Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2024/3147

21.5.2024

(Case C-13/24 P)

(C/2024/3147)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: AFG, SA (Zona Franca da Madeira) (represented by: S. Estima Martins, F. Castro Guedes, and M. Ellison, advogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

—set aside the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 October 2023 in Case T-722/22, AFG, S.A. (Zona Franca da Madeira) v Commission, which dismissed the appellant’s action seeking annulment of Articles 1, 4, 5 and, 6 of European Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final (1) of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) [Madeira Free Zone, MFZ] – Regime III;

—order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings in their entirety.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The General Court erred in law by adopting the order under appeal pursuant to Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure, in a case in which the parties are not the same and in which the elements of fact and law relied upon by the applicants in support of the various pleas alleging unlawfulness are also different.

The MFZ scheme is a general scheme and forms part of the logic and general economy of the tax system of the Autonomous Region of Madeira (ARM), and therefore does not entail a selective advantage for the companies registered in that zone and, consequently, does not constitute State aid. The General Court erred in law by finding that the aid scheme in question was selective.

The General Court erred in the interpretation of the expression ‘activities effectively and materially performed in Madeira’, inasmuch as its interpretation conflicts with the logic and competitive dynamic of companies in open global markets; disregards the case-law of the Court of Justice on the ‘main centre of interests’; and precludes costs incurred by activities performed outside the ARM from being regarded as additional costs borne.

The General Court erred when it held that tests such as the FTE (Full-Time Equivalent) and ALU (Annual Labour Units) methods should be used, for the purposes of verifying whether the Regime III criterion relating to job creation/maintenance in the ARM is satisfied, instead of the concept of ‘job’ under the national legislation.

5. Error of law relating to the application of general principles of EU law

The General Court, in the order under appeal, infringed the general principles of EU law, specifically the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and proportionality.

(1)

Language of the case: Portuguese

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3147/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

JUDGMENT OF 6. 3. 2025 – CASE C-41/24 WALTHAM ABBEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

*

* * *