5.9.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/56

(Case T-462/22)

(2022/C 340/76)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicants: Millennium BCP Participações, SGPS, SU, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) and BCP África (Funchal) (represented by: B. Santiago, L. do Nascimento Ferreira, P. Gouveia e Melo, D. Oda and A. Queiroz Martins, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

—order the European Commission to put before the Court the letter of 28 June 2006, in which the Portuguese authorities notified the Commission of draft measure ‘Regime III’, in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU, including any and all documents appended to that letter, for the purposes of Article 88(1) and (2) and Article 89(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;

—annul Article 1 and Article 4(1) of Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III, in so far as those articles apply to the SGPS [Sociedades Gestoras de Participações Sociais (holding companies; ‘SGPS’)] — such as the applicants — referred to in Article 36(8) of the Estatuto dos Beneficios Fiscais (Statute governing Tax Benefits);

—Order the defendant institution to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings, and pay those incurred by the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law consisting in the breach of the obligation to state reasons, enshrined in Article 296 TFEU.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law consisting in the infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU, in that Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III includes SGPS amongst the beneficiaries concerned by the recovery obligation in the event of a failure to satisfy the job creation requirement;

Third plea in law, alleging an error of law consisting in the infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.