Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa; 2024-03-21; 1132/23.2TOER-A.L1-6
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:PT:TRL:2024:1132.23.2TOER.A.L1.6.10
Date: 2024-03-21
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Portugal

82024PT0321(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case addresses the question of international jurisdiction of Portuguese courts when an agreement conferring jurisdiction is involved, and was brought before the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
A company domiciled in Portugal (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action before the Court of First Instance against another company also domiciled in Portugal (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The plaintiff purchased a vehicle from the defendant via the defendant’s website, but sought to annul the sales contract because the car was defective. The defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the Portuguese courts, relying on the jurisdiction clause contained in the terms and conditions available on the website through which the sales contract was concluded. The defendant alleged that the contract could not be concluded without the plaintiff’s acceptance of the terms and conditions. The defendant invoked Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and requested that the case be dismissed in favour of the designated court in Germany.
However, the Court of First Instance dismissed the objection. According to the court, there was no connecting factor to apply the European Union law to this matter. Both parties are domiciled in Portugal, and the car was delivered and registered there. The fact that the contract was concluded via a German-registered website is not sufficient for the Brussels I Regulation (recast) to apply. Consequently, the agreement conferring jurisdiction is ineffective. Therefore, based on the CPC (2), the Portuguese courts have jurisdiction to hear the case, as it does not allow jurisdiction to be conferred abroad in this case.
Following the defendant’s appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance conclusion. The Court of Appeal confirmed the primacy of European Union law over national procedural rules. In the present case, however, there is no cross-border legal relationship. Accordingly, there are no grounds for invoking European Union law, particularly Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), to determine the court with jurisdiction.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
One of the judges voted against the majority opinion, disagreeing with the decision adopted by the panel. According to the explanation provided, the latest judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-566/22 (3) states that ‘an agreement conferring jurisdiction by which the parties to a contract who are established in the same Member State agree on the jurisdiction of the courts of another Member State to settle disputes arising out of that contract is covered under [Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast)], even if that contract has no other connection with that other Member State’. Therefore, the jurisdiction clause should have been examined in the light of this interpretation.
(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) Código de Processo Civil (Code of Civil Procedure).
(3) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 February 2024, Inkreal s.r.o. v Dúha reality s.r.o., C-566/22, ECLI:EU:C:2024:123.