Supremo Tribunal de Justiça; 2021-06-02; 449/18.2T8FAR.E1.S1
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:PT:STJ:2021:449.18.2T8FAR.E1.S1.06
Date: 2021-06-02
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Portugal

82021PT0602(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a matter of admissibility of a jurisdiction clause brought before the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
Moinho da Alagoa – Produção Agrícola, Lda., (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’), a Portuguese company, filed a suit in Portugal against two companies: DRISCOLL’S Portugal – Produção e Comercialização de Frutas, Unipessoal, Lda., (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’), a Portuguese company, and DRISCOLL’S of Europe BV, (hereinafter ‘defendant 2’), a Dutch company. The plaintiff supplied red berries for defendant 2, with whom it had signed a contract. Although defendant 1 had not signed the contract, the plaintiff claimed that it acted on behalf of defendant 2 and was, therefore, co-responsible for losses arising from a breach of contract, namely, payment for the fruit of under-market value. It also claimed that the clause in the contract attributing jurisdiction to the court of Breda (the Netherlands) should not apply for two reasons:
a) the contract was drafted in advance, imposed by the stronger party, and not freely negotiated by the parties; also, the plaintiff was not duly informed of the contents of the jurisdiction clause, making it null and void under Article 6 of the RJCCG (1) and Article 30(3) and Article 33(2) and (3) of the CPC (2); and
b) the relationship between both defendants and their co-liability in the case meant they had to be tried together in the same case, in Portugal, since it was impossible to determine the exact proportion of each defendant’s liability without delving deep into the matter within a single, cohesive trial.
The Court of First Instance ruled in favour of the defendants, as did the Tribunal da Relação de Évora (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), both considering that, regarding defendant 1, the preliminary facts presented by the parties were enough to deny the claim, without the need to go to trial to produce further evidence and, regarding defendant 2, Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (3) supersedes any national rule, which means the jurisdiction clause is valid, and the case should be brought before the Dutch court.
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff in that which concerns defendant 1: the preliminary facts were not enough to form a secure factual basis for a ruling denying the plaintiff’s claim. The case should be sent back to the Court of First Instance for trial in order to prove a sufficient number of facts to ensure a proper foundation for a final ruling on the matter.
Regarding defendant 2, the Supreme Court upheld the rulings of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. As ruled previously by the Supreme Court in similar cases, the inconvenience caused to one of the parties by the jurisdiction clause does not prevent it from being applicable. In this case, the clause was put in writing as part of the contract, and the criteria for consent had been met under EU case-law, such as the Court of Justice of the European Union Case C-222/15 (4).
(1) Decreto-Lei 446/85, de 25 de Outubro, Regime das Cláusulas Contratuais Gerais (Law on unfair terms in contracts).
(2) Código de Processo Civil (Code of Civil Procedure).
(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 7 July 2016, Hőszig Kft. v Alstom Power Thermal Services, C-222/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:525, paragraphs 36 and 37.