Supremo Tribunal de Justiça; 2021-10-14; 26412/16.0T8LSB.L1-A.S1
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:PT:STJ:2021:26412.16.0T8LSB.L1.A.S.43
Date: 2021-10-14
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Portugal

82021PT1014(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a matter of waiving a preliminary ruling under Article 267 of the TFEU (1) whenever a similar case has already been clarified by a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
Associação Portuguesa para a Defesa do Consumidor - Deco, (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’), a Portuguese consumer defence association, filed a suit in Portugal against four companies: Volkswagen AG, a German car manufacturing company, (defendant 1), SIVA – Sociedade de Importação de Veículos, S.A., a Portuguese company who imports cars (defendant 2), SEAT, S.A., a Spanish car manufacturing company (defendant 3), and Seat Portugal Unipessoal, Lda., a Portuguese company who imports cars (defendant 4) for damage arising from the installation in vehicles purchased by Portuguese consumers of software that manipulates data relating to exhaust gas emissions.
The Court of First Instance ruled in favour of the defendants, ruling that the Portuguese courts did not have jurisdiction. The Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) ruled in favour of the plaintiff, ruling that the Portuguese courts did have jurisdiction in this matter.
The defendants appealed once more, stating that the case law of the CJEU did not set precedents, i.e., each preliminary ruling is autonomous and also that the reasoning behind Case no. C-343/19 (2) did not apply in this case, although both cases concern damage arising from the installation by Volkswagen of software that manipulates data relating to exhaust gas emissions. The difference is that in Case no. C-343/19, the Austrian consumer association aggregated several hundred specific cases, each with the data of each consumer was already defined, whereas, in this case, the class action was filed by Deco on behalf of any consumer who had bought a defective vehicle in Portugal, as long as they had not opted out of the class action. This would make it impossible to know which court within Portugal would have jurisdiction over each consumer and, therefore, not allow for the correct application of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (3).
The Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) ruled in favour of the plaintiff, concluding that the Portuguese courts have jurisdiction in this case because the vehicles were purchased in Portugal, and that is where the damage occurred, as per Case no. C-343/19. The lack of evidence as to the number, identity and type of consumers, damages and place of purchase is irrelevant. These assessment criteria should not be used to identify the connecting factor, for reasons of legal certainty, as expressed in Case no. C-228/11 (4).
The Supreme Court also considered it irrelevant to know where each vehicle was purchased. Even conceding that Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) sets a rule for territorial and international jurisdiction, one should apply the criteria of Case no. C-30/20 (5), which confers jurisdiction on the court within whose jurisdiction the plaintiff’s registered address is situated, which would be, in this case, Lisbon.
Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that there is no need for a preliminary ruling by the CJEU, as per Case C-283/81 (6), considering the previous decisions of the CJEU regarding the interpretation of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
(1) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 July 2020, Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG, C-343/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:534, paragraph 40.
(3) 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).
(4) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 May 2013, Melzer v MF Global UK, C-228/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:305, paragraph 35.
(5) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 July 2021, RH v AB Volvo and Others, C-30/20, ECLI:EU:C:2021:604, paragraph 27.
(6) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 October 1982, Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health, C-283/81, ECLI:EU:C:1982:335, paragraph 14.