Supremo Tribunal de Justiça; 2021-06-22; 878/17.9T8VNF-D.G1.S1
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:PT:STJ:2021:878.17.9T8VNF.D.G1.S1.51
Date: 2021-06-22
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Portugal

82021PT0622(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a matter of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments brought before the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
Avasco Industries (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’), a Belgian company, filed a suit in Belgium on 22 May 2014 against R.P. Industries (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), a Portuguese company, regarding a commercial debt. The Belgian court gave a judgment against the Portuguese company on 21 October 2015, to pay the debt. The plaintiff requested and obtained a certificate from the Belgian court in accordance with Article 53 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). The certificate was served to the defendant under the terms of Article 43 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
The defendant opposed the enforcement, stating that the judgment which was being enforced had been given in legal proceedings instituted before 10 January 2015 and that, therefore, under the terms of Article 66(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), it fell within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation (2). Under the terms of Article 38(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, ‘a judgment given in a Member State and enforceable in that State shall be enforced in another Member State when, on the application of any interested party, it has been declared enforceable there’. In this case, the plaintiff did not apply for the declaration of enforceability, without which the judgment cannot be enforced.
The Court of First Instance ruled in favour of the plaintiff, as did the Court of Appeal, both considering that the Brussels I Regulation (recast) did not expressly rule as to which regulation should apply in cases where the judgment was made under the Brussels I Regulation, but enforcement requested under the Brussels I Regulation (recast). They considered that, in these cases, the general rule of Article 81 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) applies, i.e., that any enforcement requested after 10 January 2015 shall be within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), which does not require a declaration of enforceability of Article 38(1) of the Brussels I Regulation. Under this interpretation, the certificate issued by the Belgian court under Article 53 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) is entirely enforceable. The fact that the Belgian court had issued the certificate was also considered in both instances to support this interpretation.
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the defendant, stating that Brussels I Regulation (recast) does, in fact, expressly rule on cases like these in Article 66(2): and, as long as the legal proceedings were instituted before 10 January 2015, the Brussels I Regulation shall apply, regardless of when the judgment is given or when enforcement is requested. This means that, in this case, the judgment is not enforceable until a declaration of enforceability is obtained under Article 38(1) of the Brussels I Regulation. The mere fact that the Belgian court issued the certificate proves nothing since the certificate is freely issued to any petitioner and does not imply any ruling on the matter of applicable regulation. Finally, the Supreme Court also mentioned that the Brussels I Regulation and the Brussels I Regulation (recast) do not regulate enforcement procedures, but only the enforceability itself.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast).
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.