decision has occurred in the birth/marriage certificates of the ex-spouses, under the terms of art. 23 of the Agreement on Cooperation in Civil Matters between the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Government of the French Republic (which mutually waives the need for legalisation or any similar formality for public documents), it is not possible to conclude that there is a judgment handed down in a Member State (in this case, France) which must be recognised by the other Member States without any formalities, particularly within the framework of European Union regulations;
VIII – Brazil not being a member of the European Union, what is agreed upon in such Regulations is not applicable to the content of the divorce decree pronounced there, which, in order to produce effects in Portugal, would always have to be subject to previous revision and confirmation by the Portuguese courts”.
III.5. Administrative and Tax Court
Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, of July 13, Case no. 01856/11.7BEPRT
Summary:
“I – The protection provided by Article 63(3) (now Article 63(4)) of the LGT concerns the taxpayer’s right to legal certainty and the stability of the tax relationship and not the protection of the taxpayer against the mishaps, embarrassments and difficulties caused to his commercial routine by an external inspection.
II – The non-verification of these alleged constraints on the taxpayer’s activity does not, in itself, allow the admissibility of the repetition of external inspections to be sustained.”
Judgment of the Southern Central Administrative Court, of July 14, Case no. 817/21.2BESNT: Summons to a hearing. Error in the form of the process. Imposition of a defined act. Cumulation of requests.
Summary:
“I-The summons to behave is merely complementary or subsidiary in nature, the following being cumulative requirements for its admission: i) Existence of an omission on the part of the AT; ii) Such omission respects a duty to provide legal services; iii) Such omission is likely to prejudice the right or legitimate interest of the taxpayer; iv) It is the most appropriate means for ensuring the full, efficient and effective protection of the rights or interests in question.
II- A summons to take action only covers situations in which the AT is obliged to carry out a particular act – whether by virtue of the law, a court decision or a previous act of the AT itself – which is already fully defined and is not intended to define the existence of rights or interests in tax matters, but merely to order and impose acts on the AT, provided that such rights are evident.
Error in the form of the process is assessed by the adequacy of the procedural means used to the end sought by it. Therefore, in order to assess its existence, it is necessary to pay attention to the request that was formulated and the concrete claim for judicial protection, with the invoked cause of action serving only as an adjunctive element.
IV-Occurring cumulation of requests and causes of action corresponding to two different procedural forms, concretely, opposition to the executive process and judicial impugnation, the Judge cannot opt for one of them, thus making unfeasible the materialization of any procedural convolution”.
Judgment of the Southern Central Administrative Court, of July 14, Case no. 182/16.0BEFUN: Unenforceability. Lesivity of the act. Liquidation. Interlocutory act. Error in the identification of the means of defence.
Summary:
“I-The recourse to indirect methods represents an “ultima ratio fisci”, in that it should only be used when it represents the only solution for arriving at the determination of the effective tax base.
II-From the combined interpretation of Articles 86(3) of the LGT and 54 of the CPPT, it follows that, as a rule, only the final act of the tax proceedings can be challenged, as only that act effectively and immediately damages the legal sphere of the taxpayer, given that in tax litigation the criterion for the challengeability of acts is that of their objective, immediate, actual and not merely potential damage.
III-Assessment is the final act of the procedure, from which alone can be directly challenged, and not the interlocutory act sanctioning the rejection of the Claimant’s claim and the maintenance of corrections by presumptive methods.
IV- The ratio of the regulation of the suspensive effect of the assessment contained in article 91 (2) of the LGT is merely to prohibit the issue of an assessment without exhausting the possibility of altering the taxable amount by administrative means.
V-If the Appellant placed her trust in the possibility of directly challenging the rejection, and if the information in which she placed her trust, and on which she should in fact be able to rely, was not suitable, accurate and correct, then the fact is not imputable to her, and her rights of defence cannot therefore be curtailed, under penalty of violating the principle of trust, and therefore the provisions of Article 37(4) of the CPPT must be invoked.
IV. BRIEFS
IV.1. DOCTRINE
IV.1.1. Monographs and Periodic Publications
Filipe de Vasconcelos Fernandes, Direito Fiscal do Terceiro Sector, AAFDL Editora, julho 2022.
Hugo Luz dos Santos, Processo Penal Na Era Compliance, AAFDL Editora, julho 2022.
Ana Margarida da Silva Ferreira, A Responsabilidade Civil Médica em Cirurgia Estética, Almedina, julho 2022.
Jorge Morais Carvalho, Inês Crispim, Maria Miguel Oliveira da Silva e Martim Farinha, Diretivas 2019/770 e 2019/771 e Decreto-Lei n.º 84/2021 – Compra e Venda, Fornecimento de Conteúdos e Serviços Digitais, Conformidade, Sustentabilidade e Dados Pessoais, Almedina, julho 2022.
Jorge Miranda, A Constituição Portuguesa – Uma Introdução Geral, Almedina, julho 2022.
Edgar Valles, Atos Notariais dos Advogados e Solicitadores, 9.ª edição, Almedina, julho 2022.
Isabel Celeste M. Fonseca, Direito da Contratação Pública – Estudos Reunidos, 2.ª edição, Almedina, julho 2022.
Guilherme de Oliveira, Estudos de Direito da Família II – Passear os Dogmas, Almedina, julho 2022.
Tiago Fidalgo de Freitas, Ana Alves Leal e Teresa Pinto, O Estatuto de Utilidade Pública – Anotação à Lei-Quadro do Estatuto de Utilidade Pública, Aprovada pela Lei n.º 36/2021, de 14 de junho, INCM, julho 2022.
