Supremo Tribunal de Justiça; 2024-03-14; 4488.20.5T8ALM.A.L1.S1.E4
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:PT:STJ:2024:4488.20.5T8ALM.A.L1.S1.E4
Date: 2024-03-14
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Portugal

82024PT0314(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 the Tribunal Cível de Almada (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) against an American company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), claiming that the defendant 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 its registered address. The games had been sold all over the world, and the only connection to Portugal was the plaintiff’s nationality. The Court of First Instance should not have used the criteria of the Court of Justice (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. The defendant appealed to the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), which upheld the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
The defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court, which also upheld the judgment, with the following legal basis:
The damage to the plaintiff’s image takes place not when the video games are produced, but at the time they are divulged. This fact occurred not only in the United States but all over the world. The defendant claims that it is only responsible for sales in the United States, Canada and Japan, and that its subsidiaries are responsible for sales in the rest of the world. However, in assessing which court has jurisdiction over a matter, the judge must consider the initial petition filed by the plaintiff, regardless of its merit. In this case, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant was responsible for damages that occurred worldwide. In addition, the plaintiff is not only a Portuguese citizen but has played football professionally in Portugal for half his career (more than in any other country).
The Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal, when applying the criteria of the plaintiff’s centre of interests, were following the Supreme Court’s case law. The Supreme Court follows the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), not because it considers that European Union Law is applicable to determine jurisdiction in a case where the defendant is domiciled outside of the European Union, but because it considers the arguments and solutions found by the CJEU to be fair, reasonable and equitable. This solution also has the added advantage of creating a harmonious case law, thereby promoting the predictability and safety of the European Union court system as a whole. The Supreme Court applied national law in this case but used the CJEU’s case law as a model for the interpretation and application of the national rules in question.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court did apply national law to determine jurisdiction, namely, Article 62(1)(b) of the CPC, which determines that Portuguese courts shall have jurisdiction if the cause of action, or any of the facts which are part of the cause of action, took place in Portuguese territory.
(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).