Supremo Tribunal de Justiça; 2024-05-28; 96/21.1T8ALM-A.L1.S1
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:PT:STJ:2024:96.21.1T8ALM.A.L1.S1.4A
Date: 2024-05-28
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Portugal

82024PT0528(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a matter of jurisdiction in a case for civil liability for damages, brought before the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
The plaintiff, a Portuguese football player, filed a suit in a Portuguese court (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) against an American company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), claiming that the defendant had used the plaintiff’s name and image in their video games without the plaintiff’s consent.
The defendant argued that Portuguese courts had no jurisdiction over the matter under the terms of the CPC (1), because the games had been produced in the United States, and that was also where the defendant had their registered address. The games had been sold all over the world, and the only connection to Portugal was the plaintiff’s domicile. The Court of First Instance should not have used the criteria of the Court of Justice of the European Union (which considers that, in cases of personal damages caused by the infringement of personality rights by audiovisual content distributed worldwide online, jurisdiction should fall on the country where the injured party has their centre of interests), because European Union law does not apply to this case. According to Article 6(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2), if the defendant is not domiciled in a Member State, national law shall determine jurisdiction.
The Court of First Instance denied the defendant’s claim and considered that the trial should be held in Portugal, following case-law by the Supreme Court. The defendant appealed to the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), which reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance and ruled that the Portuguese courts did not have jurisdiction in this matter.
The plaintiff then appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and upheld the ruling of the Court of First Instance, with the following legal basis.
The damage to the plaintiff’s image takes place not only when the video games are produced, but also when they are released. This fact occurred not only in the United States, but all over the world. The cause of action is, therefore, complex and has a connection to several territories. This allows the plaintiff to choose, from those territories, which one will try the case, as long as there is a strong enough connection. In assessing which court has jurisdiction over a matter, the judge must take into consideration the initial petition filed by the plaintiff and, according to the initial petition, at the date of filing: (i) the plaintiff was domiciled in Portugal; (ii) the plaintiff was a Portuguese citizen; (iii) the plaintiff played at a Portuguese club; (iv) the plaintiff had mostly played professionally in Portugal; (v) the games were released and sold in Portugal; (vi) the games were used in tournaments in Portugal. This supports the conclusion that there is a sufficiently strong connection between the cause of action and Portugal, because that is where the plaintiff had their centre of interests.
The Supreme Court has issued several rulings, all in the same sense, regarding the same defendant and several other professional football players.
(1) Código de Processo Civil (Code of Civil Procedure).
(2) 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).