Alex Sander Pires, Pedro Trovão do Rosário e Rúben Bahamonde, Governança, Ética e Compliance, Almedina, julho 2022.
IV.1.2. Generic Guidelines & Cia
Circulated Letter no.: 7/2022, of 2022-07-04, by dispatch of the Director-General of the Tax and Customs Authority.
Subject: Withholding tax on pensions – Withholding tables – 2022 – Mainland Portugal.
Circulated Letter no.: 8/2022, of 2022-07-04, by dispatch of the Director-General of the Tax and Customs Authority.
Subject: Withholding tax on pensions – Withholding tables – 2022 – Autonomous Region of the Azores.
Circular Letter no.: 9/2022, of 2022-07-19, by dispatch of the Director-General of the Tax and Customs Authority.
Subject: Withholding tax on Income from Dependent Work – Withholding Tables – 2022 – Mainland.
Circulated letter no.: 90057/2022, of 2022-07-20, by order of the Deputy Director General of the Collection Area.
Subject: Fiscal representation of the non-resident – Article 19 of the General Tax Law.
Circular Letter no.: 40119/2022, of 2022-07-25, by order of the Subdirector General of the Wealth Tax Area.
Subject: IMT – practical tables in force from 28 June 2022 – republication.
IV.2. Miscellaneous
IV.2.1. Economy, Finance and Taxation
The Council of Ministers approved, on the July 7, the National Health Service Statute, following the need to clarify the role and the relationship between the various subjects of the national health system. The present Statute comes, as an example, to update:
– The definition of the National Health Service;
– Its territorial and functional organisation; and
– The rules of its human and financial resources.
https://www.portugal.gov.pt/pt/gc23/governo/comunicado-de-conselho-de-ministros?i=499
In the framework of the State Budget for 2022, the Council of Ministers approved on July 14, the resolution authorising the Treasury and Public Debt Management Agency – IGCP, E. P. E., to issue public debt according to the limits established in the State Budget for 2022.
https://www.portugal.gov.pt/pt/gc23/governo/comunicado-de-conselho-de-ministros?i=500
On July 21, the following were approved: (i) the decree-law reforming and simplifying of environmental licensing; (ii) the decree-law amending the Public Procurement Code and Law no. 30/2021, of May 21, which approves special public procurement measures; and (iii) the draft law to be submitted to Parliament, which extends the scope of application of the special expropriation regime, provided for in the Economic and Social Stabilisation Programme (PEES), to projects included in the Recovery and Resilience Plan (PRR), until 30 June 2026.
https://www.portugal.gov.pt/pt/gc23/governo/comunicado-de-conselho-de-ministros?i=502
Finally, we would like to highlight the delivery, in the Assembly of the Republic, by the Ministry of Finances, of the Report on the Fight against Tax and Customs Fraud and Evasion 2021.
In this regard, in 2021, the following should be highlighted: (i) 5.4% growth in net tax revenue, in a year in which there was no increase in tax rates and in which there were tax reductions and some obligations were made more flexible; and (ii) an 11.2% increase in the number of invoices reported with the Tax Identification Number (TIN).
IV.2.2. Industrial Property
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) launched, on July 1, the WIPO Sequence – a new computer tool that allows patent applicants to create their sequence listings – including DNA, RNA and amino acids.
https://inpi.justica.gov.pt/Noticias-do-INPI/OMPI-lanca-hoje-nova-ferramenta-WIPO-Sequence
It was published, on July 19, the provisional statistical data from January to June 2022, concerning applications and grants of Industrial Property Rights. In particular, the following is highlighted:
(i) the concessions for inventions registered a decrease of 30.3% (115), compared to the same period in 2021 (165);
(ii) national applications for inventions increased by 11.8% (454) compared to applications in 2021 (406).
All statistical reports, annual, half-yearly and monthly, on applications and grants of Industrial Property Rights are available at the IP Observatory.
https://inpi.justica.gov.pt/Noticias-do-INPI/Direitos-de-Propriedade-Industrial-janeiro-a-junho-2022
On July 21, INPI signed, jointly with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a Memorandum of Understanding, with the aim of intensifying cooperation between the two organizations.
This cooperation essentially translates into the reinforcement of the Industrial Property system for the purposes of economic, social and cultural development, through training, development of strategies, promotion of industrial property awareness campaigns, seminars, workshops, among other events.
It is also worth mentioning the possible creation of a new networked innovation platform where national stakeholders can disseminate their Patents, with the aim of commercialising them.
https://inpi.justica.gov.pt/Noticias-do-INPI/OMPI-e-INPI-assinam-Memorando-de-Entendimento
The European Patent Office recently promoted the European Inventor Award 2023, whose aim is to highlight, in different categories, citizens who are driving a smarter and more sustainable world.
Candidacies for the Prize may be submitted until 3 October 2022 through the platform made available by the IEP at https://nominate.epo.org/.
https://inpi.justica.gov.pt/Noticias-do-INPI/Premio-Inventor-Europeu-2023-Fase-de-nomeacoes-aberta
Finally, the European Commission has recently launched a public consultation on compulsory licences in intellectual property rights, as indicated in the 2020 Action Plan on Intellectual Property.
In this follow-up, the European Commission invites the interested parties to express their views on how to build a more efficient and coordinated compulsory licensing regime in the European Union.
The public consultation will be open until 28 September 2022 and is available via the following link: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/8f8d2595-0615-b2ff-7c67-17933c082b05
SHARE THIS ARTICLE