Supremo Tribunal de Justiça; 2021-05-25; 17893/17.5T8LSB-A.L1.S1
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:PT:STJ:2021:17893.17.5T8LSB.A.L1.S.E2
Date: 2021-05-25
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Portugal

82021PT0525(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, brought before the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), ruled to waive payment of the remaining court fees in a case where the interlocutory judgment on jurisdiction was not objectively devoid of purpose, but had become subjectively devoid of purpose due to the acquittal of the defendant in the main case.
Portuguese investors AA and BB (‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit in Portugal against four companies regarding a breach of an investment contract: Banco Espírito Santo, S.A., as Dealer, (‘defendant 1’), Espírito Santo Investment p.l.c., currently named Haitong Investment Ireland plc, as an issuer of the bonds, (‘defendant 2’), Banco Espírito Santo de Investimento, S.A., currently Haitong Bank S.A., as Calculation Agent, Dealer and Paying Agent, (‘defendant 3’), and Citibank Europe p.l.c., as Paying Agent, (‘defendant 4’).
Defendant 4 claimed that the Portuguese courts did not have jurisdiction regarding itself because the prospectus given to the investors had a jurisdiction clause under Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), which attributed jurisdiction to the English Courts. Even if this jurisdiction clause were not admitted, due to the fact that the prospectus had not been signed by the Parties, the general rule of Article 4(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) should apply, and defendant 4 should be tried in the courts of the place of its registered address, i.e. Ireland, since there is not a sufficiently strong connection between the claims to justify the application of Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
The Court of First Instance ruled that the Portuguese courts had jurisdiction, and the main case proceeded against all four defendants.
Defendant 4 appealed against the interlocutory decision regarding jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal also ruled that the Portuguese courts had jurisdiction.
When the interlocutory decision reached the Supreme Court, the judgment in the main case, acquitting all four defendants, had become final, i.e. it had res judicata effect.
Defendant 4 claimed that, because of this, the appeal on the interlocutory decision had become devoid of purpose and asked that the remaining court fees in the appeal on the interlocutory decision should be waived under Article 6(7) of the RCP (2).
The Supreme Court ruled as follows: Article 644(4) of the CPC (3) does not apply because it refers to appeals on interlocutory decisions filed after the judgment in the main case became final, and here the appeal had been filed previously. As for considering the action devoid of purpose, that is not objectively true because a final ruling on jurisdiction was still technically possible and had not been obtained in some other way. However, the ruling was subjectively devoid of purpose, so it would also not be correct to consider this simply a matter of a voluntary withdrawal of the appeal by defendant 4 (which would have made them fully responsible for court fees under Article 537(1) of the CPC). Considering that the matter was not particularly complex in terms of proof and had not required a great amount of the court’s time up to that point (for example, in hearing witnesses), the court ruled that the remaining court fees should be waived under the general rule of Article 527(1) of the CPC and Article 6(7) of the RCP.
(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) Decreto-Lei nº 34/2008, Regulamento das Custas Processuais (Regulation on Court Fees).
(3) Código de Processo Civil (Code of Civil Procedure).