[ad_1]
mem communicated, to APCC points out that “today he filed a complaint with the Ombudsman’s Office against article 168 (5)” of the Complementary State Budget Law “, which exempts tenants present in shopping centers from paying the minimum rent, denouncing the unconstitutionality of the mentioned normative “.
The association also called on the Ombudsman to “take into account the concerns expressed, working together with organs competent state authorities for correction of a situation that is considered unfair, unclear and of doubtful constitutional compatibility and, if it deems it appropriate, it may, in any case, request the Constitutional Court to declare the norm unconstitutional, ”the statement read.
The Portuguese Association of Shopping Centers supports the decision to present the complaint to the Ombudsman “in the legal opinions prepared” by the constitutionalists Jorge Miranda, Rui Medeiros and Jorge Reis Novais.
According to the document presented to the provider, this article “leads to situations of manifest and profound material injustice, which raise doubts about constitutionality, highlighted by violation, among others, of rights, freedoms and guarantees.”
Also, “reflects the illegitimacy of the legislative intervention of the State in legal-private relations, illegitimately compressing rights, freedoms and guarantees and thus leading to a special assessment owners of shopping centers in their relationship with tenants “, APCC.
As we come to defend, the opinions that are now presented in the Ombudsman’s Office to support our position indicate that the Supplementary Budget reflects An interference direct of the State in private contracts, canceling or limiting the consensual solutions that retailers and shopping centers could reach, and imposes serious and unjustified damage in the patrimonial area of the owners of the shopping centers, ”says António Sampaio Mattos, President of APCC, quoted in a statement.
“It is not rejected that tenants affected legislative and administrative measures exception that determined the closure of commercial establishments or the suspension of their exercise public aid is not owed. What we reject is that this help is coercively transmitted to the owners of the shopping centers, who contributed nothing to the situation and who, likewise, were severely shocked through pandemic“, adds the person in charge.
“Another point that causes particular perplexity is that the rule applies, solely and exclusively, to contracts for the use of a store in a shopping center, cutting its âscope of application to exclude leasing contracts for commercial purposes (for example, street shops) ”, says the association.
Since the Supplementary State Budget entered into force on 25 July, “that tenants in a shopping center with dual income structure contracts were exempt from paying the minimum rent – falling on the owners, the risk of the course pandemic – as tenants without the variable income component, they are (only) covered by the moratorium on the payment of rents, unless another agreement has been established, or can be established between the parties ”, he says.
A APCC It also points out that, according to the aforementioned constitutionalists, “there is no doubt that the law entered into force on the 25th July 2020, and its application is clear and clear. retroactive (since it only covers future income) to contracts already signed and in execution “.
The association and associates “continue, as always, available, together with the tenants, to find the appropriate solutions at all times and to the capacity of each tenant, in order to preserve the employment generated by this tenant. sector and its contribution to the recovery of the economy ”, he concluded.
Always be the first to know.
Follow the chosen site for the fourth consecutive year Consumer Choice.
Download our free app.
[ad_2]
