[ad_1]
The draft bill of the PAN was approved, which clarifies the effective date of the regime that exempts stores in shopping centers from paying the fixed income component. According to the interpretative rule that was voted on this Tuesday, the measure included in the Supplementary Budget has retroactive effects, and must be applied from March 13, 2020.
The proposal was approved by 115 votes in favor, 114 against and one abstention. PSD, Bloco de Esquerda, PCP, PAN and the two unregistered deputies voted in favor. The PS, CDS and the Liberal Initiative voted against. Chega abstained. The proposal had been approved by parliament last Friday in general, and was subsequently rejected in the specialty by the Commission on Economy, Innovation, Public Works and Housing. Then it was called to vote in plenary session, where it ended up receiving the green light.
This PAN bill arises as a result of the exceptional regime applicable to real estate exploration contracts for commerce and services in shopping centers, approved within the framework of the Supplementary Budget, which entered into force on July 25. The law states that the tenants of shopping centers must not “pay any amount as minimum rent until December 31, 2020”, with only the payment of the variable rent component, as well as common expenses.
The law generated controversy between owners and tenants, being the first to defend its application only as of July, when the law came into force. The tenants, on the other hand, defended its retroactive application, starting in March. The PAN bill, now approved, clarifies that the exemption “applies to the period from March 13 to December 31, 2020.”
The Portuguese Association of Shopping Centers has already admitted to having sued the State, “in the sense of being compensated for the losses caused by the unacceptable trampling of the Law, when disproportionate and unconstitutional laws were passed.”
In a statement, the president of the APCC, António Sampaio de Mattos, said that he regretted the “decision of a small parliamentary majority, which represents one more interference in the contracts justly concluded between private entities.” The association will request the “intervention of the President of the Republic, as well as the Ombudsman, to oversee the constitutionality of the law now approved, in addition to assessing the other legal channels that allow the defense of the rights of its Associates.”
[ad_2]
